Close Menu
Alan C. Moore
    What's Hot

    Kamala Harris and the San Diego elephants

    May 9, 2025

    ‘So dumb it hurts’: Jasmine Crockett slammed for calling GOP ‘inherently violent’

    May 9, 2025

    Oregon’s underwater volcano rumbles to life, may erupt soon: Scientists

    May 9, 2025
    Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram
    Trending
    • Kamala Harris and the San Diego elephants
    • ‘So dumb it hurts’: Jasmine Crockett slammed for calling GOP ‘inherently violent’
    • Oregon’s underwater volcano rumbles to life, may erupt soon: Scientists
    • Trump fires librarian of Congress Carla Hayden, outraging Democrats
    • Golden State rising: California cities pivot from progressive policies and see results
    • Golden State rising: California cities pivot from progressive policies and see results
    • Asian American group alleges Yale still discriminating on basis of race
    • UMinn PhD wins grant to develop ‘queering Europe’ course
    Alan C. MooreAlan C. Moore
    Subscribe
    Friday, May 9
    • Home
    • US News
    • Politics
    • Business & Economy
    • Video
    • About Alan
    • Newsletter Sign-up
    Alan C. Moore
    Home » Blog » Murthy v. Missouri Among Most Important First Amendment Cases of the Century: Jeff Landry

    Murthy v. Missouri Among Most Important First Amendment Cases of the Century: Jeff Landry

    April 2, 2024Updated:April 2, 2024 Politics No Comments
    Share
    Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Pinterest Email

    ‘If the judges rule against us, Americans will not have a way to find out what the state is doing, ’ Louisiana’s government warns.

    The Supreme Court has lately heard oral arguments in Murthy v., and all sight have been on that case. Missouri. In this groundbreaking situation, it is important to establish appropriate federal authority in relation to First Amendment rights for Americans on social media.

    Governor of Louisiana is one of those attentively watching. Jeff Landry, who, during his career as Louisiana’s attorney general, co-filed the original challenge—originally named Missouri v. Biden and Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt are competing with the Biden administration.

    The event is then known as Murthy v. Missouri.

    Mr. Landry described the pivotal moment that emerged from the situation in an interview with EpochTV’s National Thought Leaders program on March 19.

    The outcome may decide, according to the former attorney general, whether or not Americans can express their opinions that might conflict with the government’s position without feeling pressure from the government to remove their content from social media platforms.

    “ I do think it ’s one of the most important First Amendment circumstances in the last 100 years, ” he said.

    Related Reports

    SEC Urges Supreme Court to Reject Elon Musk’s First Amendment Appeal
    Social Media Companies Defend their First Amendment Right to Censor Americans

    He noted that the outcome of the case may decide whether or not the government does intervene when we use personal platforms like social media to issue the government. And that ’s a very terrible thing because, in today’s earth, social systems generally act like online public rectangles, it ’s where people express opinions. ”

    The governor lamented that the internet was “supposed to be about ” because of Americans ‘ First Amendment right to unrestricted access to their own and others ‘ freedom of speech. ”

    He said it was intended to give us a virtual marketplace of ideas where we could exchange questions and discuss problems.

    However, Mr. Biden’s recent revelations regarding the Biden administration’s subsequent actions and strain on Big Tech companies have altered this. Landry said.

    “We thought it [the online ] was free from government intervention. And what we’re finding is that the government has the ability to press and coerce new social media platforms to either take you down or put you in ‘Facebook jail, ’ moderate your content, or just eviscerate you from that virtual public square when it does n’t like some of the things you say or post when it does n’t agree with what the rhetoric is that they believe in. ”

    Because of this, Mr. Landry enlisted in Missouri v. Biden.

    No Room for Unfavorable Opinions

    The event was sent to the United States. S. From May until July 2023, District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana will be in place. Surgeon General Vivek Hallegere Murthy, a member of the Biden administration, and other federal agencies that are required to prevent unpopular content on social media, except for content involving illegal actions, were prohibited by Doughty’s preliminary injunction.

    The Fifth Circuit Appeals Court upheld the lower court’s order in September 2023, finding that some government communications with social media companies were Second Amendment-violent. The court also ruled that Judge Doughty’s preliminary injunction was too broad and narrowed it to government efforts to” coerce or significantly encourage ” moderation of content.

    The U. S. In October 2023, Supreme Court granted writ of appellate to the event, but a majority of the court’s majority voted to overturn the lower courts ‘ injunctions while the case is still pending. Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch dissented.
    A number of additional interviewees have since filed papers on the facts of the case, including Robert Kennedy Jr., the original State Department official, and the Foundation for Freedom Online’s executive producer. , the journalists who investigated the “Twitter Files, ” Professor of Medicine at Stanford University Jay Bhattacharya, America’s Frontline Doctors and Dr. M. Simone Gold D. , J. D. ), the National Religious Broadcasters, and liberal democratic characters such as Charlie Kirk and Jim Jordan.
    Oral claims were heard on March 18 at the Supreme Court.

    Judge Doughty stated in his July 4, 2023, decision that the defendants are likely to prevail on the virtues in establishing that the state has used its authority to silence the opposition. Antagonism to COVID-19 vaccinations; antagonism to COVID-19 concealing and lockdowns; antagonism to the lab-leak concept of COVID-19; antagonism to the accuracy of the 2020 election; antagonism to President Biden’s laws; assertions that the Hunter Biden computer narrative was accurate; and antagonism to the laws of the elected officials in charge. All were suppressed.

