[Sgt_Schultze]

Great news for Trump47

[Uncle Miltie]

Censorship wins!

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Behind Liberal Lines]

Barret is a huge disappointment. I understand she’s better than what we’d have gotten in Trump and McConnell didn’t force her through at the end of his term but still...

[Cold_Red_Steel]

Seriously, what proof is there of the Biden administration coercing social media companies to remove content other than message traffic of Biden’s administration coercing social media companies to remove content?

[bitt]

p

[catnipman]

i thought the ruling on this issue was essentially that the complainants didn’t have standing .... according to scotusblog.com:

“In Murthy v. Missouri, a dispute over the government’s communications with social media companies during the 2020 election season and COVID-19 pandemic, the court holds that the challengers — two states and five social media users — do not have a legal right to sue.”

[SeekAndFind]

The case was tossed due to lack of standing as opposed to merit.

Is this wjhat the SCOTUS is going to do constantly? AVOID the merits of the issue and hide behind the "standing" excuse?

[zeugma]

“standing” the last refuge of scoundrels.