The Supreme Court rejected the standing of the State of Missouri and five individuals in the censorship and free speech case surrounding social media. The court came down with a 6-3 decision, Justice Amy Coney-Barrett writing the majority opinion. Justices Alito, Gorsuch and Thomas dissented in the minority.
The background of the case was very familiar to this audience, as the Biden administration was previously blocked by lower courts from telling social media platforms to remove content against their interests. Today, the Supreme Court rejected the standing of the plaintiffs, essentially giving a green light to the USA government to begin controlling social media platforms again.
If you read the opinion [FULL PDF HERE], I would strongly urge readers to focus beginning on page #11 of the Justice Barrett opinion. It is obvious in the three or four pages that follow, the court was looking for an exit from the free speech issue. Denying the case on “standing” grounds became their justification for the cop-out.
Barrett goes out of her way to make the standing issue the crux of the majority opinion. Comey-Barrett dismisses all the instances of censorship and coerced removal under the auspices that the relief sought by the plaintiffs was for future harm, not past injury. The lower courts had ruled the government could not interfere with speech in the future, without establishing that each individual plaintiff was harmed specifically by each action of the government.
Social media platforms did some censorship and content removal on their own, without government direction. Therefore, it becomes impossible for the court to determine which censorship decisions were made by government coercion, and which were made by the social media platform with ordinary moderation rules being applied. {pdf page #11}
Just because some of the removal was done at the direction of government, doesn’t mean all of the activity was done at the direction of government, and therefore the plaintiff standing is undetermined as a result of the lack of uniformity. [WATCH THIS ASPECT CLOSELY, because CTH already predicted this was going to happen (¹I’ll come back to it)]….
As noted by Jeff Clark, “In effect, the Supreme Court majority is requiring government-private partnerships aimed at censorship to overlap entirely. If there are situations where private censorship predates and or postdates government calls for censorship, then the majority is saying the actions should be treated as independent and therefore to frustrate satisfaction of the causation and redressability prongs of standing analysis. And the Supreme Court majority did this even where they simultaneously acknowledged there was evidence of government collusion with Big Tech to censor COVID-related and 2020 election-related speech.”
Justice Samuel Alito Jr, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch, dissented. Alito criticized the majority for failing to address the underlying free speech questions in the case, calling efforts by the government to police content “coercion.”
The court “shirks that duty and thus permits the successful campaign of coercion in this case to stand as an attractive model for future officials who want to control what the people say, hear and think,” Alito wrote. “That is regrettable.”
¹We keep saying in the Government censorship 2.0 model we were going to see a shift. The original censorship removal was going to shift away from “content” as defined by the subject matter and will resurface as censorship against the specific individual person or outlet. This Supreme Court decision aligns with that visible DHS intention.
This case is part of the reason why DHS shifted from censorship based on what was being said (ex COVID-19), and now focuses on who is saying it. How big is their influence? What is the size of their audience? What is their platform? Where are they vulnerable or fragile?
The targeting is not necessarily the subject matter; now it’s the person or outlet with the voice that spreads the subject matter. This is what has already started to happen, and this is the approach that will continue to happen – only at a faster pace and larger scale.
It is even more critical now to show support to the entities that are at the forefront of the information network. We must support the voices that are digging, sharing, providing the raw material information and analyzing the ramifications, so that an understanding expands the awakening.
Those voices who provide truthful information… information that enlarges the understanding of the average person… are going to be the biggest targets now. DHS will shift away from spider crawls looking for “keywords” and “phrases,” and they will specifically be using AI to look for context within the content.
Accurate context with accurate content will be information most perceived as against the interest of government.
The First Amendment is now null and void.
They wormed their way out of it.
Worms gotta worm. It’s who they are and what they do. 😠
So if no citizen has “standing” on this bedrock First Amendment, who, pray tell, does?
I’m just numb now…
Let’s see what happens with Alex Berenson’s case before we throw a funeral.
They won’t take it if lower courts rule against him. They’ll find a way not to address the merits of it. And I’m not so sure Roberts and Barrett wouldn’t approve the censorship at issue there. Appoint a Karen to the court and get Karen-like rulings.
Do not comply.
Right , just like the left. Since when did they accept a SC decision they did not like. Just ignore it.
Proving that our current government is repeating the same way King George used ‘law and the courts’ to attempt the colonial people of America to submit.
Chief Justice Hutchinson approved the writs that John Adams later ranked as the #1 reason for the revolution. Sons of Liberty have been suggested to be behind his home later being destroyed by a mob, but the result was a loss of respect for the court.
The loss of respect for intuitions is escalating for good reason.
Suns. Of Liberty. Let’s include the girls this time!!!
Actually there was also the ‘daughters’ who took pride in wearing homespun rather than buying the imports from Britain.
