Supreme Court Dealt Free Speech A Blow In “The Worst Possible Way”
My appearance on the Jesse Kelly Show talking about the Supreme Court ruling in Murthy v. Missouri, the social media censorship case.
I appeared on the Jesse Kelly show today on the First TV to talk about the Supreme Court decision in the social media censorship case.
We talked about the ruling, the implications, and the DC effect on Justices.
I don’t have an embeddable video or transcript yet, but you can view my appearance by clicking on the image below (opens in new window).
[Click on image to view]
"We lost in the worst possible way." @wajacobson didn't hold back in his assessment of the Supreme Court's 6-3 opinion in the case of Murthy v. Missouri, in which censorship prevailed. pic.twitter.com/WJRLJ5C6PJ
— The First (@TheFirstonTV) June 27, 2024
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
So the government is free to coerce (or just ask, if they even have to) social media to censor what they don’t like?
Somehow the SCOTUS deemed this constitutional?
Kinda makes you wonder why the left is always complaining about the SCOTUS; I think it’s packed already, or the members have been cowed by the protests. Same difference.
No, they were too chickenshit to issue a ruling at all, they declared that despite the fact that the plaintiffs proved that the government coerced the companies to censor them (specifically over the rona), they didn’t have ‘standing’.
It’s utterly indefensible legally or constitutionally, so they dodged the issue and effectively gave the government the green light to continue censoring.
Cowards
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and CHD filed a separate lawsuit in the same court as the Missouri plaintiffs because Kennedy and CHD were directly and traceably censored — and continue to be heavily censored.
That case is about to resume in the aftermath of the Supreme Court decision, and they believe it can overcome the weaknesses in the Murthy case.
Let us pray.
It may not. The key here is the platforms are intermediaries. If Facebook, Google, or Twitter sued over being censored, they would have clear standing, but users or third parties do not. You don’t own your facebook page or your twitter posts. You don’t sell advertising on those pages and have no right to the revenue generated unless a contract6 with the platform gives it to you. The issues here are different than with the government censoring a newspaper directly or taking down your personal website. I can understand why SCOTUS was uncomfortable with this case.
Justice Barrett’s opinion takes it for granted that social media platforms do “content moderation.” She doesn’t defend the practice, just acts as though it’s part of the furniture of the universe.
Since the plaintiffs hadn’t sued YouTube and Facebook, the court wasn’t being asked to judge the rightness of content moderation and all the associated practices.
But her handling of the matter is one of the “tells” in that evasive opinion.
For way too long these companies have acted like publishers when it suits them, then denied being publishers when it suits them.
When some outfit like Elsevier agrees to publish your journal article (and takes the copyright), you don’t open an account on Elsevier or get an Elsevier page.
A majority on the Supreme Court desperately wants not to have to deal with this crap.
The problem is that if a social media company sues the Feds, then they’ll have to,
It’s not because that will be a better case for the SC. Roberts et al. still won’t want to take it. I just don’t see how they’ll be able to wriggle out of it with bad arguments about standing.
I wish RFK Jr. and CHD success in their endeavor, but in light of this decision they will almost certainly be determined to lack standing.
The criteria set forth by Amy Coney Barrett in the majority opinion don’t just require proof of past actions to suppress the plaintiff’s posts that can in each instance be tied to a particular communication between a government official and employees of the platform.
They further require proof that such communications and resulting adverse actions are likely in the future.
How does any plaintiff meet that requirement?
I guess a signed and dated note from some Federal official would do it. You know, “We definitely are going to keep coming after you in the future.”
Cowards it’s pretty scary that we can’t trust the SC to rise above politics and he the pillar this Countries needs so badly
Instead, it’s been corrupted
And we are so screwed
President Trump is going to be screwed by these 6 idiots
No, it didn’t deem it constitutional. It wasn’t asked to. It said the plaintiffs didn’t present enough evidence to get a preliminary injunction. Their case continues in the lower courts, and if they find evidence that it’s happening again they can always ask for an injunction then.
