Today is one of several opinion days coming up …
...There is reportedly one box. That would seem to make another added day more likely...
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) June 26, 2024
… and the first opinion of the day is Murthy v. Missouri, previously known as Missouri v. Biden. This author wrote about it, here and there are additional links at that link. It dealt with social media censorship after those social media companies were pressured by the Federal Government to engage in that censorship. As we wrote at the time:
The lower court found that various social media companies—like Twitter/X, Meta/Facebook and Google/YouTube—were not censoring based on their own desires, but because of illegal government pressure. As a result, the District Court issued a preliminary injunction, prohibiting a broad range of communication by the government, and it applied nationwide. If you have been on social media since then, this order protected your right to free speech.
So this is pretty bad news for freedom of expression in this country:
....Neither the individual nor the state plaintiffs have established Article III standing to seek an injunction against any defendant.
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) June 26, 2024
We won’t sugarcoat this. This is bad news for the Republic, including and especially free and fair elections, but it isn’t a total win for Biden, either. The short version is that the Supreme Court is saying that these plaintiffs had no right to sue even if they were harmed by government action. We haven’t read over the entire opinion because we are trying to get the news out, but typically in these cases, they are saying there still might be the right plaintiff to file suit in the future.
Recommended
...This leaves free speech protections, for now, to the political system. This is why free speech should be the central issue in this presidential election. https://t.co/EymVkNfHQt
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) June 26, 2024
We have previously read that article over and Turley is basically saying that Republicans need to repeat Thomas Jefferson’s victory in the election of 1800. Although the HBO miniseries about John Adams puts our second president in a relatively positive light, one of the worst things that happened under his tenure was the prosecution of people for engaging in freedom expression, reenacting oppressive colonial-era laws. It was a real betrayal of the American Revolution. Jefferson ran against Adams on this exact ground and thus his election as our third president was presented as ‘The Revolution of 1800’—a revolution of ballots, rather than bullets. Turley’s thesis is that Trump needs to recreate that victory and we tend to agree.
Indeed, Turley is already talking about it on Fox News:
Jonathan Turley breaks down the frustrating anti-free speech ruling in Murthy v. Missouri.
— Media Research Center (@theMRC) June 26, 2024
"The Government is engaging in censorship by surrogate... they have made a mockery of the limits of the 1st Amendment." pic.twitter.com/K2eKnJtloF
(If you don't see the video, click on the post and hopefully it will show. Twitter/X has been finicky in its embed function.) Other coverage:
The Supreme Court's first decision of the day is Murthy v. Missouri, the social media "jawboning" case. By a 6–3 vote, the court holds that the plaintiffs lack standing.
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) June 26, 2024
Big win for the Biden administration. Another loss for the 5th Circuit. https://t.co/KWKaJVzhLb pic.twitter.com/hXgRKduOMK
Except it is also a loss for that democracy you guys are always yammering on about.
Alito dissents, joined by Thomas and Gorsuch. He calls it "one of the most important free speech cases to reach this Court in years" and embraces the lower courts' claim that the Biden administration censored users of social media companies by promoting removal of disinformation.
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) June 26, 2024
And we are pretty sure that Stern would agree with Alito if Trump comes into office and does the same kinds of things. They keep claiming that Trump wants to be a dictator while handing him the tools he would need to actually become one, if he actually wins in November.
We guess they are hoping they will simply stop him from actually winning.
Justice Barrett's opinion has sharp words for both the 5th Circuit and Trump Judge Terry Doughty, who imposed the original "sweeping" injunction. Barrett says many of Doughty's factual findings "unfortunately appear to be clearly erroneous." https://t.co/KWKaJVzhLb pic.twitter.com/r7qQqRFD5a
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) June 26, 2024
Here is Barrett listing a bunch of mistakes that Trump Judge Terry Doughty made in his notorious July 4 opinion of last year banning millions of federal employees from "encouraging" social media companies to moderate any content. https://t.co/KWKaJVzhLb pic.twitter.com/HsKs0YCPRr
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) June 26, 2024
So you'll calm down about the court now?
— JWF (@JammieWF) June 26, 2024
Of course not.
BREAKING: A 6-3 Supreme Court ends a challenge to the Biden admin's work with social media companies to combat the spread of misinforamation, ruling the states/individuals don't have standing. CT, SA & NG dissent.
— Katie Buehler (@bykatiebuehler) June 26, 2024
(Murthy v. Missouri, No. 23-411) #SCOTUS https://t.co/bIXDz9P3q2 pic.twitter.com/vrO7W1FOYq
But, hear us out, maybe there shouldn’t be a Ministry of Truth?
Alito dissent in Murthy: For months, high-ranking Government officials placed unrelenting pressure on Facebook to suppress Americans’ free speech. Because the Court unjustifiably refuses to address this serious threat to the First Amendment, I respectfully dissent.
— Ed Whelan (@EdWhelanEPPC) June 26, 2024
Called it—they lost!
— Norm Eisen (#TryingTrump out now!) (@NormEisen) June 26, 2024
A win for information over disinformation
I testified on the Murthy v. Missouri case earlier this year 👇https://t.co/9lDc2in9Xr pic.twitter.com/gmuuAubAY7
When people like that are cheering, America loses.
Your regular reminder that ChatGPT is awful. Here's what it told me about this morning's decision in Murthy v. Missouri.
— 〽️atthew S. Schwartz (@SchwartzReports) June 26, 2024
TLDR: ChatGPT said the Supreme Court held that the government had unconstitutionally suppressed free speech. But the court actually held that the petitioners… pic.twitter.com/tv5TBxiTnI
The cut off text reads:
But the court actually held that the petitioners lacked standing to sue. ChatGPT was summarizing the DISSENT and presenting it as fact!
Summarizing is supposed to be one of the things generative AI is best at, and yet even here it can make crucial mistakes. ALWAYS FACT-CHECK what it tells you!!
Interesting.
Murthy v. Missouri is another 6-3 decision, but not the sort of 6-3 you're looking for. ACB writes for Court. Alito dissents, joined by Thomas and Gorsuch. https://t.co/alQejVg2st
— Jonathan H. Adler (@jadler1969) June 26, 2024
This is a good point. The majority justices were Barrett, Kavanaugh, Roberts (of course) and the three liberals.
SCOTUS OPINION 🧵: The first decision of the day:
— @amuse (@amuse) June 26, 2024
In Murthy v. Missouri, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the federal government, allowing continued communication between government officials and social media companies regarding content moderation. The case centered on…
The cut off text reads:
The case centered on whether federal officials' efforts to combat misinformation on social media platforms constituted unconstitutional coercion or were within permissible government speech.
The Court found that the government's actions did not violate the First Amendment, emphasizing that the communications were not coercive but rather constituted permissible government speech. The decision effectively allows the government to continue its collaboration with social media companies to address misinformation, especially concerning public health and safety issues.
Vote: The decision was 6-3, with Justice Barrett authoring the majority opinion. Justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch dissented writing, ‘this is one of the most important free speech cases to reach this Court in years.’ The court just took an off ramp...
We are dubious of his reading. Standing cases usually have little to do with who is ultimately right. But since we haven’t actually read the case yet, we can’t say he is definitely wrong.
Eh not surprised that Murthy v Missouri got tossed on standing.
— alexandriabrown (@alexthechick) June 26, 2024
*taps courts will not save you sign*
Certainly, they’re not going to save us this term. Even if a proper plaintiff can prove that he or she was being censored at the behest of the government, it will probably take months to get the courts to be able to do anything about it.
By then, the election might be over.
Simply put, if you give the Democrats four more years, we might never have a truly free election again.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member