The US Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the Joe Biden administration in a legal row over how the government deals with social media platforms. Republican states had objected to a federal drive against “misinformation,” arguing it amounted to unconstitutional censorship.
The GOP-backed lawsuit was shot down in a 6-3 vote on Wednesday. In the majority opinion, conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett argued that the court simply lacked the power to intervene in the government’s exchanges with social media sites.
“The plaintiffs, without any concrete link between their injuries and the defendants’ conduct, ask us to conduct a review of the yearslong communications between dozens of federal officials, across different agencies, with different social-media platforms, about different topics,” she wrote. “This court’s standing doctrine prevents us from exercising such general legal oversight of the other branches of government.”
The ruling tossed out a previous decision by a lower court, which had ruled in favor of Republican state attorneys general and a number of private plaintiffs. The case centered on charges that the Biden administration placed undue pressure on internet platforms to stamp out supposed disinformation linked to the Covid-19 pandemic and the 2020 presidential race, among other issues.
Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill, who was a plaintiff in the case, called the new ruling “disappointing,” saying the court gave “a free pass to the federal government to threaten tech platforms into censorship and suppression of speech that is indisputably protected by the First Amendment.”
In a dissent backed by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, Justice Samuel Alito argued Wednesday’s decision “shirks” the court’s duties and slammed the government for placing “unrelenting pressure on Facebook to suppress Americans’ free speech.”
“This case involves what the District Court termed ‘a far-reaching and widespread censorship campaign’ conducted by high-ranking federal officials against Americans who expressed certain disfavored views about Covid-19 on social media,” Alito added. “If the lower courts’ assessment of the voluminous record is correct, this is one of the most important free speech cases to reach this court in years.”
The Biden administration’s social media censorship efforts were outlined in a vast trove of documents leaked to journalist Matt Taibbi and other reporters starting in 2022, dubbed the “Twitter Files” The disclosures also covered other social media platforms, and showed a massive federal push to scrub certain content from the internet. The campaign was joined by national security officials, the FBI, and top administration staffers, who regularly forwarded posts and profiles to social media sites for deletion or bans.
Will Porter is assistant news editor at the Libertarian Institute and a regular contributor at Antiwar.com. Find more of his work at Consortium News and ZeroHedge.
What? You didn't know the Supreme Court was Big Brother?
Orwell: "There will be no love, except the love of Big Brother."
Republicans also like censorship when it suits their purpose and agendas.
That is true. We've seen that with the anti-genocide student protesters.
Imagine a protest where everyone holds pro-Palestinian signs and the instant the police or military step forward to bust them up, the protesters reverse their signs to show pro-ASI messages, and the goon squad is forced to step back…until the protesters switch back to pro-Palestinian.
What a Michael Moore / Ali G level of lampshading THAT would be. Expose double-standards in real time…!
I wish I knew what “pro-ASI” refers to.
“Apartheid State of Israel,” because for some reason Uncle Sapien seems to be one of those people who thinks everything should be referred to by obscuring acronym.
Now Thomas, you of anyone should know that I use (and define) acronyms frequently and consistently enough that regular readers of most Comment threads (T. Paine included) should reasonably be expected to be able to follow the plot.
ASI, DPRC, RF, USA, DPRK, WITAS, UK, IRI are, as a rule, pretty common parlance in my Replies. Happy to confirm EUWSoAU is "European Union Welfare State of Aryan Ukrainian" in case THAT comes up for a 15th time in a contextual thread.
Also, as I told T. Paine, I type replies on mobile and brevity (especially when using Pixel's garbage keypad) is the only thread of sanity I have left.
Aside from the ones in standard usage (e.g. US, UK, DPRK), the only one I’ve noticed you use has been ASI, and it took me a few iterations/explanations to remember it since, so far as I can tell, you’re the only person on the planet who uses it.
If you want to use acronyms that nobody else uses, perhaps in hope of having them catch on, hey, go for it. I like acronyms too, and sometimes make up my own just for the hell of it and annoy my wife with them.