True that was the opinion of 6 members of the CT. IMO the better way to view every action of govt which will trample Constitutional rights is to conduct a simple analysis:
1. Is this action ‘feel’ Constitutional at first blush; is it attempting to limit or interfere with individual liberty and individual rights even at secondhand? If so then we should proceed with extreme caution v allowing the train to pull out of the station.
2. Is the action similar to long-standing precedent? A LEO performing a stop and patting down a suspect whom he has actual reasonable suspicion is/has committing a crime v just the suspect seemed suspicious but without any reasonable articulated crime. If not clearly within the pre-existing boundaries of precedent then issue the temp injuction.
3. Does the action directly run afoul of precedent and or is similar enough to prior actions ruled unconstitutional (such as NY State firearm carry/permit shenanigans or Biden student loan drama) IOW no second or third bites at the apple by slightly altering the approach to achieve the same unconstitutional ends.
IMO, In situations like these the Presumption should be to issue an injuction to preclude enforcement and or halt the action until the case has been fully litigated. That viewpoint would preclude a good deal of the current morass of legislation/EO shenanigans form taking effect until the case is concluded. Just my opinion and obviously it is a minority but the proper view of a controversy of individual liberty/rights v govt impeding them is that the govt should have the burden to prove its case in court prior to proceeding.
…correct, but for the wrong reasons. They didn’t toss the injunction, they tossed the entire case due to lack of standing. Which doesn’t mean they called it Constitutional.
But standing’s going to be farking hard to prove, if this case didn’t do it.
Not surprised that Milhouse has the first rational statement on the status of the case. The issue is whether a plaintiff can demonstrate sufficient “traceability” to government actors as to that specific plaintiff. Say, Elvis Chan telling Facebook or X to remove a specific post by that plaintiff.
The rest of the knuckleheads here need to heed Milhouse!
The Great Barrington Declaration waves hello, SHTBH.
I think SCOTUS wants a better clearer case to rule on. I’m sure they will eventually get one. You give government censors an inch and they will take a mile. The next Administration, regardless of who wins, will certainly censor a lot of stuff on social media.
I disagree. If Milhouse says that, I think he’s wrong. The Constitution prohibits certain acts by government. Those acts needn’t be effective or successful to cause harm. The attempt by government to accomplish unconstitutional ends, directly or indirectly, is unlawful, and injures every American’s right to a republican form of government and the rule of law.
It’s my understanding the government in this situation is not arguing they didn’t do what they’ve been accused of doing. They’re arguing they must be allowed to do it for “reasons.” This is inadequate. It must not only have a constitutionally sound purpose, it must also have the authority to apply a particular process toward the realization of that purpose (it must use constitutionally sound processes even to reach constitutionally sound ends). Government isn’t allowed to censor opinions of matters of public interest, so it can’t use censorship to defeat (what it considers) misinformation. It must fight misinformation with better, and more clearly true, information (while being cautious to not lie or propagandize, because do doing decreases the public’s trust in government, and that’s a “harm” to the public too).
This is all due to Donald Trump’s appointments to the Supreme Court. The buck stops with Trump.
Rotwang’s cabana boy checks in again, still bringing Teh Stoopit.
lets keep going with this topic
according to a mom with her 3yo they were kicked off a united flight b/c
according to her she gave/used the wrong pronoun
the airline at this time is using the “immunity” of the captain saying she cannot be on the plane
but the airline is in charge of the pilot and if she is correct that she “misspoke” someones pronoun I can only hope that there will be an uprising against this airline …of course in that peaceful protest way
A mom has claimed she was booted off a United Airlines flight with her distressed 16-month-old son over using the wrong pronoun for a flight attendant.
Jenna Longoria was expecting to fly to Austin from San Francisco on Wednesday with her mom and son when United stopped them from traveling.
She alleges she was denied boarding after an ‘accidental’ mix-up when addressing a United staff member, who she says refused to accept her apology.
