I don’t need to explain to you how bad social media censorship was in 2020 and the years that followed.
We now know that Biden administration officials, in league with all of the most influential social media companies, conspired to suppress information about COVID and the 2020 election.
Some of the information suppressed may have indeed been misleading. But much of it wasn’t.
In fact, many of the approved “truths” at that time are now known to be false (many scientific positions on COVID have since changed, the constitutionality of certain lax voting procedures, etc.).
Either way, even if it had all been misleading, the government has no right to conspire to suppress what we say.
A recent lawsuit brought before the Supreme Court hoped to find some justice for all of this, for the suppression and overreach that took place these past few years.
Unfortunately, based on Wednesday’s ruling, justice may take a little longer to find.
The suit in question — Murthy v. Missouri — was issued by a number of Republican state attorneys general and private citizens suing several government agencies and officials in the Biden administration, according to The Hill.
The plaintiffs argued officials and agencies had violated the constitution by pressuring social media platforms to censor speech related to COVID and the 2020 election.
Did the Supreme Court get this one wrong?
Yes: 95% (122 Votes)
No: 5% (6 Votes)
In a six-three decision, the Supreme Court shot the suit down, with the majority largely avoiding the issue of free speech and government censorship of said speech entirely, per The Hill.
Breaking! The Supreme Court rules that the plaintiffs in Murthy v. Missouri do not have standing to sue.
This is a huge loss for Free Speech in America. pic.twitter.com/VRBJzl8ijy
— Media Research Center (@theMRC) June 26, 2024
In dissent were Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito.
Though justice may not have been found in this case as of yet, the ruling did yield one nice consolation prize: Justice Alito’s dissent.
Alito’s dissent is spot-on.
The doctrine of standing is necessary to keep the judiciary within its bounds. Here, it constrains SCOTUS to leave unaddressed “arguably the most massive attack on free speech in US history.”
That means it falls to Congress and the President to stop… pic.twitter.com/1XgEs2sDGT
— Rep. Dan Bishop (@RepDanBishop) June 26, 2024
The justice didn’t hold back and made it quite clear why free speech on social media is one of the most important issues of our time.
“I assume that a fair portion of what social media users had to say about COVID-19 and the pandemic was of little lasting value,” Alito wrote.
“Some was undoubtedly untrue or misleading, and some may have been downright dangerous. But we now know that valuable speech was also suppressed.”
“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.”
