Yesterday, in a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court gave its decision Murthy v. Missouri where Justice Amy Coney Barrett said, “Even if the individual or state plaintiff has established Article III standing to seek an injunction against any defendant” meaning, there is no rejection of government censorship regime when the case continues in the lower court in Louisiana.
Many legal scholars are of the opinion that the high court spread its general opinion by deciding the procedure here, and that they are not interested in hearing the merits of other cases. That means the Supreme Court judges are signaling the lower courts to keep the censorship regime active.
On the surface, this case is primarily about the legal standard by which national injunctions can be imposed to stop government action while the case continues.
Yesterday’s ruling dismissed the national injunction that stopped the censorship because, Judge Barrett said, the Plaintiffs had failed:
1) Demonstrate ‘traceability’ for past injuries that indicate future injuries, meaning that just because you have been censored in the past does not prove that you will be censored in the future.
2) Relate past restrictions on social media and defendants’ communications with these platformsmeans that the Plaintiff needs to prove in Court that each specific comment that is censored, was censored as a result of the coercion of a specific federal agent, and that the communication with the federal agent was a reason for censorship, not just a contributing factor.
3) Show a ‘substantial risk of future injury’ traceable to the Government defendant, meaning the Plaintiff must show that the government will censor certain topics, on certain social media platforms, in the future. Plaintiffs must be able to show whether the government will censor your speech in the future, what agents will do so, and on what platforms.
The opinion has been described by some lawyers as one of the worst Supreme Court opinions of all time.
Here’s how some major outlets are reacting to the decision:
Mainstream media lied about this case: government demands forcing social media to delete, deplatform, and suppress political speech and topics.
The opinion seems to reflect that the Supreme Court would rather consider this issue than have to deal with the massive censorship regime it imposes on American citizens.
Just like the open and obvious fraud in the 2020 election, the Court has once again taken the cowardly path and run away from the criminality and violation of the Constitution that is clearly in front of it.
Lead Plaintiff Jim Hoft, The Gateway Pundit publisher specifically discussed on pages 22-23 of the brief by Justice Coney Barrett in this key passage related to standing:
Take Hoft, the only plaintiff who has expressed interest in speaking about the election (and thus the only plaintiff with potential standing to sue the FBI and CISA). The challenged FBI action was still ongoing at the time of the complaint, as the agency was working with the platform during the 2022 midterm election season. Still, Hoft had to rely on a “chain of speculative possibilities” to determine the likelihood of future harm that could be traced to the FBI. Id., at 414. Hoft’s future postings (perhaps regarding the 2024 Presidential Election) must contain content that falls within a trend of misinformation that has been identified or will be identified by the FBI in the future. The FBI should force the platform to remove content in these categories. The platform should then have moderated Hoft’s posts, and should have done so at least in response to the FBI, rather than in line with its own content moderation policy. Hoft cannot satisfy his burden with that conjecture. CISA, meanwhile, stopped switchboarding in mid-2022, and the Administration has represented that it will not resume operations for the 2024 election. Mainly because it showed poor traceability in the past, Hoft failed to demonstrate the possibility of injury at the hands of the FBI or CISA-so the order to the entity was not can survive.
What Coney Barrett says is that, in order for Jim Hoft to continue as a Plaintiff, he must show:
- “Future Harm” means that they will be censored in the future in the same way they are censored now
- On the same topics and content that the government will censor
- That will be censored by the same government agency
- On certain social media platforms, and specific government agencies that censor them are the ones doing the censoring
- And it’s not based on the policies of social media companies, but because of government coercion
This is a nonsense standard to ‘future proof traceability’ for: a) content, b) who is doing the censoring, c) what caused the censorship.
Coney Barrett asked Jim Hoft to properly identify the ways in which certain federal agencies would suppress political speech. in the future.
This is a requirement for people to be a prophet of future federal censorship through them to have a life controversy insane.
“Hello Mr. FBI Agent, can you let me know in writing that you are going to censor me asking about voter fraud results in the 2026 election by sending an email to Twitter and demanding that I be removed and deplatformed?”
This opinion is a crazy branch of a Justice that doesn’t care about Justice.
This creates a requirement that you determine which federal department is censoring you, on what topics, in the future, on certain platforms.
