Thanks to the support of Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who was nominated by Donald Trump, and Chief Justice John Roberts, the three liberals on the court threw out the case of Murthy v. Missouri, which conservatives were hoping would force the Biden regime to stop colluding with social media companies to censor information.
The 6-3 decision to toss the "misinformation" case came in response to a lawsuit filed during the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) "pandemic" when Americans were posting about all sorts of hot-button issues including the "virus," Tony Fauci, George Floyd and more. The Biden regime was trying to silence dissenters to the agenda by pushing social media companies to censor people's posts.
Barrett, writing for the 6-3 majority, wrote that the challengers in the case argued that unfettered speech on social media is critical to their work as scientists, pundits and activists, "but they do not point to any specific instance of content moderation that caused them identifiable harm."
"They have therefore failed to establish an injury that is sufficiently 'concrete and particularlized,'" she added.
SCOTUS finding a lack of standing for the plaintiffs in Murthy v. Missouri effectively means that the government is free to violate your rights so long as they do so through a third party
— Amber Duke (@ambermarieduke) June 26, 2024
(Related: A politician in France recently admitted that governments censor people in order to control public opinion.)
Supreme Court writes blank check for unmitigated government censorship
Justice Samuel Alito, one of the three dissenters to throwing out the case alongside Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas, did not beat around the bush in calling the 6-3 ruling a crushing blow to American freedom.
The majority, Alito wrote, "unjustifiably refuses to address this serious threat to the First Amendment."
"For months, high-ranking Government officials placed unrelenting pressure on Facebook to suppress Americans' free speech," he added in the minority opinion.
We are building the infrastructure of human freedom and empowering people to be informed, healthy and aware. Explore our decentralized, peer-to-peer, uncensorable Brighteon.io free speech platform here. Learn about our free, downloadable generative AI tools at Brighteon.AI. Every purchase at HealthRangerStore.com helps fund our efforts to build and share more tools for empowering humanity with knowledge and abundance.
To dismiss the case in the way the majority did without dealing with its underlying First Amendment issue means the Biden regime and Big Tech now have a blank check with which to censor so-called "misinformation" without obstruction.
Many experts had regarded the case as a unique chance for the court to determine how far governments can legally go to combat what they claim is harmful content. In a way, that is exactly what happened with the court basically deciding that governments can do whatever they want.
Despite the majority's claim, there were never any "complexities in the evidence" that was presented to warrant the case being thrown out. The FBI, the White House and other agencies and officials were ordering social media companies to remove posts about things like Hunter Biden's laptop, voter fraud in the 2020 election and all the medical fascism that came with the "pandemic."
According to the Department of Justice (DOJ), social media companies were never forced to do what the government was asking of them as there was supposedly never any retaliation for non-compliance. Either way, the Supreme Court ruling basically tells the U.S. government that it can continue bullying people who say the "wrong" things online.
"The Supreme Court is making it procedurally impossible for a citizen or a state to challenge the government's ability to silence your digital speech," one media source reported about the ruling.
"The practical consequence of this decision is to re-open the floodgates of social media censorship and speech suppression."
One of the marks of dying American civilization is out-in-the-open government censorship that blatantly violates the Constitution. Learn more at Censorship.news.
Sources for this article include:
Please contact us for more information.
