Oral arguments were heard today in the appeal of the government against the states of Louisiana, Missouri and seven plaintiffs who claim that Biden officials, including Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, violated the First Amendment by pressuring social media platforms to suppress or delete content about COVID-19 that federal officials found objectionable.
The Biden administration had an extensive communication pipeline into Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Google, YouTube and various subsidiary tech companies where instructions, the government says “encouragement”, were/was given about the removal of content critical of the government position, and the removal of content providers – American citizens. Full Hearing Audio:
Making the case for the Biden administration, Deputy Solicitor General Brian Fletcher led the way. “We don’t think it’s possible for the government — through speech alone — to transform private speakers into state actors,” he said.
Fletcher said the government didn’t engage in coercion — which he said would be unconstitutional — just encouragement and persuasion for the social media platforms to enforce their existing rules at the time barring Covid-19 misinformation. “If it stays on the persuasion side of the line — and all we’re talking about is government speech — then there’s no state action and there’s also no First Amendment problem,” he said. “I think it’s clear this is exhortation, not threat.”
Louisiana state Solicitor General Benjamin Aguiñaga, arguing for the plaintiffs, said the speech the platforms were suppressing wasn’t their own speech but those of third parties, ordinary Americans. Aguiñaga also said the users often had no idea they were being impacted by the federal effort to prod the platforms to take down content. “The bulk of it is behind closed doors. That is what is so pernicious about it,” he said.
The questioning by the majority of the Supreme Court justices appeared to favor the government, in large part due to the inability of the plaintiffs to outline direct actionable harm to them as an outcome of the regulation of their speech by the tech platforms. The Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision in the case by late June.
I have no faith in the SC to do anything based on the constitution. The two DEI women are low IQ and so is Roberts.
Roberts has done more to destroy faith in the judicial system than anyone else in American History.
Absolutely. A pathetic weak little man.
Souter In Roberts’ Clothing
July 20, 2005 by Ann Coulter
https://anncoulter.com/2005/07/20/souter-in-roberts-clothing3/
After pretending to consider various women and minorities for the Supreme Court these past few weeks, President Bush decided to disappoint all the groups he had just ginned up and nominate a white male.
So all we know about him for sure is that he can’t dance and he probably doesn’t know who Jay-Z is. Other than that, he is a blank slate. Tabula rasa. Big zippo. Nada. Oh, yeah … We also know he’s argued cases before the Supreme Court. Big deal; so has Larry Flynt’s attorney.
But unfortunately, other than that that, we don’t know much about John Roberts. Stealth nominees have never turned out to be a pleasant surprise for conservatives. Never. Not ever.
Robert’s is somehow compromised.
Epstein?
That presumes he opposes what he’s doing. I don’t believe he deserves that presumption. He’s complicit. A key figure in the success of their anti-constitutionalism. All-in from the start. Whether or not he’s a pedo isn’t a factor when he’s also a true believer.
He must be…
An old rumor is that it is the fraudulent Adoption of his children from Ireland by way of Brazil…
But with that slime ball there could be other reasons he is compromised…
ROBERTS is/has been blackmailed. Thought everyone knew this.
Does a soldier, a general in an occupying army/intelligence service need to be blackmailed to destroy the nation from within that he’s been assigned to destroy? Why give him the benefit of the doubt that there’s an American inside him acting under duress? How has he earned that presumption?
Only 2?
ACB also sounded like the new DEI hire.
yes, such high hopes for her and she is a lib
There were a whole bunch of us who kept trying to tell others she was no good. No one wanted to hear it.
I agree. People were all excited about abortion. Well, i think free speech is far more important than abortion.
Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness are listed in order. Without the first, the next two don’t matter much.
If President Trump felt like he HAD to appoint a female to replace Ginsberg, there was a female judge named Barbara Lagoa, out of south Florida, who had escaped Cuba as a child and MANY of us thought she would have been a MUCH more reliable pick that ACB, who just has “Softer, kinder social justice warrior” written all over her! Yes, a definite disappointment, for SO many reasons!!
This is true.
Hyphenated…it’s you needed to know.
*all
She has been such a disappointment
Trump’s Souter. Got some real bad advice on that pick..
I keep forgetting her name but, yes, she does not strike me as particularly intelligent.
It’s part of a worsening problem in the world of lawyering: mechanical, scientific and technical illiteracy.