If homespun holds a full clip I’m all for it
In the New York City Assembly, there were two “Sons of Liberty” factions: the Livingstonites and the De Lanceyites. McDougall was a member of the Livingstonites.
The Battle of Golden Hill – Six Weeks Before the Boston Massacre
https://allthingsliberty.com/2014/10/the-battle-of-golden-hill-six-weeks-before-the-boston-massacre/
“The Constitution… meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other.
“But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.”
–Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804
They need to be questioned, doubted and audited regularly. No agency deserves blind trust.
escalating
“Thousands of constituents have addressed me…”
https://rumble.com/v53rbvr-rep.-tim-burchett-suggests-trump-should-dismantle-federal-agencies.html
Memorial for Scot who came to shape US history
“There is here an amazing story, of a boy from Islay who in his twenties became the captain of two privateering warships, was afterwards a successful New York merchant, and, when the revolutionary tide started to flow, was a key agitator and street leader whose provocative essay led to a jail term for libel and turned him into a hero in Britain’s 13 American colonies.”
“A brave soldier and a disinterested patriot.” – George Washington
https://www.scotsman.com/news/memorial-for-scot-who-came-to-shape-us-history-1658386
Barrett is a pro-life statist. But a statist. That was evident from her judicial history.
Roberts is compromised. Seizures and adoptions.
And Kavanaugh is a sniveling weakling.
The Court now has a 6-3 liberal majority.
Accurate.
“And Kavanaugh is a sniveling weakling.”
YES HE IS!!!!!
100% correct.
Should have been Judges Larsen and Hanen instead.
Never vote for or promote a man who cries under pressure.
I agree but they effectively castrated him in those hearings
Not possible. Kavanaugh never had balls to begin with.
The Adam Kinzinger of the court?
His display was utterly pathetic. I realized then that he was a very bad choice.
It was a close call between her and Barbara Lagoa!!! They should have picked Lagoa because she didn’t spend YEARS in academia!!! 😝
Or pick a man who didn’t go to ivy league schools.
Yes, yes, and yes!! Gorsuch was the only decent jurist DJT was allowed to pick!
And he is ‘an elite”
Non Indians in Oklahoma might have a different opinion of Gorsuch. He sided with the left in McGirt and threw eastern Oklahoma into chaos.
Kavanaugh is that dweeb who got picked on in Jr. High. The dweeb everyone wanted to punch.
“sniveling weakling”
Exactly so! Kavanaugh was gutless even before he got Mau Maued by the DemocRat mobs during his confirmation hearings. His cowardice is written all over his vapid face.
*Mau Maued*
Excellent , Spooky 😁😄👍
SCOTUS mistakenly posted a draft of an opinion!
“mistakenly”
yeah, sure
Who believes that? This is a Roberts court. Integrity is subordinate to politics.
How could those who were directly censored, as revealed by actual company documents, NOT have standing???
They are suing to prevent future censoring without proof that they would be censored in the future. They should have sued for past censoring.
That’s like rejecting Oliver Brown because he couldn’t prove that Linda Brown would be discriminated against in the future.
Correct, and on the fundamental issue of free speech and the prohibition that the federal goervnment not interfere with it at all.
So the States have no standing? Patently absurd
Thank you for outlining this new approach, not so much the content as those with voices big enough to grab the attention of their content.
Now we see if Mr. Musk really is all about freedom of speech or if it will be private blogs like this and places like Rumble where speech can remain free.
Mr Musk isn’t the hero people think. There was a HUGE purge of small accounts last night. I was one of them. I only have maybe 600-1000 people following me. I never post just sometimes respond or repost. This morning my account was suspended. I could appeal but good luck with that. I have a back up and went on and see it was MASSIVE the purging….apparently they are putting them back on but I am doubtful. I suspect someone went in and did a search of all 500-1500 accounts with flags or something in their bio and just deleted them. Someone made a comment “isn’t it funny when these ‘gliches’ happen it is always to conservative accounts? I envision this happening more and more to keep any type of information of people with influence, etc.
I agree; and should have put the /s for snark after that second sentence.
I heard that many who have lost their account last night are starting to get their accounts reinstated, but that might only be for the bigger accounts that were able to make enough noise on X to get them restored.
Also heard about the mass purging of followers, some lost over 5,000 followers in one sweep, again, some are saying that they are surprised to see those numbers replaced just as swiftly.
Someone’s playing games for sure.
:). sorry just bitter betty today because I had SOO many bookmarked/saved things that are now in the ether. Teach me to trust social media. Lesson learned…
If there was a Standing issue, why TF did the court accept the case in the first place? I thought 4 judges had to agree to accept the case before it could be heard by the court?
The women are pliable and lack courage, all six of them.
Well done, Chieftain!
I literally said the same thing today. Why? they never heard any of the election cases, why even hear it??
It is not often that a judge issues a nationwide restriction on governmental speech going forward for a timespan of years.
