The Supreme Court of the United States has handed down its decision in the internet censorship case, Murthy v. Missouri. The case was that of internet censorship by proxy, with the federal government pressuring internet companies to suppress content which it disagreed with. The decision went 6-3 in favour of internet censorship, with so-called conservative Trump appointed female judge Amy Coney Barrett writing the Court decision: "The plaintiffs, without any concrete link between their injuries and the defendants' conduct, ask us to conduct a review of the years-long communications between dozens of federal officials, across different agencies, with different social-media platforms, about different topics.""This court's standing doctrine prevents us from 'exercis[ing such] general legal oversight' of the other branches of government." Coney Barrett is another of Trump's great mistakes. He appointed a liberal Democrat.
In other words, the Court ruled that the plaintiffs of Missouri and Louisiana lacked standing to sue. Hence the Biden regime can censor anyone, and that person will also have no standing, ending the 1st Amendment. It is an incredible decision, since common sense alone would indicate that standing should be granted to any whose rights were affected by the censorship, and the two states represented collective rights of citizens. Yet this is the Court that found a right to homosexual marriage in the constitution in Obergefell v. Hodges, so anything is possible.
The dissenting judgments were from Justices Alito, Gorsuch and Thomas. In a blistering dissent, Justice Alito wrote: "In sum, the officials wielded potent authority. Their communications with Facebook were virtual demands. And Facebook's quavering responses to those demands show that it felt a strong need to yield. For these reasons, I would hold that Hines is likely to prevail on her claim that the White House coerced Facebook into censoring her speech.For months, high-ranking Government officials placed unrelenting pressure on Facebook to suppress Americans' free speech. Because the Court unjustifiably refuses to address this serious threat to the First Amendment, I respectfully dissent."
"The Court, however, shirks that duty and thus permits the successful campaign of coercion in this case to stand as an attractive model for future officials who want to control what the people say, hear, and think," Justice Alito concluded, and rightly so. Mark this down as yet another failure of the courts to deliver anything remotely like justice.
https://petermcculloughmd.substack.com/p/supreme-court-punts-on-technicalities
https://petermcculloughmd.substack.com/p/breaking-supreme-court-greenlights
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/justice-alito-dissent-says-majority-shirks-duty-free-speech-case