It’s a very scary situation.
It may yet be the end of everything. The administrative class is riven with incompetence of this type.
They don’t even know iatrogenic death is the leading cause of death in American hospitals today, unless, of course, they happen to work in hospital administration. The COVID fiasco was a veritable orgy of iatrogenic death by fiat of government policy.
Never has it paid so many so well. Stalin and Pol Pot never had it so easy.
Spot on!
Oh she is smart. She was no doubt the perfect little student and teacher’s pet, and terrified of ever appearing to challenge authority figures.
All Trump SCOTUS appointments were Federalist Society screened, approved by Mitch McConnell. The Federalist Society is as infiltrated as the American Medical Association, Hollywood, Fox, ACLU, The Catholic Church, academia, BLM-supporting multinational corporations, etc are. Conservative creds are based on long-ago lost legacy, not present. Only constitutional freedoms FS supports are the freedom of multinational corporations to profit in partnership with government. Mussolini’s perfected Fascism. That’s what Federalist Society and R’s like ACB are. Fascists.
Remember, she upheld every pandemic mandate she ruled on as an Appeals court judge, masks, lockdowns, business closures, etc. Only moving to restore church services after 4-6 months of unconstitutional closures. Remember how quickly the courts issued injunction preventing Trump’s travel ban from terrorist nations?
Remember how she refused 2020 election fraud cases? Then inked her multi-million dollar book deal a few months into 2021? ACB is a pretty cheap political whore considering the stakes. A few million dollars to sell out your nation is what a streetwalker would get, not even a high class escort would charge so little for turning that trick.
She ruled Indiana University had the right to require vaccinations of students- so she set the precedent for all the other skrools to require the shot.
Gee… I wonder how she’s going to rule on this one.
Agreed. The US “Supreme” Court’s leftist members are politicized, biased, partisan hacks. Government should have NO ability or authority to pressure a private company to perform actions on its behalf which violate our Constitutionally protected, God given rights to freedom of speech.
Hard to believe anyone would believe otherwise. Yet here we are with supreme court justices arguing in support of government censorship and brainwashing.
The first amendment: congress shall make no law …abridging free speech. They just did…banning Tic Toc.
I think its foolish to hope for agents of a corrupt system to deliver justice to or from that same system.
the tree is thirsty.
Parched
Roberts is not low-IQ, but he is severely compromised.
The government continues thumbing their noses at the public. NONE of the SCJ’s can be that historically void NOT to see where this leads.
We are on our own.
The arguments against the govt actions seemed very disappointing, but then again their responses had to be on-point to the specific questions the Justices asked. Hopefully, actually praying, the briefs that were filed with the Supreme Court by the States and those individuals impacted by the government’s actions will overshadow the seeming pro-govt questioning by the Justices.
this is a link to all the briefs filed on behalf of both sides on this case; click where it says ‘main document’ to bring up the individual filings which do show the specific damages claimed by the victims of the govt silencing of their voices; the govt filings are also there.
wouldn’t be surprised to see a 5-4 ruling, just can’t bet on which side is going to be the majority because of Robert’s iffyiness.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-411.html
O Lord, hear our prayer.
Not sure who the attorney was that was arguing but was very disappointed that it was not either of the original two AGs who filed the suit, as they seemed MUCH more on top of the finer points of the law, as evidenced by the sweeping affirmative rulings they received in the lower counts!
Landry of Louisiana would have been much more confident hence steadfast!
I listened to most of the procedings today and unfortunately agree with Sundance’s assessment. The plaintiffs argument was dreadfully lacking and seemed to not be up to the task.
It’s almost like the states put in the B Team attorney to argue – like they didn’t really WANT to win?
We need top defense litigators for America First cases. Why is that so hard to find? We have clearly winnable cases that lose….
Make it impossible for a judge ( or judges) to rule against you!
Just look at what has happened to Jeff Clark, John Eastman, Rudy, etc. There’s your answer.
When people say, “The court ruled [insert outcome here]”, what is always missing from the statement is the quality of the arguments presented to the court, in order to reach that outcome.
If the plaintiffs lawyers purposefully want to lose, they simply give a very slightly poorer performance than necessary.
