Zuckerberg’s Recent Admission Proves SCOTUS 1A Ruling Was A Grave Miscarriage Of Justice

The Federalist ^ | 1/13/25 | Brianna Lyman

[CFW]

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg admitted the Biden administration “pushed” for Facebook and Instagram to censor posts that were factually true but politically inconvenient. And his admission proves what many already knew: the Supreme Court’s decision in Missouri v. Murthy was a grave miscarriage of “justice” and an affront to the First Amendment.

Upon taking office, the Biden administration coordinated with social media giants to censor posts that contained factually correct information that was deemed unfavorable. But the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Murthy v. Missouri that Louisiana and Missouri did not have standing to challenge the Biden administration’s collusion with Big Tech companies to suppress Americans’ online speech in violation of the First Amendment.

Zuckerberg admitted such collusion occurred in a recent interview with Joe Rogan, saying the Biden administration — in trying to roll out a vaccine program — “also tried to censor basically anyone who was arguing against it. They pushed us super hard to take down things that were honestly, were true. They basically pushed us and said ‘Anything that says that vaccines might have side effects, you basically need to take down.'”

[snip]

But somehow, Justice Amy Coney Barrett and five other justices couldn’t see what Zuckerberg admitted to, what the Fifth Circuit clearly saw, and what Americans across this country felt: the government colluded to abridge First Amendment rights.

Writing for the majority, Barrett held that “plaintiffs must demonstrate a substantial risk that, in the near future, they will suffer an injury that is traceable to a Government defendant and redressable by the injunction they seek.”

“Because no plaintiff has carried that burden none has standing to seek a preliminary injunction,” Barrett wrote for the majority, adding that the court lacks the “jurisdiction to reach the merits of the dispute.”

[CFW]

SCOTUS was definitely incorrect on their prior ruling. The Biden administration was censoring American's speech by force against a social media company.

[HANG THE EXPENSE]

Lawyers.

[gitmo]

Our government turned to evil during the Biden Administration.

[one guy in new jersey]

Is that, strictly speaking, Constitutionally and statutorily impermissible?

Other than being horrific, unthinkable, anti-American, and Orwellian.

[iamgalt]

The silver lining is the SC didn’t actual rule on it. They used the standing dodge they are so fond of.

[gunnut]

Hoping the Berenson v Biden case at least set precedence once resolved.

[No name given]

And the eight year long regimes of Slick Willy and Obeyme.

[omega4412]

Is the doctrine of “standing” itself constitutional?

[Tell It Right]

IMHO Zuck is trying to tell the new Republican Congress and WH not to drop the hammer on them and remove the section 230 protections that protect the internet companies from libel. “Hey, don’t blame me. The govt made me do it.”

[antidemoncrat]

If Zuck was such a victim here, why did he do this:

“A former federal election official called the $400 million-plus that Mark Zuckerberg spent to help finance local elections a “carefully orchestrated attempt” to influence the 2020 vote.”

[subterfuge]

But wait...liberals are always screeching that we have a horrible “conservative” supreme court. Yet they rule in their favor at least 50 % of the time. Right?

[Alberta's Child]

SCOTUS was actually correct in its ruling, as we discussed at length here on FR when the ruling was issued.

The court did not rule on the facts of the case, but on the legal standing of a state government to seek recourse against a private company that had no “duty of care” to that state. None of the states involved in the lawsuit could provide any evidence that: (1) Facebook violated a contract or other agreement with the state, and (2) the state had suffered any harm as a result of such alleged violation.