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.
Hopefully we can still find someone who was banned as a direct results of government influence and they would have standing.
“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.”
On this matter, Alito would be the activist judge legislating from the bench that we all fear. Jawboning the media is what every government entity does. When the government starts passing legislation or formal rules for controlling what the media presents, then we’d have an actual 1st Amendment violation.
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.
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.