We know that many judges and DA’s are corrupt. And some plaintiff lawyers (eg Harmeet Dhillon)
All SCOTUS needs to do on this is affirm the first amendment of the.Constitution. Screw Big Tech and the establishment media.
I just don’t think this one is about the arguments. The justices are totally on board with govt driven censorship of anyone who doesn’t agree with them.
We are not on a good path right now.
What a country!
Where? Countries typically have a border.
you do, its the north american union. we arent shareholders so we do not get briefed
Control the Message…control the Mind.
Interesting that no mention was made of the fact that there was a contractual and financial relationship between the US Government and Ownership of the Platforms being “encouraged” to censor people “in closed door meetings” (during the Shamdemic).
Also, no mention was made of attempts of the Executive branch of Government to coerce Employers via adverse work rules and adverse work environment regulation. You know proof that the Federal Government was acting to coerce … even though those efforts were finally defeated in the courts.
There are plenty of PUBLIC acts by the Federal Government acting coerce and suppress.
And the justices know the issues at play. The solicitor is just an excuse for terrible jurisprudence.
There is “knowing” … which is NOT evidence.
Then there there is evidence “presented”.
This court is going to stick to “presented” evidence when necessary to avoid controversy.
“actionable harm” weasel clause for Supremes
At least they didn’t say ‘you have no standing’.
Cowards and traitors
Oral arguments are largely a moot point… appeals are won/lost on briefs/motions filed. By the time oral arguments are presented, judges have largely, if not completely, decided which way they will rule.
This is true.
However, the questions give clues to the likely conclusions.
And the very first clue was that they let the abuses continue while they took up the case.
They could have done nothing and the government abuse had been stopped.
They could have taken it up and left the order to stop the abuse in place.
Nope, they took it up and allowed the abuse to continue even before any arguments or pleadings.
In there questions, they may have been “playing devils advocate” in which case, the supposition that the Justices support censorship is exactly 180 degrees, …
Was thinking the same thing; which might be a good thing if that’s where their thinking was.
Especially was thinking that with both Justice Thomas’ and Alito’s questions as they didn’t seem particularly prying into the government lawyer’s approach and almost dismissive to the plaintiff’s lawyer’s approach and was wondering what was up with that?
Now we just have to wait and see what happens; the nation holds its breath to see if we still have a republic.
Well, that’s true if they know the meaning of words on the paper. One of the justices doesn’t know what a woman is; so…
Ask Bytedance (TikTok) how they are “encouraged” (but not coerced)…
Same as ask federal workers how they were encouraged to take the experimental gene based shot (but not coerced)…
Word play.
If we were wrong they wouldn’t need to censor us.
Fake Pandemic
I automatically assumed, and still do, anything the Occupation Government and Social Media allows said or posted is a lie.
All of my assumptions have been correct since the 2020 Coup d’etat.
When has the censor ever been right?
The “Harm” occurred when, due to government agency exhortation, contracts, and implied consequence, the online technology platforms (information pipeline) stopped the free-flow of information from professional scientists and MD’s that differed with the US Government’s position.
This coverage of a part of the oral argument is one of the scariest things you’ll ever see.
https://notthebee.com/article/justice-brown-jackson-says-first-amendment-is-hamstringing-the-government-in-policing-speech/
Exactly its purpose!
And hamstrings are pretty much what the founding fathers aimed for. Such a shame we have nitwits arguing and deciding on things like The 1st amendment..m
Another “it’s for the children” hire:
“I’ve heard you say a couple of times that the government can post its own speech, but in my hypothetical, you know, kids, this is not safe. Don’t do it is not gonna get it done. So, I guess some might say that the government actually has a duty to take steps to protect the citizens of this country, and you seem to be suggesting that that duty cannot manifest itself in the government, encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful information.”
And this is what impeachment is for. The government has been lying to and harming us. Her Big Mommy assumption is that the government is never wrong, never malicious and we are its children who have to be “protected.” Ya, that’s why we have a Bill of Rights. We’re CITIZENS not children.
Funny how an actual duty to defend our border got put on ice by the court. No duty there to protect CITIZENS from Chilean gangs or Venezuelan murderers.
Invoking that line “it’s for the children” is about disengaging your capacity for critical thought by eliciting an emotional response.
Even the ancient Greeks knew that passions commonly overruled reason.
Far better to keep a level head and not be as easily manipulated.