That is also unlikely because the federal government has openly and famously introduced the Freedom of Information Act. There is no real way for citizens to get information from their government because they refuse to follow FOIA laws, they redact and censor much of what they release, and then they can lie and call it part of an ‘ongoing law enforcement investigation’. stop any release of information.
In that case, the Court allowed a third party to sue on behalf of another to protect the ‘right’ to kill the unborn if three tests were met: (1) the litigant had “suffered an ‘injury in fact,’ thereby giving (her) an ‘interest that sufficiently concrete’ in the outcome of the disputed issue; (2) the plaintiff has a “close relationship with the third party;” and (3) there is “some obstacle” to the third party’s ability to assert its own rights.
But apparently, the Attorney General of the United States, suing together with the litigants who suffered injuries, who have a close relationship with the parties, who have clear obstacles to assert their rights because there is almost no way to find out the details of the matter. federal censorship regime, different.
One is allowing the Supreme Court to kill unborn babies, and one is your ability to speak freely about politics and campaign online. The Supreme Court will fall to protect the murder of children, but six Justices don’t think you should stand up for your First Amendment rights.
The state does not have a third party “standing as parens patriae to take action against the Federal Government” on behalf of citizens facing social media bans.
Justice Samuel Alito acknowledged that this was the most important First Amendment case in the country’s history, because the government had never been caught censoring America, on a political topic, on this scale.
Coney Barrett’s response was to create procedural barriers to the case so that more people could not sue to stop the Biden Industrial Censorship Complex.
One lawyer involved in the case said the decision showed a “The 50-year setback for the First Amendment, it’s bad.
Several news outlets reported that this case shows the court’s reluctance to participate in the so-called ‘national injunction’ in which one federal district court, of which there are 94, can issue a national injunction or court order to stop any action it is accused of. .
However, when it comes to Trump’s policies, the courts are not only happy to use national injunctions, but also reluctant to speed them up. Here are some of the national injunctions filed against Trump’s policies:
National injunctions often occur, but the courts use them selectively to stop policies supported by the majority of the population, and refuse to apply them when, in cases like this, they are widely supported as a measure to protect freedom of speech in a primary election year. .
These double standards and hypocrisies, and the lengths that Justice Amy Coney Barrett goes to justify this decision, exercise in raw political power.
Justice Brown-Jackson almost every word in the oral argument for Murthy v. Missouri went so far as to stop the government from free speech and even proposed to stop whistleblowers like Julian Assange, Daniel Ellsberg, and Edward Snowden from being allowed:
- They don’t have to believe that “…if anything.” coercion (by the government), then we automatically violate the First Amendment.”
- “So, in certain situations, you know, the government can actually demand that speech be suppressed If anyone is interested, right?”
-
“So I think – I think that part of the reason you can find all these difficulties with different factual situations is because you don’t focus on the fact that there are times when the government can, depending on the situation, encourage, maybe even coerce, because they have a compelling interest in doing so. So I keep going back to the real First Amendment issue, which can be isolated in this case and just talk about — about coercion, but I think there’s — you have to admit that there are certain circumstances in which the government can provide information , encourage the platform to take it down, tell them to take it down. I mean, what about –what about hypo people who send confidential information? He said that I have free speech, I believe that I – you know, I got access to this information and I want to pass it on. Are you suggesting that the government can’t say to the platform that we should remove it?“
This is the side of the free speech battle in front of the court that Justice Amy Coney Barrett is leading: in league with leftist zealots like Justice Brown-Jackson, who will turn away Assange, Ellsberg and Snowden with a smile on their face.
The Supreme Court has a choice to side with the censorship complex or dissidents seeking to evade censorship. Amy Coney Barrett chose censorship.
This is the side that Justice Amy Coney Barrett finds herself in: in league with the most distant members of the Court in history. Coney Barrett’s opinion was joined by Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Brown-Jackson. It must be strange that these Judges, who should have no legal or political commonalities, should find themselves on the same side of this issue. The Justice side of the Supreme Court has no qualms or qualms about ending the digital free speech rights of hundreds of millions of Americans by erecting insurmountable procedural hurdles.
In fact, Justice Coney Barrett probably did not even write this opinion, he probably left it to his four 20-something law clerks to decide the right to digital free speech for the country. These four clerks, from elite law schools, researched, drafted, and wrote the worst First Amendment legal opinion in history.