FREE SPEECH IN AMERICA IS GONE
AND DONT GIVE THE …ONLY THE GOVERNMENT
the companies take their lead from the government is doing
Do you have a source for this?
yeah
but you do know how to use bing etc if you care too,,right????
A simple Internet search using the search terms “Jenna Longoria kicked off plane” instantly revealed several articles addressing the topic, dingus.
Learn how to use your computer for more than stupid troll posts.
typical lefty
wants others to do the work for it
Here.
https://nypost.com/2024/06/27/us-news/texas-mom-claims-she-was-kicked-off-united-plane-for-accidentally-misgendering-flight-attendant/
There you go, there’s a source. Took five seconds. Now, are you going to actually comment on the story? I doubt it very much.
No, but JR will read it with furrowed brow to indicate his genuine concern for the incident.
The purveyor of fake quotes asking for a source is hilarious. 😄
Freaks don’t deserve apologies. They should be apologizing to us for making such a mess of society to accommodate their mental and emotional problems.
Airlines should not have nutcases as flight attendants or anywhere near the flight crew.
hey
they are pilots and in the atc
So I assume the mother will sue and not wanting a Jury to award her the cash equivalent of several large airplanes will settle and the Airline will then discuss the situation with the newly unemployed pilot. The result will become a lesson in customer relations throughout the company and beyond and we will hear no more about it.
I would be more fearful that the airline will backup the pilot so that others remember who is in charge
but of course the paying public is in charge but that would cause too much trouble if the msm took that pov
soooo in this case
“doesnt have standing” seems to be the key that the 6 flunkies I mean jurists used to give the fjb squad and future actions the ok
BUT then congress should pass a law that defeats this scotus decision
otherwise holy #$%^# we are in bigger trouble and sooner than I thought
Yes, that’s the technical solution to many of our legal problems. However, Congress is both craven and incompetent, which is why, for generations, they’ve been less popular than rectal cancer.
so by extension then cnn mslsd etc can echo this ruling say in the debate
They can set up a question to trump about covid and him not agreeing with the gov guidelines and then as soon as trump say he didnt agree
the Inquisitors can then tell trump that the scotus just said that disagreeing with the guidelines is verboten and shut him off
Bullshit. SCOTUS has never said any such thing.
Aren’t they back in the District Court headed for trial, but there is no injunction? If so, the ultimate determination is delayed, but there can be much damage inflicted in the interim.
Overuse of standing rulings is an evasion of the very purpose the Court exists, to settle Constitutional disputes. The cowardly way out.
Standing is in the constitution. Courts can only rule in “cases” and “controversies”; without standing there is no case or controversy, so the courts can’t hear it.
Once again, it seems completely over your head, as you look at the trees, and a point that is a given.
Standing could just as easily been found as not found. Get real!
Okey doke … their argument about why the plaintiffs lacked standing was ridiculous. Amy Phoney Barrett wrote an opinion that would get you thrown out of a 5th grade writing class in 1950.
There is hardly any issue handled more inconsistently in the judiciary than “standing”. Lack of standing was what DOZENS of courts said in rejecting all cases about Barky’s ineligibility. No one, so the courts all claimed, had standing to demand that a Presidential candidate actually present official proof that he is eligible for the position. NO ONE HAD STANDING. So we all got injured … irreparably.
It is a farce.
That’s right, no one does have standing, except maybe the candidates who opposed him, and they didn’t sue.
Not every wrong has a judicial remedy. If something wrong is happening but it doesn’t harm anyone in particular, then nobody has standing so it can continue forever.
How do you think the government gets away with “In God We Trust” on the coins, and with “under God” in the pledge of allegiance? The answer is that every challenge has been dismissed for lack of standing. It’s impossible to find anyone who can plausibly allege that they in particular have been harmed by these things; any harm they allege affects everyone equally, so it’s none of their business.
LOL.
That is a preposterous claim. The only people injured by an ineligible political candidate are other political candidates?? The only injury you see is restricted to the technicalities of the race, itself, and have nothing to do with what the race is actually about??? That’s so stupid it’s funny.