I don’t like what they did with it, but I understood why they took it. At least, the surface reason for doing that.
Wonder what was happening being the scenes while this case was tied up in court.
Is this ruling a backdoor way to control websites/internet?
The regime already controls social media regardless of the outcome from SCOTUS.
The only constitutional justices on the Supreme Court are Thomas and Alito.
Yes but worse – they will go after the people. Support Sundance.
“It is even more critical now to show support to the entities that are at the forefront of the information network. We must support the voices that are digging, sharing, providing the raw material information and analyzing the ramifications so that an understanding expands the awakening.”
Is this correct?
https://truthsocial.com/@DC_Draino/112683461085694331
Would be great if it is!
Alex Berenson’s case has yet to be decided and stands a better chance on 1st Amendment grounds for past violations, not future ones.
👍
Alex Berenson also has a case against Biden et al for his censorship during covid and he has the standing and particulars.
https://x.com/AlexBerenson/status/1806003086311239746
That’s similar to what I posted….further down….
While this is true, it just means that the plaintiffs will have to spend that much more time, effort, and $$$ before “SCOTUS will likely get further involved down the <long, twisted, expensive> road”. And then there’s still the good chance they will “split the baby” anywho.
Litigation often goes on for 5 to 10 years, in any case that goes up to SCOTUS and then back down. Very rarely is any outcome quick.
This is true.
And down the road they’ll find some exception that allows censorship.
I’ve read similar opinions today. Plus, the plaintiffs seem determined to persevere.
Yes. This isn’t a final ruling on the subject.
It’s painfully obvious that “no standing” = “I’m afraid of the US Intel apparatus.”
Apparently, the majority of the SCOTUS took Chuckie Schumer’s recent past threat about the potential “whirlwind” seriously.
SCOTUS seems to use a lack of standing to dispose of messy opinions. The last time I remember them using is was that Trump did not have standing to challenge a crooked election. Maybe the death threats from the Left are working.
My feeling at this point is that they get what they deserve. The dems will stack the court with so many that they will wind up in the dust bin of history. And so deserved. None are patriots. The continual “punting” of standing is crap. I am now really fearful for the Fischer and immunity cases. I believe they are purposefully holding on to them until after the debate so that DJT can be called “felon” repeatedly …shameful.
“Lack of standing” is their firewall. It’s like the DOJ’s “ongoing investigation”.
Yes they are cowards.
They’re all linguini-spined useless Cowards except for Alito and Thomas.
ADMINISTRATORS ON THIS VERY SITE WERE HEAD OVER HEELS FOR AMY PHONY BARRETT.
THEY IGNORED REPEATED POSTINGS HERE OF ATTORNEY ROBERT BARNES WARNINGS ABOUT BARRETT.
BARNES SAID SHE WAS PRO-BIG GOVERNMENT AND PROVIDED CASE AFTER CASE SHOWING SHE ALWAYS VOTED FOR BIG GOVERNMENT.
HIS WARNINGS FELL ON DEAF EARS AND NOW WE ALL PAY THE PRICE FOR THE ASTONISHING HUBRIS OF A FEW.
Your CAPS LOCK is stuck
WHAT? I DON’T UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU… oh, whoops, sorry my earplugs were in
The blame goes to Mitch the turtle. Period.
I don’t recall being given a vote on Amy Barrett’s confirmation. Were the admins here given a vote? If so, your rant may be justified. If not, you are upset with the wrong folks.
There was a LOT of discussion regarding Amy Coney Barrett when she was being confirmed… both for and against, so I don’t understand why you are dissing CTH.
Also, it is SENATORS WHO CONFIRM THE NOMINATED JUSTICES. We the People have no say in such things other than voting for representatives and senators.
And the Senators could not care less about our thoughts on any subject. They are working for the United nations and not for US or the United States of America
Methinks you doth protest too loudly.
Your post has all “the earmarks of Russian troll disinformation”!
<sly chuckles>
It’s a miracle, I can see again!!
FDR ordered NBC to stop Eddie Rickenbacker from criticizing him and his administration over the airwaves.
Rickenbacker believed FDR to be a communist, and he was not shy about voicing his opinion, which carried a lot of weight due to Rickenbacker’s well-deserved respect and popularity.
btw, FDR was the first president to sic the IRS on political opponents. I think the Pierce Tire Company owner was one of them.
“The media and political establishment hated Nixon for his lead role in nailing Alger Hiss as a Soviet spy and in blistering its New Deal heroes as witless dupes of Joseph Stalin.”
–Pat Buchanan
“This New Deal army of political appointees is the American form of the Praetorian Guard of Ancient Rome. That political band had exactly similar habits in making elections foolproof. They were also active in the decline and fall of the morals of the Roman Empire.