I’m not invoking it. KBJ’s words: “‘Kids, this is not safe. Don’t do it’ isn’t going to get it done… the government actually has a duty to take steps to protect the citizens of this country…” as if we are children. Another one of the women on the court made the same response to covid mandates: it was okay because it was for the children.
It was a generalization.
The duties of the Government is firstly to protecting our rights. Defense against invasion, regulating weights and measures and a number of other explicit and narrowly defined things.
Looking to government as the “responsible parent” has much to do with how we got to were we are as a culture.
I misunderstood you. I think we’re in agreement.
A baby would likely choke, if fed medium rare steak.
Some adults may be prone to ckoking from RARE steak, as well.
So, “should” the Giverment ban the sale of steaks or steaks that aren’t well done?
Hell no, keep your mitts off my steak!
I don’t think Brown-Jackson knows what a “kid” is; after all, she doesn’t know what a woman is.
She’s a wannabe tyrant and was illegally installed on the Supreme Court, nominated by an illegally installed president, confirmed by illegally installed Senators.
I did not hear anything about questions from Clarence Thomas or Neil Gorsuch?
At this point, not trying to be a Eyeore, but if this case goes the wrong way, the country is gone and nothing that happens in November will matter – just my opinion, of course but if the Government is allowed to censor private speech, more than they already do, I seriously doubt if there will even be an election!
I don’t doubt an election WILL take place (if this case rules against “Us”) its just that it won’t matter.
Ditto.
Apparently Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas rejected the emergency appeal from the Biden administration. So they may already have made up their minds or were at least comfortable enough with the lower court decisions not to want to fast-track this.
Thanks for the info – I imagine the three of them will rule FOR the Constitution but we need at least two more to join them… 🙏🙏🙏
Get outside and breath. Then pray. Believe. God hears you.
You can be sure these slime bags figured this all out before they pulled the trigger
From the arguments…
The intellectual Constitutionalist KJ Brown…
“My biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways.”
Where does one even begin with that?
You don’t even start.
All of those Amendments known colloquially as The Bill of Rights were explicitly restrictions on Government power.
Of course they are, RF.
Everyone should understand this.
That Brown clearly does not??
Where do we even start to understand how she was confirmed for life to this Court…
No answer required…
We completely understand that as well.
I just know that once language like penumbra and emanations were being bandied about contrary to the clear language that the Constitution was written in and comments about (their) democracy, things have clearly been going sideways.
Today, the SC extended the stay on a Texas law which allows the arrest of illegal border crossers.
Abbott essentially told them where to stick it. Texas will enforce that law.
And who can complain??
Biden set that precedent by ignoring their ruling on the unconstitutionality of loan forgiveness.
The Supreme Court has been made an irrelevance.
What now, SC?
KJB is an intellectual pygmy, so as a diversity hire, like Biden she is there to insure the MORONS are represented.
The reason the Founding Fathers created the First Amendment was to hamstring the government.
The CCP via BLM.
DEI hire who can’t define what a woman is – how can we expect her/their/zir to understand the complexities of the First Amendment?
Let the government be hamstrung! They don’t have the right to regulate speech they don’t like!
My response: “We can do this the easy way… or we can do this the hard way.”
She has no idea she said something stupid.
“Fletcher said the government didn’t engage in coercion — which he said would be unconstitutional — just encouragement and persuasion .””
And Hamas didn’t always ‘coerce’ Israel women into being gang raped and murdered. Sometime they just ‘encouraged’ and ‘persuaded’ them into being gang raped and murdered.
It’s the same thing!!!
Just like the encouragement and persuasion they will apply to get people to accept the ESG scoring system.
Question authority? Then you don’t eat!
Well then…
We would need congressional action to limit the government’s interference with our speech.
I am not for government tampering, influence, nor coercion in any form. Especially not in secret behind closed doors. If they have something to say let put out a transparent public statement on any issue they want.
Don’t forget…they even squashed the voices of medical professionals and science experts on issues they wanted to control.
Free flow of speech is a cornerstone of our Republic.
.
Legislation, inter alia, to declare that they are common carriers.
.
STOP whining to the Supreme Court. It’s a losers game.
States can nullify and/or use Federalism to attack Big Tech.
Attack, attack, attack Big Tech with new legislation.
Attack, attack, attack Internet Service Providers.