Nobody knew what HTTP, .com, .net, URL, #, WPA, VPN, SSID, or other internet abbreviations meant in the '80s or before.
Only when enough people used it enough times did an abbreviation or definition enter the lexicon.
If something is accurate and concise, maybe it'll gain traction. Until then it saves me time typing.
Happy to enlighten. Thought most people already knew.
ASI = Apartheid State of Israel
DPRC = Democratic Peoples' Republic of China
RF = Russian Federation
USA = United States of America
DPRK = Democratic Peoples' Republic of Korea (your 'North Korea')
WITAS = What In The Actual S**t
UK = United Kingdom
IRI = Islamic Republic of Iran
I use abbreviations because I am almost always typing on my mobile & the keypad on Pixel phones is absolute s**t for not generating ass-tons of typoes AND there's no viable copy/paste option.
There is also the rare TTFWSGB (That's The F**kin' Way She Goes, Boys) but that's normally a Trailer Park Boys level commiseration saved for unfortunate happenstances at work.
YLSNED.
"Hey. I'm unfamiliar with that one – could you define it for me so I can add it to my understanding of you and the world around me ?"
Super-easy for me. There's warehouses of things I don't know, and want to know.
YLSNED = You Learn Something New Every Day.
Oh, and I use P4L = President 4 (for) Life. In reference to Ukrainian dictator Zelenskiyy, supreme leader of the formerly democratic country.
Censoring anyone jeopardizes what is left of our democracy, which was founded on freedom of speech, the rights of people, and so on.
There is an element that wants a Constitutional Convention to make those changes. My father, who served in the Army in WWII, and I talked about that. It was in the early 80's when we had the discussion. He was serious about that element pushing for it. It frightened him. Antonin Scalia, not known to be a liberal by any means, was asked if there should be a Constitutional Convention. His response was something like "we don't want to go there because we do not know what would come out of it". Any person serving in a federal post, who took an oath to defend and protect the Constitution, in my view, would be guilty of treason to do such a thing or to advocate it.
How can it be “treason” to do or advocate something clearly and unambiguously provided for in the Constitution itself? I’m personally opposed to a constitutional convention, but it’s right there in the Constitution — Article V.
Exactly. I understand the US (that stands for United States)(of America)(in case Warren Paine is lost) Constitution is to be a "living document".
That is, to be refined and updated, according to due process and established guidelines, to reflect modern morals and ethics. That sounds entirely like what a Constitutional Convention would do. "Equal Rights weren't originally enshrined, perhaps we should enshrine them ?"
Well, Well, Well,,,,,,,:( and so it starts,,or ends..
I know … very depressing. I was dreaming the SC would land on this with a 9-0 decision telling the would-be censors to shove it; but … well, I was dreaming it seems.
So, in other words, if you're going to act like a dictator and blow up freedom of speech, do it so totally and thoroughly that individual breaches of the law are hidden in the general mass and thus the SC can close its eyes and claim lack of standing … basically, govt doing what govt does, the constitution be damned.
The good news is — States can devise nethods of their own tobprotect free speach, All the Court said is — we are not getting involved in ruling on various techical issue on various platforms.
This may be running away from the main issue — does Federal Givernment have the right to impose its narrative (censorship) on thevpublic.
Instead Supreme Court is simply letting status quo remain. States also cannot expect to hide behind Supreme Court to define, refine and address real issues, and not just resort to a lazy attack on wrongdoing of Federal Government .
Do your homework, define real issue, protect your citizens. Joe Biden did not win. The can was just kicked down the road.
But states can't prevent the Fedgov to contact the media companies and provide lists of people/issues to censor, can they? The states can themselves just choose to not do it.
The other way, of course, would be for the conservative states to contact the internet and media companies and provide lists of "malinformation" they want to censor from a conservative perspective … see how long you're allowed to do that.
Well, well, well, a Trumpista is in our midst. Let's consider this: did George W. Bush win the election in 2000?