“We have, however, improved the Roman practice. Our three to four hundred thousand of New Deal political employees are the officers of an army of ten million voters who receive benefits from the government.”
–Herbert Hoover, Morals in Government (Addresses 1938-1940)
Trump should have never picked Amy Coney Barrett. She’s a liberal out of the New Orleans area.
Thank the Federalist Society for giving him his picks.
We still have WAY too many Deep State people in his midst.
The only ones I know who aren’t are some of us on this site and we have no access to him.
The NOTRE DAME LAW SCHOOL Connection WAS my tell.
VERY FEW TRADITIONAL / ORGINALIST Views of the Constitution OR Faith are coming out of that University Now.
Collar up you old bitties
Gee, it’s almost like the SCOTUS wants the government to be in complete control over everything we say or do.
It’s like the continuity of government theory vis a vis the Patriot Act. Basically, we like it this way and its that way because we say so. They ran away from the First Amendment….which was a promise to the States in order for them to ratify the Constitution. Broken promise. Non-nuclear broken arrow.
When the courts simply rule to consolidate the tyranny then we clearly don’t have a rule of law.
If they keep this up the normies will notice.
in all fairness, even if the Court voted in favor of 1A, the social media sites would still be willing participants in the censorship and unpersoning.
The interesting point I found is that the government openly admitted that they “did not imply any legal consequences” for ignoring their censorship demands. Which, in some way, perhaps provides a new open window for anyone who may feel brave enough to give ’em the proverbial finger…
The First Amendment of the USA Constitution calls for Americans to have the rite to Free Speech.
End of.
Well, only if they have standing!
By the way, isn’t that discriminatory against disabled people who can’t stand?
<big sigh>
Does this ruling have any effect on the criticism of the fraudulent 2020 election and the injurious often deadly mRNA experimental shots mislabeled as a a vaccine posted here on this site? Just wondering?
If it affects you as a United States citizen, then you have standing. No standing is how they punted all the disputes of the 2020 election-the most secure in history (TM).
SCOTUS=Cowards. Or blackmailed by the FBI, CIA. God bless Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch for not caving.
Abdicated their authority that day.
The more the SCROTUS (and its Chief Richard) work to keep it relevant and respected, the more it becomes neither.
excellently said
McConnell’s “conservative” court in action.
Very simple solution: “Don’t use ‘social media!'”
I never have. Just as, when I walk into a hotel room, I immediately turn the television off and never turn it on again.
Likewise: “there is no ‘television’ in my house,” and there hasn’t been one in more than thirty years. (I don’t miss it.)
Life Lesson #1: “Don’t allow ‘anyone else‘ to tell you what to think.”
Equal Life Lesson #2: “Never believe anyone who tells you what ‘everyone else thinks.'” Don’t be a sheep. You have a mind of your own, if you care to use it. 🤡
I stopped watching TV when the original Twilight Zone went off the air.
Serling was trying to warn the audience about encroaching communism in his stories.
Mike, you just posted on “social media.”
“First they came for the social media, and I did not speak out—Because I wasn’t using social media. “
“Myspace is more open then facebook… The American government is saying no more MySpace.”
–Tom Anderson
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/112084309842190820
The 2024 Steal kicked off today. It’s a grim, inch-by-inch battle. But we must engage.
Make Democracy Fake Again
Wren: AZ Key Fob Thief Under Investigation For Theft At AZ Senate Building A Week Prior
https://rumble.com/v53wnl0-wren-az-key-fob-thief-under-investigation-for-theft-at-az-senate-building-a.html
Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/ FASH-iz-əm) is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement,[1][2][3] characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.
I think fascism is really a left wing ideology (like some derivation of socialism). Its on the right side of the left wing. But they’ve corrupted that to be “right wing,” when really its “right of left wing.” Anyone have any reading regarding this?
I understand the purpose of your comment however. The bold part is very apt here.
Right or left extreme regimes are not opposites. They are both Totalitarian regimes. The opposite of Totalitarianism is Freedom.
GOOD ARTICLE HERE and a USEFUL CHART by Dr Snyder !
https://ponderingprinciples.com/tag/political-spectrum/
Ah, awesome. This is kind of what I was trying to say.
“The bureaucracy is the state.” – Benito Mussolini
https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/the-original-fascist/
Standing – The Judicial Escape Clause
The usual suspects, Roberts, Barrett and Kavanaugh, relied on the weaselly fallback excuse of “standing”. This has happened before IIRC. It’s going to be interesting to see how Alex Berenson’s case fares.
And I’m supposedly the black pill hustler here.
If 2 of the 3 Trump picks are this useless, what are you clinging to? This whole court construct is a painful sham. It’s NOT WORKING and it never will unless we’re all in the same moral space.
What are we predicting with the presidential immunity argument? Same split most likely. This is how thoughtful Amy establishes independence from her nominating president.