Sheesh.
Milhouse, you are responding to idiots. Hopeless, unless your aim is to demonstrate how many idiots comment here!
Standing is in the constitution.
What page is that?
Every American has in interest in maintaining the Constitution’s constraints upon government. Every American is harmed (whether they know it or not) when government acts outside of its lawful authority. This should be “standing” enough.
This court has had a continuous theme of telling the other branches of government to do their job. The chevron ruling they are saying to congress to make laws less ambiguous and do not leave interpretation to the unelected bureaucrats. This ruling really should not be in court. As soon as the FBI and whoever else started telling Facebook and Twitter who to throttle and who to completely block the Attorney general should have stepped in and said that violates the constitution so Stop. Press charges if needed. Of course this attorney general will not do that but it is still an issue of the Legislative and Executive branches not doing their job.
kentaji added:
look I dont even know what a woman is
how the h lll am I going to know what free speech is??????
Article V
Convinced yet?
I have no doubt that any article V would be co-opted by the deep state, even if they had to commit mass violence to do so. We either have to beat the cheat, or defy the deep state directly.
correct
So we can beat the cheat on the election but not a convention process?
And how does that address the fundamental problem that the entire federal government apparatus is corrupt and can not / will never fix itself?
It means you’ll need to wait for the whole thing to collapse, just as the USSR did from total incompetence. That much was obvious in 2008 with the election of Obama. Given the way things are going, doesn’t seem very long now — maybe 2-3 generations.
Exactly right.
It will be a lot sooner than that, I think. The dollar imploding will be the trigger and that is not too far away.
I almost wish it would be sooner because I’d hate for STHTF when I’m too old to protect my kids.
Yes. The convention has fewer targets for the deep state. They may not be able to control millions, but they can control thousands.
The convention process is not voted on by all citizens.
I believe the way to resist a corrupt apparatus is to defy them. If they say you can’t have a pocket knife, carry a pocket knife. If they say you can’t drink unpasteurized milk, drink unpasteurized milk. If they come into your county, and you’re the sheriff, arrest them when they harass your county’s citizens. When they put strings on education grants forcing you to put boys into girls bathrooms, refuse their money.
I think our fundamental problem is that we don’t understand that we are also a check and balance to the government.
What will be necessary, eventually, will be a national divorce. There is no way around it. We have far too large a percentage of the population who hate the very idea of America. They are sick people and there is no living with them in peace.
People will see. There is no choice, really.
That’s not how leftists work. A peaceful national divorce would be fantastic, but that would mean the Blue nation lacked productive people to loot. The leftists wouldn’t let that happen without blood. Even if it was peaceful initially, the Blue would be a continental sized Gaza, the Red would be Israel: no peace until the Blue totalitarians are eradicated.
As in the Battle of Athens, 1946.
“Plea Deal, All 20,000 Leaked DNC
I think we all knew this was the end game
Emails have been Deleted” at > CitizensWatchReport.com
Seth Rich assassination coverup complete, hopefully RUSSIAN hackers will release Truth“
Wikileaks may have deleted them, but they are saved to other sites. Fear not.
Will social media complain when Trump gives them marching orders?
Expect a different ruling when it’s the Republicans doing it.
They just won’t comply, just as they don’t have to comply with the Dems’ requests; they comply with those because they want to, not because they have to.
Yeah … they don’t “have” to comply … Although, they just saw Trump be gutted for $100 million on a completely fabricated BS story that is decades past any possible statute of limitations, based on the story of a single nutcase who couldn’t even nail down the year of the alleged offense … and they saw Trump get gutted for almost half a BILLION dollars for doing the same things that everyone else does in declaring their net worth (and which didn’t affect anyone or anything, in any event, along with a billion dollar property being valued at a measly $18 million by the court) … and they just saw Trump get gutted with 34 felony counts on a bookkeeping issue that was neither illegal nor improper and was years old on top of that …
Yeah … they could just not comply with these government people …
No, but they do have to obey the shareholders when they demand compliance with the Feds after threats of expensive lawfare.