Attack cell phone providers and manufacturers.
Require privacy controls on all devices. Require all devices to support alternative operating systems that are privacy based.
I’m sick of loser republicans. Pathetic losers.
The States can do a lot but they don’t.
The States are acting like suckling piglets; their momma being the gubmint.
There are great lawyers on this case. I watched a
detailed segment with Niomi Wolfe on war room.
This is a simple 1st amendment case.
If the SCOTUS sides with the fascist government we’re all screwed.
Anyone who disagrees with the governments propaganda will be considered an enemy of state.
Prey that this case doesn’t side with the DOJ that appealed because the lower courts sided with free speech.
Where the hell are all of the red states AGs, legislative bodies and Governors? I would hope AG Ken Paxton in TX will challenge this.
This case is so important. If we lose this case, the first amendment will be dismantled.
Heres the thing I don’t see anyone here contemplating, and so being a conttarian, I’ll “go there” while I still can.
Just suppose SCOTUS gives us the decision we all want, affirming 1A, and saying the Gummint “can’t DO that!”
Do we REALLY think the censors, who are making a GLOBAL push (see the other article on Farage and GB news, or how substack is censoring conservativrs thry credit checks) will just STOP?
“OH, Gee we didn’t realise, we’re sorry…now that SCOTUS tells us its not cool to censor free speach, hey we’ll stop, ..all ya had to do was SAY something,…”/sarc
NOT going to HAPPEN, even IF we get a favorable ruling by SCOTUS.
In the end, we know what its gonna take, and whether its now, or 75 years from now,…its gonna take UNITY of WILL, and refusal to comply.
True this; but, if the SCOTUS rules in favor of freedom of speech without govt interference, as we fight with unity and will – at least we’ll have standing/s.
“or 75 years from now”
There will be a HUGE worldwide economic crisis that will make 1929 look like nothing LONG before that, most likely accompanied by major wars. Or, major wars triggering that. The WEF’s pipe dream solution – “You will own nothing and be happy.”
Dan Bongino, Elon Musk, and others have said if MAGA loses in 2024 it’s all over which is true, but actually even if MAGA wins that will be just a speed bump on the highway to hell. We’d need decades of Super Trumps and ACTUAL conservatives in CONgress. Things are FAR too corrupted to fix in any other way (see below).
Therefore, here’s my take. I agree with this Karl Denninger column from five years ago, one he marks for permanent retention (*) on his site where he allows other columns to expire:
America Is DONE *
2019-03-21 by Karl Denninger
https://www.market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=235369
Concluding paragraph:
There’s no reason for me to be hopeful because there is no reason to believe that Americans, say much less the people in any of the other developed, western nations will in fact demand this crap stop. In fact there is every reason to simply sit back and enjoy what little time is left, given that within the next six years tipping points will be reached in the US on a budget and monetary basis that will destroy the illusion of “growth and prosperity” and from which there is little or no chance of recovery.
Only a Collapse and Total Reboot Can Fix Our Bloated Government System
NOVEMBER 14, 2016
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/tony-corvo/2016/11/14/only-a-collapse-and-total-reboot-can-fix-our-bloated-government-system-n48938
Excerpt:
Conservatives keep voting for candidates thinking that they will fix the bugs, but let’s look at what this approach would take. In one form or another we will have to:
1) Elect at least a generation of conservative supermajorities in both chambers of congress. They have to be supermajorities because parliamentary rules allow for political minority actions to stop simple majority legislation.
2) We will have to elect a string of conservative presidents to work with the conservative congresses. We can’t have activist presidents who govern by executive actions in order to bypass congress.
3) True constitutionalists must be nominated and approved to the Supreme Court.
4) Conservatives will have to control at least 37 state legislatures, because sooner or later we will need to make constitutional amendments.
I’ve got a new bottle of Orville Redenbacher’s popcorn.
Dipsh*t Nation. Good luck:
Hoax: Donald Trump, Fox News, and the Dangerous Distortion of Truth – 2020
by Brian Stelter
4.6 out of 5 stars – 5,251 ratings
The harm is to the Constitution including the States and the people. That includes harm to all of a Constitutional society.
Standing has become an excuse to look the other way to avoid difficult and tumultuous decisions politically.
that is not what SCOTUS was designed for. They are there to protect the original intent of the .Constitution. If they decide for the government it will be no holds barred censorship. . . IMO.
