Posted on 03/18/2024 1:00:02 PM PDT by bitt
This morning the Supreme Court held oral argument in the case that is now styled Murthy v. Missouri. C-SPAN has posted audio of the oral argument here.
The case arises from the government’s “encouragement” of censorship by the social media platforms, as documented in the Twitter Files. We have followed the case as it has wended its way through the district court to the Fifth Circuit and then to the Supreme Court. We (I) have been pulling for the plaintiffs.
The Supreme Court has already entered an order staying the narrowed preliminary injunction that had been fashioned by the Fifth Circuit while the case is pending before the Court. Justices Alito dissented from the stay. In his dissent he was joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch. I thought the Supreme Court stay was a bad sign of the likely outcome of the case.
In the event this morning, the plaintiff/respondents complaining of the government’s encouragement of censorship on social media platforms suffered a bloodbath, if I may use that word in its colloquial sense. If I am not allowed to use that word in its colloquial sense, I would say that the plaintiff/respondents had a bad day in Court.
I listened to the oral argument in order to assess the likely outcome of this interlocutory appeal. I think it is likely that the preliminary injunction stayed by the Supreme Court will be vacated and that the Fifth Circuit decision will be reversed. I am rashly reading the omens of the give-and-take in the argument like a Roman soothsayer examining entrails.
(Excerpt) Read more at powerlineblog.com ...
p
BLOODBATH! He said BLOODBATH!!!
I guess I’m too stupid to follow the chain of events of what’s going on here and what’s the expected outcome. Legalese is not part of my decoder ring.
We need Q-Anon’s take. My understanding is that the super-elite will bathe themselves in the blood of children to enhance their longevity.
every headline should contain “bloodbath” to trigger the morons.
Bottom line: the author believes that SCOTUS is leaning toward a decision that would permit the Government to engage in censorship via the social media. This is truly frightening if it comes to that.
Folks in the comments section are confused, as well … saw these comments … hope they’re WRONG …
JanTw
Any chance of an English translation of the legalese here? What does this mean for the rest of us, the great unwashed, the non-lawyers?
−
JoeMN JanTw
4 minutes ago
It means you may only be able to have government approved views on social media
−
Scofflaw1 JanTw
39 minutes ago edited
That the first amendment is likely to be eviscerated with the SCOTUS ruling on this case.
😩😡
Not knowing anything at all about the case, this guy could just as well have been writing in Dutch.
Does not define or explain a damn thing.
Who are the plaintiffs, why did they have a bad day, and what was the Fifth District decision that he thinks will be reversed?
I hope he doesn’t write for a living.
Hysterics much?
Can we get an interpretation from this poetic gobbledy gook?
I need to see what the D.U. crowd and the Kos Kids at Daily Kos are saying before I jump in. Oh and Debka file might have some advice too.
To me, it was not clear which way the justices were leaning, except for Kagan, Jackson and Sotomeyer, who always lean left. They seemed to be pushing in favor of the government.
To put it in layman's terms, the case centered around the government pressuring (coercion) the social media companies to censor speech and ban those who spoke against what our woke government believed and supported.
In other words, restricting speech, the government did not like through the social media companies.
The first court agreed that the government was guilty and had to stop. The decision was appealed, and while on appeal, the first court's decision was put on hold.
If the Supreme Court decides against the government, then the most likely decision is the government will be prevented from forcing social media companies to censor our speech. A VERY GOOD THING!
This can be a very meaningful case.
The greatest good for the greatest number cannot be achieved if citizens are allowed to question mRNA "vaccines", EVs, the green agenda, the LGBTQIAA+ agenda, puberty blockers, abortion, gay marriage, CRT, DEI, 1619, etc.
We must all go along even if we're headed over a cliff.
now ya done it...
“My biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways at the most important time. I mean, what would you have the government do?"
Oh... my.... God. Doesn't this constitutional illiterate even understand that the very purpose of the U.S. Constitution IS to hamstring the federal government?
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.