A future Trump Administration might try to force them to comply by various means – and the FedGov has many means at its disposal. That would set up a clearer case for SCOTUS. Also, the platforms themselves would have clearer standing than users or third parties.
Social media is not like a newspaper. A malevolent government could torpedo FB before a judge could get his robe on. They wouldn’t even have to “do” anything, simply refrain from certain actions, and FB’s international business, at least, could be tanked.
Knowing that, Zuck would be foolish not to play ball, let alone file suit!
‘Don’t have to comply?’….Sure they do. You are leaving out the implicit/explicit OR ELSE. Just b/c they leaped at the opportunity to ‘obey’ (in reality enthusiastically go along with, as you honestly pointed out) the govt edicts of the Biden WH and might hesitate or be less enthusiastic at the edicts of a Trump WH the all important OR ELSE will remain operative. Could be regulatory consequences, could be a ‘public health emergency; golly the Kids ain’t all right and its social media fault’ whatever the excuse may be the govt can act. Given the level of tolerance the CT has shown for shenanigans I don’t want to hear any crying when armed agents are sent to enforce it. When SCOTUS rules ‘no these agents of X agency’ can’t do that and the Trump WH sends the same agents under a different agency letterhead to accomplish the.same unconstitutional ends no whining.
The court can’t fix all structural issues, a rainfall of lawsuits for everything vs some rights going wrong. The Constitution depends on conventions, call them gentlemen’s agreements, that have been on the way out as women take over the public debate.
A court that can fix everything wouldn’t be great either.
The thing to look at, for argument, is the idea of rule of law that goes into the Constitution, which talks to original structural problems that need maintaining by somebody.
The first few minutes of Richard Epstein on Rule of Law would illustrate the frame and the line to take, which is pre-Constitutional
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZK6u6r-7y74
On the bright side, social media companies can look forward to continuing investigations of their government communications and actions thereof. The result of which will be that the government viewpoint will be dismissed as propaganda and the non-government post viewed as truth. Or perhaps people will simply move to social media not controlled by the government. American cannot truly expect the courts to fight their battles fro them. Our country belongs to us Americans, not he courts.
It would seem that our masters are now free to suppress the posting of Alito’s dissent as dangerous misinformation.
@DrJBhattacharya
“The Sup. Ct. majority in Murthy v. Missouri does not understand the nature of our case. We want the government to stop coercing social media companies to censor. We don’t want to interfere with the right of social media to moderate content. That’s what the government is doing.”
https://x.com/DrJBhattacharya/status/1806008099599536618
Not to court downvotes and not to be disrespectful to our host, but this ruling should have been expected by everyone here.
The ruling was all about “standing”, whether Missouri had the right to sue. To do so they had to demonstrate that the state (not its citizens, the state as an entity) had suffered a harm that the court could fix. They didn’t do that.
Courts, from highest to lowest, ALWAYS consider standing first, and if they can get rid of a case on the basis of standing they do so. ALWAYS. It’s basic behavior, it’s what they teach in judge school.
We all agree that the government cannot obtain indirectly what it is prohibited from doing directly. The key is a lawsuit with proper standing, brought by people who were directly harmed by the government’s actions. Then and ONLY THEN will the courts address the issue.
Find plaintiffs who lost a job or career because the government pressured Twitter, Meta, MS, or Apple to shut their speech down. Show a direct link. And then sue, and all the way to the SC.
How is this even possible when the Government’s goal is to cheat people out of votes, not jobs?
I’m not sure those plaintiffs have proper standing. They might be able to sue the platform, but not the Government. Only the platforms themselves would have clear standing if the Government gave them a censorship order.
Well, the Supreme Court could not plausibly deny that the platforms have standing.
I don’t think even John Roberts could issue a believable opinion to that effect.