Exactly. Why should the plaintiffs have to prove harm? The GOVERNMENT should have to prove, with the highest possible standard of proof, that it is not going against the clear instruction of the Constitution!
Anything else is tyranny.
if we could win our country back via the judicial system it would be preferred.
The whole problem is the assumption the government is wholesome and right and not the commie thugs vying for power that they really are. Our conversations in the future are going to have to be encrypted and invisible.
as targeted by our host – what you are saying isthe Pretending.
the obvious consequence is the public just ignoring a deceitful government in the future. any government that can’t withstand scrutiny is lying.
“Justice” Roberts?
Every one of Roberts’ decisions favors the expansion of government power and the expansion of corporate power.
Even the Dodds case (which reversed Roe v Wade, a very good thing in my opinion) wasn’t reversed because the body of the child is NOT the body of the mother, but because the Supreme Court HAD TO REVERSE any precedent that said you have a right to your own body.
Roe v Wade was suddenly a threat to the mandated experimental injection.
That’s why it was reversed, and that’s why Roberts voted to reverse it. Roberts always supports big corporate power.
And that’s all why the Democrats saying they will restore Roe v Wade are lying.
Big Pharma will NOT ALLOW Roe v. Wade to be reinstated.
Sundance,
There must another avenue to win this. When we have a fascist DOJ plus SCOTUS legislating from the bench must not be the end all. Our constitution must prevail.
Are there any organizations out there or are we on our own?
John Roberts is not compromised. He never was a constitutionalist. Bush appointed him and Bush wanted a political hack. Roberts has always given liberal rulings because he WAS AND IS A LIBERAL TYRANT.
The end of the First Amendment. The end of the Bill of Rights.
We’re all stuck waiting for Superman…
“Superman’s Dead” — Our Lady Peace
The Regime did the same thing with “suggestions” to financial institutions & payment processors in Operation CHOKEPOINT. Besides drug dealers, licensed firearm dealers were in the unsavory categories to do business with. “We’re just suggesting, that’s all. Nice bank ya got there; be a shame if a bunch of federal auditors were to visit & climb up your ass for 6 monthes.”
Why must harm be shown? Why isn’t the unconstitutional free speech ” regulation” enough?
The direct actionable harm is that information was suppressed, speech was suppressed, and ideas were suppressed. Those are the foundation or substance that inform actions.
the deep state likes their judges the same way they like their politicians: compromised.
Fresh from putting the thumb screws to Peter Navarro.
America is swiftly sinking into the abyss.
To be sure, we have had oral arguments in earlier cases where it “appeared” that the Court would be favorably disposed to support the Constitution, and were disappointed by the actual result. So, maybe this time we will be pleasantly surprised.
I wrote earlier: exactly where does it say “…except when…” in the First Amendment?
This should be an easy adjudication, but with demonic Communism infecting the American government for generations now, the Constitution has become a patient on life-support.
This is troubling.
If all the Supreme Court justices were vaccinated for Covid and boosted how can they give an unbiased ruling? It is a scientific fact that humans have a natural immunity against most viruses and that many recover from an infection. It is not virus infections that are the big killer but the secondary bacterial infections. Most unvaccinated children survived measles during the fifties. Sometimes there is an infection like diarrhea or pneumonia and these need specific treatment.
The way governments responded to covid was a promotion of medical malpractice. They should not have been allowed to label critics as vaccine deniers, promoters of misinformation and dangerous to society. Instead they should have welcomed lively discussion, freedom to ask hard questions and expect answers. Had this happened, the covid vaccination fraud would have been exposed and governments forced to leave medicine in the hands of caring doctors. Just follow the money and you will see this was not primarily about saving lives.
The U.S. Supreme Court Justices were EXEMPT (like CONgress) from any clot-shot mandates. I also believe that extended to their staff.
I believe that we are witnessing the actual shredding and rewriting of the Constitution. I am more and more convinced that either a Constitutional Convention is needed, and we turn to the only other alternative(s) the Founders anticipated for just this crisis! Wolverines!
“I believe that we are witnessing the actual shredding
and rewritingof the Constitution.”A constitutional convention, if held today, would enshrine trans rights and pronoun usage.
I live in a blue area. The people here are insane, but they are true believers in the Next Thing.