I will not be surprised if the SCROTUS throws the President Trump under the bus.
I see what you did there.
I am thinking if they vote against the Presidential Immunity, that is a dog that will eventually bite it’s owner. I mean have there have been crimes committed by other presidents?
There have been crimes committed by past Presidents.
A notable one is cases of drone strikes directed by Zero that killed US citizens in the middle east without due process.
Clinton? Some incident with a rocket launch in China comes to mind involving a Lorel satellite launch and technology transfer.
That’s only a couple of examples I could think of.
Amy Coney Barrett was obviously a Deep State plant. Well done, CIA, FBI. She totally acted the role of the Christian mother and wife, even adopting children “of color” to check more boxes.
Funny that: during her confirmation hearings, the DEMS never torched her. Yes, there were underpinnings of the Dem constituents after her selection regarding “handmaiden’s tale” (or whatever it’s called).
I pray that is the last time we let McTurtle screw the MAGAs.
So how are the internet platforms not responsible for content (slander) when they can/do/will control speech regardless of who suggested, implied, or demanded they not allow “some” activities content on their platform for political reasons.. asking for my cousin..
Why didn’t the prosecutors sue for what did happen instead of what might happen.. that’s like mind reading without a face to gaze upon..
American government used to at least pretend to bust up monopolies. BigTech is a behemoth information monopoly created by the deepstate/IC.
No light shines between BigTech, BigGovernment, WEF, Blackrock, and the moneychangers.
Neofascism. Sundance covered it all in today’s inflation article.
“Fascist governments collapsed, and the corporate beneficiaries were nulled and scorned. Then along came a new approach to achieve the same objective.
The World Economic Forum (WEF) was created to use the same fundamental associations of government and corporations. Only this time the corporations organized to tell the governments what to do. The WEF was organized for multinational corporations to assemble and tell the various governments how to cooperate to achieve control.
Fascism is still the underlying premise, the WEF just flipped the internal dynamic.
The assembly of the massive multinational corporations, banks and finance offices now summon the government leaders to come to their assembly and receive their instructions. Some have called this corporatism.
However, the relationship between government and multinationals is just fascism essentially reversed with the government doing what the corporations tell them to do.”
Some other issues. I’m not a lawyer…just reading the words. As Bongino is often want to say “the courts aren’t going to save you.”
And,
More SCROTUS hope porn would be my answer.
After the social media was staffed with Democratic aligned employees at the highest levels, the amount of coercion became irrelevant.
What still remains relevant is Color of Law criminality exhibited by these control freaks in stifling the speech of others.
And this will continue until those who are actually imposing that control get criminally charged.
“Accurate context with accurate content will be information most perceived as against the interest of government.”
I think SD is in their crosshairs.
Time for me to send a donation.
Amy Coney-Barret was a bad joke played by Libertarians on Trump.
The way to correct this is to go the TRUST BUSTING ANTI MONOPOLY ROUTE OF THE early 1900s with Standard Oil and the breakup of Ma Bell in the early 1980s!!! Google shouldn’t own a platform like YOUTUBE!!! 🤔
gutless judges
There is a woman in my church who adopted a little black girl out of foster care and the moral superiority just OOZES out of her…every time I see ACB, I get that same sense of “Look at me – I am SUCH a “good” person”!
I hear you loud and clear, Mom.
I remember in Justice Two Names’ confirmation hearing, one RINO senator (small “s”) asked her to show him her notes as she rattled off cases. Can’t remember which one.
Justice Two Names held up a blank sheet of paper. All from memory.
Impressive…
Except that there was a look on her face that seemed to me to be triumphal arrogance. That’s how it struck me…and it bothered me on a level I can’t explain.
When I see her, I always remember that.
You are an absolute star, Val!
Exactly as I remembered!
Thank you! 😘👍🏻
Same thing with Tranny kids, oh look at me how noble and woke I am. A form of Munchausen by proxy.
Alito and Thomas are good, the others are human crap, bought and sold COWARDS!
I haven’t given up hope on Gorsuch. He has come through in hard times.
I am beginning to think that women do not belong on the Supreme Court. There is a seeming unwillingness to engage in tough decisions, but rather choose a course of avoiding controversy. Reportedly Barrett did not want to take the case that overruled Roe v. Wade, making me wonder if this generalization might not have some validity.
Woman here. I wouldn’t object to that. Take away the vote while you are at it. I would gladly give up my vote if it meant these emotional suburban virtue signaling Taylor Swift listing women get to either….
Yep. Makes me sick to hear grown women fawning over her.
PS I am a woman also.