Not to mention that if a platform controlled by leftists files suit against a Republican administration, three justices would suddenly lose interest in tossing the case over lack of standing.
Alternatively the next non d/prog WH can simply do whatever the they hell wish to do and make the tech companies do their bidding. When complaints arise they can point right here to this case and the ongoing shenanigans that the State of NY engages in re firearms rights or the Biden student loan scam. Just change the badges out on the same armed govt agents they shed to oversee the tech companies if/when an injuction is issued. ‘Golly gee whiz, y’all said X agency had to stop and they did, now they are agents from Z agency so all is ok b/c we totes complied with the injuction’.
IMO this would be a more effective strategy in developing a very clear and lasting precedent. Sticking the sharp object up the posterior of those accustomed to welding it but never receiving it themselves tends to have a very clarifying effect on the slower learners in the class.
Just out of curiosity, did *anyone* here, after the oral arguments on this case, predict that the majority opinion would be based entirely on issues of standing?
Anyone, including Milhouse.
I thought that if the majority ruled in the government’s favor, it would be because the various agencies and officials had done nothing wrong, because in no way were they coercing anyone.
It surely proved awkward for Barrett that the government had demanded that the Supreme Court lift the preliminary injunction, on the grounds that it would interfere with the vital work that the Feds were doing, hence inflicting irreparable harm on them. And the Supremes acceded to the government’s demand.
It doesn’t exactly square with Barrett’s insistence that no plaintiff had proved likely future harm from any of the Fed’s actions….
Isn’t it the truth that there are three equal branches of Government?
I do not recall a single instance where their decisions were overturned.
But, this is entirely possible, correct?
Oh, I’m sure it has happened. SCOTUS rules that so and so is OK or not OK because there is or isn’t any specific legislation on the subject followed immediately by Congress creating legislation on the subject. Gun-Free School Zones Act I and II is not precisely this format, but is the closest I can think of off the top of my head at the moment.
This excerpt from the opinion says it all:
The FBI’s challenged conduct was ongoing at the time of the complaint, as the agency worked with the platforms during the 2022 midterm election season. Still, [plaintiff] Hoft must rely on a “speculative chain of possibilities” to establish a likelihood of future harm traceable to the FBI.
Yes, you read that correctly. The FBI was embedded in FaceBook (with an office!) and yet we must prove that such action may (may!!!) have an impact on out future First Amendment harms.
Unbelievable.
Facebook gave the FBI an office, presumably voluntarily, or they were paid. If they were paid, they are a government contractor.
There’s nothing “presumably voluntarily” about it. Read the decision. Mob tactics were thrown all over the place. That’s duress, and volition cannot be assumed once that starts.
With respect to stevewhitemd but I suggest a careful reading of Justice Alito’s dissenting opinion, an analysis of which I submitted in a post on my blog, assessible at https://jimgeorge.substack.com/p/nice-little-facebook-you-have-there. The title is: “Nice Little Facebook You Have There-Be Ashamed if Anything Happened to it!” According to the dissent if one party has standing the case must be considered. Under Alito’s analysis there appears no doubt whatsoever that plaintiff Jill Hines clearly had standing under the 3 part test he cited. Obviously, I think Justices Thomas and Alito are the solid foundation of the Court; mybe Gorsuch will prove to be in that echelon as well. But this grouping of our “great conservative hopes” with the likes of Soromayor and Jackson makes me wonder about the future of both the Court and our country. I would be interested in your views after you read the Alito opinion.
Barrett did her hardest lifting over Jill Hines.
But who could meet Barrett’s demand for proof that the same Federal officials would target the same plaintiff again? To at least the level of “likely”…
There are 333 million people in this country. The government could harm 1,000 of us every day and it would take more than 900 years before the government had to harm someone a second time. (Which of course, is impossible, because nobody lives that long. In order to harm every American during their respective individual lifetimes, if they live to an average age of 75, the government could harm more than 4.4 million people for the first time every year before it had to harm someone a second time.)
And yet I keep getting audited (and getting a clean bill of health).