    It is quite remarkable that each instance or category of stifled speech had a liberal bias. The political speech industry is excellent examples of viewpoint discrimination, thanks to this qualified suppression of conservative ideas. Citizens of America have the right to free speech on important issues that affect the nation. ”

    Mr. Landry claimed that without Missouri v. Americans would not have known about the FBI’s awareness of the previously unidentified Hunter Biden laptop data, according to Biden.

    The FBI had previously disclosed to the general public that it had warned businesses like Twitter about alleged hacker content being distributed on social media platforms, and that the government had also been aware of the owner of a Delaware computer repair shop who claimed Hunter Biden had dropped the computer off at his store to have it fixed.

    “All of those issues were revealed in this case. We were able to collect that data and reveal everything the government was attempting to suppress, ” the governor said.

    Justices Re-examining First Amendment

    Mr. Landry said that he has been left concerned—perhaps early, he acknowledges—and perplexed about the line of questioning by some of the magistrates after they heard opening claims on the situation.

    After listening to their questioning of Louisiana’s fresh lawyer standard, Mr. Landry claimed that he was “really scratching my head” at some of the inquiries made by the judges. ”

    Louisiana law school student Benjamin Aguiaga, who succeeded Liz Murrill as the state’s new attorney general, is the state’s solicitor general.

    Some of the questions leave you wondering whether or not the Court however truly appreciates the First Amendment and the justification for the inclusion of the First Amendment as the first article in the Bill of Rights, according to Mr. Landry said.

    You know, it should be irrefutable whether or not the government can violate a citizen’s First Amendment right. And that solution should be, ‘No, it never, ’” he said.

    He cited a “compelling interest ” in the opening arguments, noting that some justices appeared to be “convinced that there are times when the government can censor Americans ’ speech. ” ”

    This, Mr. Landry explained, was in relation to some Supreme Court precedent set up as a two-prong check.

    According to his assertions so much, that test only applies when it also meets the following necessary criteria for a particular instance in which withholding an American’s First Amendment right would be appropriate. It states that the government may violate a person’s constitutional right if it can demonstrate that it has a compelling interest in doing so.

    “That’s no what Justice Jackson was saying, ” he said, according to his study. She was attempting to broaden that test, essentially stating that the government always has a compelling interest in protecting the public and does n’t even need to know whether or not it has violated someone’s First Amendment. And I think that was the issue. ”

    Americans wo n’t be able to find out what the government is doing because of the justices ‘ ruling against us, they will, ” said Mr. Landry explained of his fears. “ When they want to question the government, they won’t know that the government is trying to squash your talk. ”

    He claimed that it might be possible for the government to contact a social media platform to request that people stop saying something and demand that the business retract the statement. “And you will have no remedy, ” he said.

    They appear to have intended to broaden the scope of the questioning, he said of some judges ‘ questions. We’ll notice, so I’m not sure. I’m hoping that was just a few questions they needed to answer, but I’m hoping not. ”

    Mr. When advancing to the rest of the case, Lindsay said that the justices are n’t limited to the questions that were raised in the oral arguments.

    “Sometimes the magistrates have a tendency to point their hands, ” he explained. They frequently ask questions only to check something that was vexing them. He said, hoping that the inquiries into the First Amendment exemptions will not be the case’s future course of action.” It does n’t mean that’s the position they’re taking.”

    “ I don’t hear. We’ll see in June maybe when the jury makes a choice, even sooner. ”

    Source credit

    Keep Reading

    How Faith Shapes Conservative Policies and Communities

    The Important Role Conservative Judges Play in Protecting Your Rights

    Understanding the Role of Conservative Judges in Law

    Why The Second Amendment Matters More Than Ever

    Conservative News, Politics in 2024

    Biden denounces trio of ‘anti-woke’ bills in Congress

    Editors Picks

    Kamala Harris and the San Diego elephants

    May 9, 2025

    ‘So dumb it hurts’: Jasmine Crockett slammed for calling GOP ‘inherently violent’

    May 9, 2025

    Oregon’s underwater volcano rumbles to life, may erupt soon: Scientists

    May 9, 2025

    Trump fires librarian of Congress Carla Hayden, outraging Democrats

    May 9, 2025

    Golden State rising: California cities pivot from progressive policies and see results

    May 9, 2025

    Golden State rising: California cities pivot from progressive policies and see results

    May 9, 2025

    Asian American group alleges Yale still discriminating on basis of race

    May 9, 2025

    UMinn PhD wins grant to develop ‘queering Europe’ course

    May 9, 2025

    ‘Hip-hop pedagogy’: FIU course teaches about ‘black ratchet imagination’ and ‘sexuality’

    May 9, 2025

    Pro-Palestinian protesters at Columbia occupy library, 78 arrested, two officers injured

    May 9, 2025
    • Home
    • US News
    • Politics
    • Business & Economy
    • About Alan
    • Contact

    Sign up for the Conservative Insider Newsletter.

    Get the latest conservative news from alancmoore.com [aweber listid="5891409" formid="902172699" formtype="webform"]
    Facebook X (Twitter) YouTube Instagram TikTok
    © 2025 alancmoore.com
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms
    • Accessibility

    Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.