I agree. Here’s one of the best articles I’ve read on the women’s vote…
https://www.barnhardt.biz/2024/03/08/apparently-today-is-international-womens-day-or-some-such-nonsense-which-means-that-im-morally-obliged-to-repost-my-essay-on-the-societal-cancer-that-is-womens-suffrage/
This was interesting article. There is a flaw to her argument though. In the second paragraph, Ann Barnhardt writes “Up until women’s suffrage, a man was the head of his marriage and his household, and his vote represented not just himself but his entire family, including his wife and his children.” A woman who remains single her entire life is not represented. You may say, that’s a calculated choice on the part of such a woman. I suppose it is, but I’m not sure its wise to encourage a man and a woman who don’t love each other to marry. What’s worse though, is the household in which the husband and father dies. That’s not a choice on the part of the woman. And now that household is no longer represented.
I understand that as an admin you’ve got lots of comments to read and whatnot so I’m not expecting you to respond. But I enjoyed the article you linked. It is good food for thought.
May as well take away the black vote too then…Or maybe its a bad precedent to start removing the vote from individuals because you disagree with who they have voted for. I understand the sentiment. But what does that say? You don’t believe in people voting. You only believe in them voting if they vote the same as you. That seems like “censorship” to me.
You don’t believe in people voting either, do you?
Which of the following would you have voting?
a) 16 year olds?
b) 10 year olds?
c) permanent resident aliens?
d) visitors to our country?
e) illegal aliens?
c) dementia patients?
d) criminals in prison?
e) people too lazy to register vote so they are automatically registered?
f) felons?
g) people too lazy to go and vote so their ballots must be mailed to them and collected?
h) people under the influence of drugs or alcohol?
Democracies fail. They do so because of the emotions of the mob. Our founders knew this and that is why they designed a republic. We need educated and informed voters who are making rational decisions.
It would not be a bad thing to require people to be self-supporting to vote. At one time people needed to own property; maybe it would be a good thing if people dependent on the government for their food and shelter could not vote during their dependency.
What about land owners?
First of all, I want to acknowledge that I misread your original comment. I thought you mentioned taking the vote away from women as well. I guess I read yours and Michele’s comments as one.
To answer your question, No, because:
a) Not legally an adult
b) Not legally an adult
c) Not a citizen (I’m well aware of the cheating that involves these people voting)
d) Not a citizen
e) Not a citizen (Again, well aware this happens)
c) (Bit ironic this was labelled c again lol) Not of sound mind. I don’t know if this has been defined legally tho
d) Not living in society. Also a consequence for harming society
e) Voting begets responsibility and effort on the part of the voter. Registering takes very minimal effort.
f) Simple consequence for harming society
g)Again, voting requires minimal responsibility on the part of the voter. Also massive security concerns with this.
h) Same as the dementia answer. Not of sound mind
So yes, I don’t believe in people voting if they are not adult, never convicted, United States Citizens of sound mind who are willing to vote in the manner that promotes the most electoral security. (Obviously none of this is followed).
I suppose people would argue that women are not of sound mind to vote? I don’t know. It has always seemed to me that people only make this argument because women tend to vote for the left. As in, people only have a problem with it because they disagree with how women vote.
I agree with your entire final paragraph. I hope my previous comments haven’t implied the opposite. That’s not what I was going for.
There’s never been a good one, that’s for sure. As a group, women are against individual rights and for authoritarian government.
Wash, rinse, spin, repeat … same excuse in Trump’s cases, nothing on the merit, all on standing … lame
Clarence Darrow could have argued the case and he would have lost. Politics plus SCOTUS=Politics
“Supreme Court green lights Trump Administration’s ability to force social media to only carry the approved MAGA message”?
Hardly. A switch is flipped and they do a 180. It’s all verbal garbage
I am all for packing the court, but with justices the likes of Thomas and Alito. Let’s get this party started!
I think these Justices are scared of the mob. Are they still protesting at their houses?
Absolutely shameful that Barrett didn’t consider the CONSTITUTION and the rights of We the People. The very First Amendment has just been trashed. What is next?
They already trashed the second amendment. I don’t know why that did not get any attention. They said that someone accused of domestic abuse could be denied their second amendment rights…does not anyone else see the incrementalism that is characteristic of Roberts leading to the destruction of the second amendment. The left will keep expanding this…no uproar except in my head.
Notice how the nine justices reflect the politics of the USA. Three Democrats who put PARTY first, three conservatives who put country first and three uniparty establishment “Republicans” who are weak and feckless and put themselves first.
For those who don’t know my rule…
Democrats put PARTY uber alles , self second and to hell with the country. They never break ranks.
Republicans put SELF first and to hell with the party AND the country. They always cave or sell out.
Just because some of the removal was done at the direction of government, doesn’t mean all of the activity was done at the direction of government, and therefore the plaintiff standing is undetermined as a result of the lack of uniformity.
So…Some censorship by the gov is OK? Is this really the best we can come up with for the Supreme Court?
Say it with me. Rule of Law in this country is dead.
WHY this person? Why?
