Posted on 06/26/2024 10:01:41 AM PDT by JV3MRC
It’s a bad day for free speech. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the government may continue to pressure Big Tech companies to censor speech it disapproves of, and dissenting Justice Samuel Alito tore the outrageous decision apart.
The Court ruled 6-3 — with Justice Amy Coney Barrett authoring the Opinion — that the complainants lacked standing to file an “injunction against any defendant” because they failed to demonstrate “particularized” harm. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined in the majority’s ridiculous position.
The Court’s explicit gaslighting as to the Big Tech companies’ independent reasons for censoring content was particularly galling. “And while the record reflects the Government defendants played a role in at least some of the platforms’ moderation choices, the evidence indicates that the platforms had independent incentives to moderate content and often exercised their own judgment,” Barrett wrote on behalf of the majority. The absurd implication here is that yes, the government was strong-arming the platforms, but it was ultimately the tech companies’ decision.
Alito went straight to the point in his dissent, joined by Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas: “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.”
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
the squishes rule that tyranny is allowed under the USC
and now you know how the nazis came to power
Perverse incentives by corrupt Governments run the world
I just read that 6-3 vote at SCOTUS, we need to revamp the Court.
“particularized” harm
~~~
As I understand it, the bill of rights was designed to protect the individual (american citizen) by limiting the powers of the government against that individual. So, freedom of speech would have to be specifically targeted infringement against an individual to be unconstitutional.
What I don’t understand is why they are talking about the unspecific nature of the censorship not being unconstitutional because they are focused on the effects of the censorship, and not who is being censored. Or did I misunderstand the ruling.
They are suggesting that they government can pressure a platform not to allow speech about corona virus because the censorship isn’t directed at one individual and therefor there is no first amendment protection.
But what about the author who was censored???
Freedom of Speech as we know it is now dead …mark the time and the date freedom died! This ruling will only empower the DC swamp to do unimaginable harm to the republic. And don’t think for one minute they won’t start this afternoon to censor everything they disagree with. Once again, the DC swamp wins.
Standing is Robert’s fav for avoiding hard decisions. Of course, Barrett is his sock puppet.
Kavanaugh and C-Barrett sided with tyranny, as they often do.
There. Fixed it.
Perhaps he has "standing".
Amy Conehead Barrett again. I knew she was gonna be bullshit. She was picked because of her anatomy and nothing else. She showed all the signs of being a Lib Tard. Running to adopt a black kid, on the day her family was driving down to be sworn in, she drove the minivan and her husband rode in the passenger seat. The first thing she did was to let Pennsylvania county ballots with no signatures.
The way “standing” is interpreted by almost all courts, “standing” is very difficult to achieve in cases regarding government malfeasance of misfeasance.
Almost all cases regarding electoral misconduct have been dismissed on the basis of “lack of standing”. This problem is at least 30 years old that I know of.
It has nothing specifically to do with Roberts or Coney-Barrett.
bttt
I remember how everybody swooned about her empty tablet at the hearings. Turns out that was a good metaphor for her intellect. And now she’ll be sitting there for another 40 years. She’s a clown
This does not look good for the immunity and the G6 ruling coming out in a few days. And another thing have you all noticed that the liberal judges never go rogue against those who appointed them to these lifetime positions? God, if only our side had people like that on the Supreme Court! Trump was snickered by the RINO elites to appoint these pieces of crap! You would think of all people judge Kavanaugh, after what he went through he would side all the time with the Constitution and the Republicans! We were the ones that took his 🥜 out of the fire backing him during the sham hearing they had against him. And he rules like this ….scumbag!
Meant J6
So now what??
So when Trump regains the White House he can pressure NYT, WaPo, CNN, MSNBC, etc.?
As respectfully pointed out when Barrett was appointed, women have always been a SCOTUS disaster...
Had the same feeling with Kavanaugh as with her. Two pandering morons. Her with the adoption and him with only hiring females. Two virtue signaling scumbags.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.