>> Continued From the Previous Page <<
John Burns, General Counsel for the Gateway Pundit, expressed profound disappointment but maintained a resilient stance, stating, “It’s a horrible decision, but the underlying case at the lower court marches forward. The Gateway Pundit is dedicated to fighting the government for the free speech rights of everyone, we are committed to ultimate victory.”
Justice Barrett, in her opinion, nuanced the government’s involvement, suggesting that while the government had some influence, social media platforms independently moderated content. She noted: “To be sure, the record reflects that the Government defendants played a role in at least some of the platforms’ moderation choices. But the Fifth Circuit, by attributing every platform decision at least in part to the defendants, glossed over complexities in the evidence.”
However, the transparency of these influences was questioned by many, including the plaintiffs, who argued that agencies like the FBI and the White House had exerted direct pressure on platforms to curb discussions on sensitive topics such as Hunter Biden’s laptop and COVID-19 policies.
Justice Sam Alito, in a searing dissent, underscored the significance of the case, “This is one of the most important free speech cases to reach this Court in years.”
The majority’s stance effectively shields any government-directed media suppression from legal challenge, profoundly impacting how free speech is exercised online. This ruling may well open the gates for further unchallenged governmental censorship.
Support for the plaintiffs’ fight against this perceived overreach was widespread, with figures like US Senator Eric Schmitt and Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry spearheading initial investigations into the matter. Their efforts, alongside those of Missouri AG Andrew Bailey and Louisiana AG Liz Murrill, were pivotal at the oral arguments in March, championing the cause of free speech.
Plaintiff Jim Hoft articulated the collective frustration and resolve of the co-plaintiffs: “Of course, we were very disappointed with today’s opinion by the US Supreme Court. The Gateway Pundit has been one of the primary targets of the government censorship complex. We were victims of government propaganda, and the American people suffered because of it. We will consult with our attorneys to determine our next steps.”
Carry 46 rounds concealed? (comfortably)
As legal battles continue, this case stands as a beacon for the ongoing struggle for free speech in the digital age, challenging the boundaries of government intervention and the protection of civil liberties in an increasingly digital world. The outcome of Murthy v. Missouri not only reflects current judicial attitudes but also sets the stage for future disputes in this contentious and ever-evolving arena.
So ACB Said, ” to be sure, the record reflects the government defendants played a roll in at least some of the platforms’ moderation choices”.
To know this, for a fact, and still come to the decision they did, is the same thing as saying,”the riots were mostly peaceful”.
WTF?
I’m having trouble with the fact that this IS WHAT HAPPENED, and the Supreme Court stuffed the facts into one of those boxes sitting next to Joe Biden’s corvette…
God Help Us!