Benjamin Aguiñaga, Louisiana Solicitor General argued for the States and Individuals, a rookie lawyer who was still clerking in 2019 to the Supreme Court. The guy never even presented the political aspects of the censorship.
.
Section 230 needs to be substantially overhauled, and these huge internet platforms must be defined as “common carriers”.
Barrett is bad news. She epitomizes the very short-sighted result that ensues when anti-abortion absolutists make that issue their litmus test for support or opposition, damn everything else. Thus we put an anti-abortion liberal on the Supreme Court.
.
” Thus we put an anti-abortion liberal on the Supreme Court. ”
GOOD DESCRIPTION.
i Wrote Something Similar above about Her being Faculty at Notre Dame Law School as BEING my tell.
In addition to the substance of the decision, the case shows that the Court does not have the will to take on the issues that the Left is running roughshod with. Kicking the can down the road by ducking the issue via “lack of standing” is the Dred Scott of our time. I am very concerned about the J6 and Immunity decisions that are supposed to drop in the next two days.
me too
This is not the LAST Time the Supreme Court will see a case on this matter, however, I expect the NEXT time, it will be of such a magnitude of this, that Justice Barret will sit down and shut up and let the critical thinkers on the Court have the final word.
They will regret this sooner rather than later.
Just a year ago the Supreme Court ruled that states don’t have standing to challenge Biden immigration policy, no matter that Biden’s policies have a very real negative effect on all states. Where the hell do these justices think these illegals are being sent?
Standing seems to be the feckless way out for the usual 3 – Roberts, Barrett, and Kavanaugh.
But I bet they would allow standing for an illegal who brought a suit before the court.
A bit of a nothingburger ruling?
If – as being a person with desire of publishing your personal opinion – if you yourself DO NOT host the server / platform but CHOOSE to use a 3rd party platform to voice your opinion, then it should not be a suprise that 3rd party platform can decide to not help you publish your opinion.
I do not think its a God given right to coerce anyone to work on behalf of publishing what you have to say.
You can say free speech things, but publishing it on a platform world wide is a separate issue IMHO.
There is a first amendment to voice your opinion, but not sure if the 1st amendment can force another party to publish your opinion verbatim.
In any case, if not the first amendment any of those 100 pages in the EULA you happily pressed “ACCEPT” to could probably contain a rule that prevents it.
Now if a DNS provider would take down your privately hosted site, that’s different.
Or if Cloudflare would start selectively blocking access to sites.
Those cases are more clear cut then say a post on Twitter or Farcebook.
From what I think of it anyway.
I think what you are missing in your analysis is that the main “town square ” platforms as they existed until recently (Facebook, Twitter) were and remain government created, government run, and government funded. Facebook is just DARPA’S Lifelog renamed.
Our tax dollars built that platform in order to lure people into assisting the government build out its databases and, especially, facial recognition AI learning.
The upper echelons of Facebook, Google, etc are replete with CIA, FBI, and almost certainly intelligence officers of other countries (China, Israel). Twitter is running its identity verification through an Israeli intelligence service cut out.
It is almost impossible to come up with a workable First Amendment framework until that truth is recognized and dealt with.
It was very interesting to learn that so many Ex-FIB Agents work/ed at Twitter now X. Does one ever really leave that organization?
I think the issue here is not so much censorship of the individual poster, rather its the ability of government agencies using intimidation to use social media to lie to their employers.
Bingo
@ “Interested Patriot” perhaps you are being dishonest with us.
You are arguing that a commercial entity does not have an obligation to allow/enforce free speech.
But that’s not what was argued in this case, it was whether federal government coerced private entities to abridge the free speech. And that was clearly the case.
The SCOTUS majority did not even argue that this was not the case.
They just basically said that Fed government can coerce private organization to abridge free speech of citizens. And that’s clearly against the first Amendment
” Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. “
The Court used their current weasel clause ‘Standing’, to sidestep the 1st Amendment completely. They used this (standing/no standing) on the 2020 election too, the Court doesn’t want to rule against our government.
Before my wife told me about this decision, she knew I’d be upset.
She said, ‘You better sit down…no standing.’
Does anyone have any standing any more?
Retired Magistrate here: Yes, the government.
And that brings up a rather interesting point. If the Supreme Court can use the concept of whether or not “standing” is applicable, can Congress or the Executive branch use the same principle in regards to the states, the citizens, or even the Supreme Court rulings?
Can Congress or the President tell the Supreme court it does not have standing? If not, why not? Aren’t they suppose to be “equal” branches?
Maybe more important, can We The People apply that same concept of “no standing” to any or all of the 3 (or 4-the IC) branches of our government?
What a fascinating turn “our” government has taken. I’d like to think that We The People are slowly but surely waking up to the realization of the necessity of it being ‘our turn’ to decide who and what has standing in America.
