After the disastrous ruling in Murthy v. Missouri, where the U. S. Supreme Court ruled that litigants did certainly have standing—and refused to restrict or stop the government’s anti- Second Amendment censorship work with Big Tech—free- speech advocates are emphasizing the ruling’s much- reaching impact.
Advertisement
PJ Media’s Chris Queen explained,” The court ruled that the plaintiffs did n’t have standing to sue the federal government for pressuring social media companies to suppress opinions about COVID that did n’t fit the government’s narrative”. This indirectly imposes censorship of what the state claims is “misinformation,” a severe blow to the First Amendment, which authorized analyst Jonathan Turley referred to as “censorship by surrogate.”
Blaze TV blogger Matt Kibbe pulled no blows:” This reveals the true lot in the Supreme Court, and they hate you for your rights”.
The free speech community is really irritated, according to Jonathan Turley, a professor of constitutional law, because standing is frequently used to block worthy claims.
” This is one of the most basic problems that we are facing”, he added. ” I only wrote about this topic, this circumstance, in my new book because you have one of the largest repression systems in our story, if not the largest. Lower court judges have referred to it as Orwellian, and the court is saying that because you are not the right litigators, we wo n’t hear your case.
Turley noted that he has always been a “dove” on standing and that, in his opinion, these standing decisions are very limited because they prevent the courtroom from deciding on such crucial legal issues.
Advertisement
” So this issue will have to wait for another day,” he continued,” but one of the things that many of us have been arguing for years is that the government is engaging in censorship by surrogate.” In Congress, I testified about how they have violated the First Amendment by implicitly violating their own laws. They blacklist and ban detractors on a range of different subjects using academic and corporate friends. So it’s going to be very frustrating for the free speech community” . ,
Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a plaintiff in Murthy v. Missouri, emphasized how crucial the 2024 election is now in protecting free speech, noting that” the Supreme Court just ruled in the Murthy v. Missouri case that the Biden Administration can coerce social media companies to censor and shadowban people and posts it does n’t like. Congress will now need to act to enforce the Constitution since the Sup]reme ] C]our ] t. wo n’t”.
MRC Free Speech America Vice President Dan Schneider agreed:” After Barrett’s disast]rous ] opinion, the only way Americans can ensure that the Feds will not censor, silence and erase them is to elect a president commited ]sic ] to safeguarding their rights. Nov 5 ca n’t come soon enough”. ( Disclosure: I contribute content to MRC. )
Advertisement
Seth Dillon, the head of Babylon Bee, argued in his dissention that the threat of renewed or continued censorship still poses a significant threat to free speech. You could even say that this decision has made the threat also greater. Kara Frederick, chairman of The Heritage Foundation’s Tech Policy Center, commented on Biden administration judges,” They only got the green light to maintain going”. As present host Glenn Beck said, the decision was a “gut punch”.
Related: Two Statutes You Assist States Purge Illegal Voters
The Supreme Court improperly booted the most significant First Amendment event in U.S. record on standing basis, according to former Trump official and legal analyst Jeff Clark, in a gloomy post. He warned that this decision” cannot be the last word,” because it will continue to censor contentious topics like COVID and elections. Show number Steve Bannon, however, discussing the decision with legal analyst Mike Davis, described it as a “big reduction” for Americans.
Mike Davis Reports on the 6- 3 SCOTUS selection, with Barrett, Kavanaugh, and Roberts joining liberals in saying that no second act violations occurred when the administration of President Obama pressured social media platforms into silencing confidential data @mrddmia photograph. twitter.com/fBD3nrtdfR— Jayne Zirkle ( @JayneZirkle ) June 26, 2024
Advertisement
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene ( R- Ga. ) bashed the ruling:
The Biden administration’s control over the Big Tech oligarchs was upheld by the Supreme Court.
They’ve given platforms like Facebook, coerced by the Deep State, the power to decide what talk is “acceptable” instead of protecting the free exchange of ideas.  ,
Currently, a very risky precedent has been established.
Ultimately, The Federalist CEO Sean Davis referred to the decision as” an abomination that disregards both the information and the rules” and added,” I never thought I would see the Supreme Court rubber stamp the most severe and improper censorship campaign in British history, but here we are. What a joke”. It’s truly a pun on the American citizens, but scarcely a funny one.