A constitutional convention would be FULL of the insane, true believers who surround me.
Expecting justice from the very institutions that abuse us is a forlorn hope.
I guess violating the 1st Amendment rights of the citizens of this country is not harmful.
The United States is fascist.
The government and Big Tech joined to censor Americans. It’s a “public private partnership” to destroy free speech.
They will do it again during the next “election.”
It’s no fun living in a police state.
The only good news is that many people now know that they have been living in a police state all of their lives (at least since the CIA assassinated Kennedy).
Oh . . . and look again at the videos of the Trade Towers collapsing on 9-11.
They start to crumble from the very top, including all the concrete elevator shafts. The towers don’t start crumbling from below the plane’s impact, but from the very top.
The tv said, “The towers were crushed by their own weight.” But these skyscrapers were designed to hold themselves up.
Well, that’s the kind of right-in-front-of-your-face observation that won’t be allowed by our fascist government anymore on social media or anywhere else.
How about this novel idea SJC?? Let all the “media”, “influencers”, “PR”, whatever, submit their information to their favored platforms without censorship and then let their readers/users decide which is the most believable/plausible or even true. Keep your thumb off the scale!
Lots of focus on the “Social Media Platforms”.
Once SCROTUS opens The Window… The Government moves The Window.
See “TikTok Ban”, as outlined by Sundance… it’s not about “Social Media Platforms”. EVERYTHING ON THE INTERNET falls under SCROTUS’ decision.
Here’s the tell, up in yer grill: the Government lawyer made some comment about how “this was all just a special case, ‘cuz COVID-19 yada yada”.
Whether there was some “special case” or not is irrelevant… but even if it is relevant in these particular court cases… PATRIOT Act should be all you have to know. The U.S. Federal Government has proven themselves untrustworthy many times over.
There’s only 2 people in that photograph of the 9 I respect.
The others are mere Tools of Fools.
Clarence thomas counts for two.
Don’t forget Sam Alito.
“We don’t think it’s possible for the government — through speech alone — to transform private speakers into state actors,”
Nice little platform ya got there…………shame if sumpin’ happened to it……….
Especially since we, the Gummint supply you with the infrastructure and yuge computer capacity (Jacks coffee shop) that you could NEVER develop or make economically feasible, on your own.
And all we ask in return, is a little influence,…not to mucha,…just to “dip our beak, a no?”
What is “Fickle in a Black Robe?”
Chief Justice Roberts.
Next question?
Why do you think Poopie Pants went after the Supreme Court in his State of the Union RANT.
It has been reported that all of these justices took the experimental injection multiple times.
So . . . they very probably think, “The benevolent government was only trying to help people get the injection, to save their lives.”
My friends still believe in the injection. They got their fifth shot recently, and they plan to get more.
When I asked them why they were confident that their IgG4 antibody levels would return to normal (and not remain elevated as in the typical AIDS patient), they had no idea what I was talking about.
Of course they wouldn’t know. Twitter censored all that information.
Oh, and my friends also had no idea that the government was censoring people on the internet.
Many of the most prominent doctors of the world were censored, including even a Nobel Prize winner who warned against taking an experimental injection whose long term effects were (and are) unknown.
We’ll know more about the health impacts in ten years.
Maybe the IgG4 antibody levels will return to normal levels in the injected. Who knows?
The government won’t tell you, and neither will Big Tech.
It’s a public-private partnership. “Public-private” is a smiley face description of fascism.
As the judges note, censoring people was ALREADY part of the rules at these social media platforms.
In other words, it’s all manipulation, all lies, all omissions, all controlled speech . . . to make you do what they want.
One thing they want . . . and we know because they have been telling us for decades . . . is a smaller world population.
One thing they want . . . . . . is a smaller world population.
Well then, they can extinguish themselves prematurely if they feel so strongly about it.
Retired Magistrate here: I am surprised that the case got this far since the Plaintiff’s argued that the regulation of speech didn’t harm them but that of “regular Americans.”
The Supreme Court could have refused to take the case based on lack of standing; however, this way they can deal with it and in all probability rule in favor of the government due to the Attorney General of Louisiana’s own admission that it was not their own speech that was impacted but those of third parties.
who overturns SC rulings? besides the We the People route.
Just ignore them?
or congress agrees with them and acts like they must follow the ruling