“Can Congress or the President tell the Supreme court it does not have standing”
It seems to me that FJB has essentially said this to the SC regarding Student Loan Debt and the Southern Border.
When the People no longer trust the fakery we will be a failed experiment.
Barrack Obama has standing.
Is that not the definition of a tyranny? A regime where only the government has standing under the law.
Only illegal immigrants are guaranteed to have standing in every federal court!
All depends on the quantity of donation and the politician that got it.
Standing is a legal fiction which the courts routinely abuse. The standard is not defined in any objective manner. Everything about it is subjective. They often cite absence of “demonstrable harm” or a person not being party to something here or there. For example, a voter often doesn’t have standing when he is denied the right to vote.
In short, “standing” invariably means “we don’t want to address this case and we don’t want to tell you why.”
I smell the IC all over this particular ruling. After all, isn’t it the IC directing these proxy entities to do things which they are expressly forbidden to do?
“No standing” was ruling against Texas and 17 other states for calling into question the validity of the 2020 election. Soon there will be “no standing” on all border issues.
As long as you don’t take it ‘lieing’ down!
To my understanding, the initial hurdle of any case is whether or not the case has “standing”.
Yes or no. Like a go/no go gauge…
Or a flow chart diagnosis…
“No standing” = Stop right there.
Anything after is irrelevant {in the course of law}
My two cents….
Trust God. Fear not.
Freedom of speech but not freedom of reach, eh?
The 3rd party platform is the government
Keep saying that Sundance because people don’t believe it, yet.
Remember they tried to kill you with the clot shot. They lied about that. What else are they lying about? The food pyramid? The value of vaccinations. The Amish don’t have the autism most of America does, they have other issues from inbreeding but not that one. The Ukraine war? The GDP, the transitory inflation…etc.
You’re a filthy troll if you do NOT understand that the government cannot direct private entities to act on their behalf to do things which are expressly forbidden by the constitution. SCOTUS has ruled as such in the past.
That said, there is only a common standard called “standing” but it is not officially defined in law. That’s something which needs to be remedied. The claim of standing or no-standing is SUBJECTIVE and not an objective standard in the least. But then again the legal fiction of “qualified immunity” persists as well but I digress.
It is very plain that the government is not allowed to violate the first amendment protected speech of the people. It’s in the constitution. SCOTUS rulings have established that the government may NOT circumvent the rights of the people through proxy which is what we have when government acts “through” private entities.
This subject of “standing” is muddied further by the justices’ imaging that “harm” must be demonstrated. It only has to be demonstrated that their rights were violated. “Harm” does not need to be something measured in money or in terms of damages. It’s ridiculous on its face. It would be like the government denying someone their right to bear arms and then ruling “no standing” because no monetary harm could be measured by the government’s actions. The first and second amendments are written clearly and simply so as not to be misinterpreted. Still people get it wrong.
And the stale-assed argument you put forward of “a private company blah blah blah” completely fails here because the claim was the government acting through proxy while you PRETEND you don’t know this. While you pretend the government had nothing to do with outside entities acting on the demand of government. And let’s be VERY clear. Government doesn’t “ask.”
For example, the IRS hides behind certain exemptions of filing documents being “required” by claiming to the courts that filing with the IRS is a voluntary act. If filing taxes was truly voluntary, then why are people prosecuted for failing to file?
Let’s stop pretending. That’s probably THE most important message coming from Sundance and The Conservative Treehouse. STOP PRETENDING asshole.
“government cannot direct private entities”
Unless of course you live in a Fascist country. Fascism or Corporatism = government and corporations control the government. The United States has certainly become a Fascist country by allowing corporate lobbying.
”There are $Trillions at stake”
” STOP PRETENDING asshole.”
I was liking your post right up to your last sentence.
You’d love it if Trump said it. Just saying.
You are incorrect.
Adam Kinzinger is that you?
You, as did the Court, completely misunderstand the issue as you misunderstand the 1st amendment.. The 1st amendment is a restriction on government which was defined for the stated purpose of clarifying and further restricting the powers previously granted to the federal with the ratification of the Constitution. The proper understanding is that the federal government can only do those things it is explicitly authorized to do and is explicitly enjoined from doing anything else. Congress cannot pass a law restricting speech. It cannot fund restrictions. Accordingly, the executive branch cannot spend a penny restricting speech. Therefore any effort undertaken by a government agent to restrict speech is a violation of the lawful restraints on the federal government. It certainly should not be necessary to identify a particular victim, or require actual harm, when the only question is whether the government agent acted beyond the bounds of powers granted to them. It is improper for the Court to consider whether a particular victim can be identified and associated harm attached. The abuse of power is the harm and every individual is the victim.
Well stated, thank you!
It is discrimination to only publish “some” opinions verbatim in a free public forum while excluding others because of “who you are” or if there is a set algorithm to exclude certain individual reach. Then it is propaganda.