|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
When the Supreme Court decided that the government should be allowed to continue telling social media platforms which individuals and viewpoints to censor in its initial approach to Murthy v Missouri, that was already bad news.
If the government can tell companies whom to censor, then what is the First Amendment even for beyond restricting the final step where the government comes to your house and locks you up?
The rest of the bad news on Murthy v Missouri was delivered by Justice Amy Coney Barrett (whom the Left has suddenly grown fond of after her Second Amendment move and now this latest decision) arguing that people who have been censored by government have no standing to sue the government because they can’t prove that the government is still behind their ongoing censorship.
The decision closely echoes the various ‘standing’ rulings that allowed the 2020 election rule changes to go forward.
The Murthy v Missouri decision is pathetic and dishonest. Faced with clear evidence that the government had arranged to censor individuals and viewpoints, Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s response was to lead a majority of the court’s leftists in mocking those who sued as idiots because the injury inflicted on them can’t be redressed since it already happened and because the social media platforms are still continuing to censor them even without direct government intervention.
This is the equivalent of “You can’t sue the government for blowing up your house because it already happened and since it failed to reappear, clearly its non-existence could never be attributed to government action.”
To issue her warping ruling, Justice Barrett had to argue that it’s unlikely the government would ever censor social media again.
“It is a bedrock principle that a federal court cannot redress “injury that results from the independent action of some third party not before the court.” Second, because the plaintiffs request forward-looking relief, they must face “a real and immediate threat of repeated injury.” Putting these requirements together, the plaintiffs must show a substantial risk that, in the near future, at least one platform will restrict the speech of at least one plaintiff in response to the actions of at least one Government defendant.”
And what are the odds of that?
“To obtain forward-looking relief, the plaintiffs must establish a substantial risk of future injury that is traceable to the Government
defendants and likely to be redressed by an injunction against them. The plaintiffs who have not pointed to any past restrictions likely traceable to the Government defendants (i.e., everyone other than Hines) are ill suited to the task of establishing their standing to seek forward-looking relief. But even Hines, with her superior showing on past harm, has not shown enough to demonstrate likely future harm at the hands of these defendants. On this record, it appears that the frequent, intense communications that took place in 2021 between the Government defendants and the platforms had considerably subsided by 2022, when Hines filed suit. Thus it is “no more than conjecture” to assume that Hines will be subject to Government-induced content moderation.”
If there’s anything we know from history, it’s that there’s no way the government would commit the same abuses a year from now that it did a few years ago.
And therefore there’s no standing based on mere conjecture.
Comey’s opinion sounds like a word salad. It requires an effort to understand the convoluted legalese of an idea that makes no sense.
In contrast, Justice Alito’s words of the dissenting opinion are common sense, clear, direct, sane, true to the Constitution’s protecting the rights of the individual, and not making exceptions for this government’s censorship.
So we know who will be invited to the “ in” parties and will also have a new summer home.
Yes, your correct, she sounded like word salad…like she was chosen to write the brief but she jumbled up trying to repeat what she was told to write..like perhaps Robert’s opinion.
The folks that pushed this air head on President Trump were tunnel visioned on her faith. For get their recent ruling on the 2A and the Utah abortion double shuffle coming up the Roberts court is a complete mess without a ruder. Their cowardly acts on the 2020 steal proved without a doubt the corruption is deep.
The ruling itself as written by Ms. Catholic, in fact proves continued corruption including by the supremes. Which is why it’s so lefty and nefarious.
Our failure of governance is now complete, announces the court (sic). States lack standing to protect their citizens from infringements upon fundamental enumerated rights (in this case, the First Fundamental Right) by way of a sneaky, underhanded tactic of collusion with THE most powerful monopolies ever to inhabit this world. (Remember the definition of fascism?).
Will the venerable court (sic), then, kindly announce any reason whatsoever, that we keep up the pretense of a federal system? It is apparent to anyone paying any attention that the monstrosity in Washington does as it damn well pleases. Rights? Schmights! Shut up, Suck up. Eat the bread, enjoy the circuses. You vill have no rights and you vill be happy! Oh, and leaked decisions are now becoming the rule, when they hurt the (R) electoral chances. Anybody ever caught/punished for the first one?
The decision was ludicrous. The First Amendment protects not only the right to speak. It also protects the right of the public to receive that information. When the government itself OR by pressuring third parties to restrict that right, with respect to Constitutionally protected speech, it deprives the public of the ability to receive that speech, violating the First Amendment rights of every member of that public, harming them and conferring standing upon them. This is particularly harmful precedent in a Presidential election year in which one of the candidates is the head of the Executive Branch of the government who has already demonstrated his willingness to suppress even true speech on media platforms that runs contrary to the narratives it wants to promote. Apparently, the administration is now free to pressure media platforms to take down posts it finds politically inconvenient and no citizen will have standing to bring suit. The cowards on the Court who did this undoubtedly decided the way they did to prevent the ire of the Democrats who have been attacking the Court and threatening to pack it if they win. I’ve got news for them. Their cowardice will get them nothing if the Democrats win the election in part because of this decision. As Winston Churchill told Neville Chamberlain, “You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour, and you will have war.”
This is the Comstock Act all over again.
War? I like more targeted action isn’t that the point after all?
Pretty convenient for shutting down free speech isn’t it. Justice Sam Alito was right, we will regret this ruling.
Bedrock principles that I can’t understand 🙂
You don’t like the decision. With your extensive legal expertise, you have arrived at the conclusion that the decision doesn’t conform to the principles of the US Constitution. Awesome.
But why is it “dishonest”? Why is everything you disagree with dishonest and nefarious and just plain evil? Why this infantile, simplistic rhetoric? This is why you aren’t just simply expressing an opinion, but sowing hatred against individuals (in this case a Supreme Court Justice) and groups (uhhhh… “leftists”?, like ACB???). This is why you are not just wrong, you are dangerous.
Eh, STFU. There is no more true free speech. So we may as well S you the F U!
It is dishonest. The majority grounded their decision on “standing.”. Of course the appellants had standing. Several of them had their posts censored at the behest of the Biden administration, harming them professionally by restricting the reach of their views. In any case, since the censorship prevented all Americans from receiving important information affecting their life and health, I would say all 330,000,000+ of us were directly and adversely affected and have standing. To find they do not is simply dishonest and was used as an excuse to avoid having to find a First Amendment violation and incur the wrath of the Dems who, if you hadn’t noticed, have been relentless undermining the Court’s legitimacy and threatening to pack to get outcomes they like better.
This feels like we’re making a return to the censorship of Anthony Comstock, and now we’re getting a taste of our own medicine by the left, who spent decades ranting about Comstock…only to become Comstock.
Are Roberts and Barrett in bed together?
Too many times their decisions mimic those of the fringe left, and leave Americans in despair. Shame on them!!
This decision is what finally made me realize that hoping that SCOTUS will protect the US Constitution — is a hopeless endeavor.
They have not done this for over 100 years, when history asked them to stand up for the law of the land.. Japanese intermittent camps, Federal reserve — are just some of the example of the ‘planned impotence’ of the SCOTUS institution.
The 1st amendment clearly states that the right of free speech cannot be abridged (reduced).
Yet, the majority, essentially opines that the plaintiffs have to show how they suffered from the abridgment. Otherwise the plaintiffs have ‘no standing’. How remarkably wrong,.. Truly a spit to the face of the Constitution.
This is not a court, these 6 judges are a ‘protection muscle’ that keeps creating a shield of ‘Plausible deniability’ protecting the raging unconstitutional behavior of the federal government.