@AnnCoulter
Whatever other losses liberals have suffered this year, the Supreme Court has preserved their total hegemony of the media.
I'd trade any ruling for that.
I don't think the conservative-dominated SC fed the "liberals" with any kind of media supremacy.
I see it more as treading-water until a conservative / Right-wing president is (re)-elected this November, and gifting your "total hegemony" to HIM.
Politics seems like a long game of granting THEIR president power & authority only because OUR president will get to use it later / eventually. Seldom, unfortunately, have Clintons or Obamas noticed their power grab fuels Bush-II's and Trumps.
"The plaintiffs, without any concrete link between their injuries and the defendants’ conduct, ask us to conduct a review of the yearslong communications between dozens of federal officials, across different agencies, with different social-media platforms, about different topics."
The evidence is therewithin – review the "yearslong communications" at the SC justices will see that the US Federal government instructed social media companies to block, delete, ban, or otherwise thought-police (see YouTube's s**tball Disclaimers that auto-tag onto) certain topics.
I think it might have been Judge Napolitano who observed that social media companies working with the FBI or other gov't agencies are then legally considered "agents" of a government agency and therefore, First Amendment restrictions now apply to them.
1A restrictions would NOT have applied if privately-owned Facebook et. al. hadn't gone ahead and "joined up" with the FBI and its request-demands.
The USPS has admitted that the government has been intercepting and scanning the mail of thousands of people.
We are entering the Owellian portal. Big time. There is no "liberal" or "conservative" element behing this, it is a uniparty effort to control content, to control consent. We are all Winston.
During the pandemic, we saw how much power pharmaceutical companies have. And their "vaccines" turned out to be spreading the virus, not containing it.
I prefer to refer to the cocktails as "serums". Last I checked, the definition of a 'vaccine' is that of a substance which prevents the infection or transmission of a pathogen in a host. The COVID serums did NEITHER.
The mRNA “vaccines” did indeed “spread” the virus in two ways.
First, they reduced symptoms without preventing transmission or infection. Some people were spreading COVID-19 without even knowing that they had it.
Second, they made people feel “protected” when they actually weren’t, leading them to behaviors they might not have engaged in if they were still afraid of catching it.
But the mRNA vaccines were not the only vaccines.
I live in a household of five people.
Four of them — three mRNA-vaccinated, one un-vaccinated — tested positive and developed symptoms the first time the virus got brought home.
One of them (me) didn’t. The Novavax (non-mRNA) vaccine that I was a guinea pig for apparently worked. At least for a little while, and at least for the early variants. Last year, COVID came around again and we all got sick.
Mutations.
I know someone who died from the vaccine. Of course, it was never official and the doctors pretended they were at a loss as to why the man fell sick after his second shot (it was the 2 shot mRNA vaccine) that night and fell unconscious. He was taken to a hospital and dead within a week. He was in his 80s, but I'm still pissed and I know there were many others.
There is no "THE vaccine."
There are several different vaccines.
All vaccines entail some risk.
It looks like the mRNA-based vaccines entail more and/or worse risks than others.
How MUCH more/worse remains a topic of debate — and, from my perspective, a certain amount of covering up.
The vaccine I was a test subject for was a "protein subunit" rather than mRNA vaccine. I haven't heard anything about increased risk from it.
I do think I had a side effect (De Quervain's Tenosynovitis, which started shortly after the first dose, got worse after the second, then slowly improved).
Sorry, should have typed "a vaccine" instead of "the." Pardon me. Jeeeez
I am glad you improved from your symptoms. I hope you are well now.
Thanks!
It was just a pain, literally. It went away. My hypothesis is that the vaccine turned my immune system against me in one of its weak spot. About 40 years ago, I broke my right wrist and that thumb has been just a little bit weaker ever since. And that’s where the tenosynovitis hit. I switched to an ergonomic mouse and, for a little while, wore a brace at night. Took a couple of months to get completely better.
I am sorry for your loss, mercy. Good, responsible medical science should not have permitted that to happen.