Supreme Court tosses out claim Biden administration coerced social media companies to remove content

NBC News ^ | June 26, 2024 | Lawrence Hurley

[Coronal]

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday threw out claims that the Biden administration unlawfully coerced social media companies into removing contentious content.

In reaching its conclusion, the court overturned an injunction that would have limited contacts between government officials and social media companies on a wide range of issues if allowed to go into effect. The Supreme Court had previously put the injunction on hold.

The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals later narrowed the scope of Doughty’s injunction. But the appeals court still required the White House, the FBI and top health officials not to “coerce or significantly encourage” social media companies to remove content the Biden administration considered misinformation. The court on a 6-3 vote found that plaintiffs did not have standing to sue.

The Republican attorneys general in Louisiana and Missouri, along with five social media users, filed the underlying lawsuit alleging that U.S. government officials went too far in putting pressure on platforms to moderate content. The individual plaintiffs include Covid lockdown opponents and Jim Hoft, the owner of the right-wing website Gateway Pundit.

The lawsuit included various claims relating to activities that occurred in 2020 and before, including efforts to deter the spread of false information about Covid and the presidential election. Donald Trump was president at the time, but the district court ruling focused on actions taken by the government after President Joe Biden took office in January 2021.

In July last year, Louisiana-based U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty barred officials from “communication of any kind with social-media companies urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech.”

[Robert DeLong]

Justice Samuel Alito wrote a sharp dissent, joined by two other conservatives, Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Neil Gorsuch.

So, Roberts, Kavanaugh, & Barret went with the liberals.

[Sgt_Schultze]

Great news for Trump47

[Uncle Miltie]

Censorship wins!

[Rlsau1]

Hopefully, if Trump is re-elected and vacancies develop on the USSC he will get a list of nominees from a source other than his previous. He should also seek opinions from Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch on who they think would be the strongest “Originalist” candidates.

[jeffersondem]

“Terrible decision. Basically it's unclear who, if anyone, has standing to sue when the gov jawbones a media outlet to stifle criticism, and it ignores the mountain of evidence presented showing censorship, as Alito points out.”

It is a terrible decision. On the bright side it greenlights the stern action President Trump will probably have to take to right the ship of state.

Hopefully the left will remember how happy they were with this decision when their excesses are curtailed.

[nwrep]

Yes but Musk can ignore the pressure.

[Steve Van Doorn]

Hoft’s declaration reveals that Twitter took action according to its own rules against posting private, intimate media without consent. Hoft does not provide evidence that his past injuries are likely traceable to the FBI or CISA.

Barrett said, "To establish standing, the 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"
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-411_3dq3.pdf

In other words only Twitter can defend the first amendment on behalf of their subscribers. As it was Twitters rules set by the federal government.
I think I have that correct.

[BigFreakinToad]

And this is how the SCOTUS “evens” it’s ruling out to appear neutral.

[Roadrunner383]

Yup, plaintiffs have to be able to prove they personally were injured when they to court.

[RoseofTexas]

Wait until the immunity and the J6 rulings come out. We are all going to be in shock. If you think this was a slap on the face of the constitution, we haven’t seen nothing yet. Prepare accordingly and have your Xanax, Maalox, whatever it is that you take ready and handy.

[old school]

Both of them are, really, unimpressive! You win some, you lose some! Ultimately, these two are not winners.

[lastchance]

You are right.

[Lazamataz]

Supreme Court tosses out claim Biden administration coerced social media companies to remove content

This headline is picometers from an outright lie.

The reasonable conclusion any normal reader would derive, is that SCOTUS ruled on the issue and found for the government.

They did not. They punted with the execrable "Standing" dodge.

[Reno89519]

Standing is the killer of many cases, an excuse not to take or decide a case. BTW, is the issue of standing new or does this occur throughout history? I haven’t seen any discussion or analysis on this.

[RoseofTexas]

Apparently not … have a two tier system. Example: look what happened to Trump. In both cases he hurt nobody he paid his financial people or loans correctly. The bank said so and also the hush money cases that were thrown out before the corrupt NY lawfare bench remodeled the statue of limitations to benefit the whore and that piece of crap ex lawyer of his. I’m sorry, but our country has lost its way. And by the Supreme Court ruling this way against the constitution , only proves that we are indeed rapidly sliding off a cliff!

[Scott from the Left Coast]

“ We all know the SM companies are run by leftists.”

EVERYTHING in America is run by Marxists.

[aynrandfreak]

What might Atlas do as more weight continues to be put his shoulders?

[Dr. Franklin]

SCOTUS says plaintiffs lacked standing to complain, which I interpret as they didn’t want to hear the case.

[Trumpisourlastchance]

Kav, Roberts and Barrett are Deep State tools. Garbage.

[Robert DeLong]

I think if any sitting Supreme court justice were to suggest a replacement, and that knowledge were made public, would endanger that justice, and more than likely find themselves impeached, convicted and removed form the court. Especially if that justice was a conservative..

So, I think we would be better served with someone who is not connected to the GOPe make suggestions to Trump. 🙂👍