In the 6-3 ruling last week, the high court ruled in favor of the Big Brother-like federal government on a technicality – the plaintiffs did not have legal standing to bring the case because they could not prove harm, the justices agreed.
“To establish standing, the plaintiffs must demonstrate a substantial risk that, in the near future, they will suffer an injury that is traceable to a Government defendant and redressable by the injunction they seek,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in the majority opinion. “No plaintiff has carried that burden.”
The plaintiffs in the case are the attorney generals from Missouri and Louisiana. They sought an injunction that stops the Biden administration from requesting Facebook and X, formerly Twitter, to remove posts they don’t like, The New York post reported.
The censorship issue dates back to the COVID-19 pandemic, especially regarding the controversial emergency use vaccine.
The issue also came to light thanks to Elon Musk's purchase of Twitter. After that purchase, the billionaire businessman released the so-called "Twitter Files" that revealed how Biden administration officials and Twitter executives had secretly colluded to hide or remove posts.
In its rebuttal to the lawsuit, the Biden administration claimed it was exercising its own free speech rights by advising about public health.
Walker Wildmon, of American Family Association Action, says a government that censors free speech is harmful because it affects every account on social media and the American people in general.
“When you have the government coercing private corporations to disable user accounts just because the government doesn't like the speech,” he warns, “that is a textbook case of a First Amendment violation.”
In a 34-page dissenting opinion, Justice Samuel Alito wrote the country “may come to regret” the majority opinion, the Post reported. Alito was joined by Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch.
In her majority opinion, Justice Barrett admitted the federal government “played a role” in some moderation choices, the Post said.
According to Wildmon, he is concerned the 6-3 ruling that allows government censorship to continue comes at the same time a presidential campaign is underway. That already happened during the 2020 campaign, he points out, referring to Hunter Biden’s laptop.
“It is going to effectively allow the federal government, and state governments for that matter, to coordinate directly with private corporations to stifle speech,” Wildmon warns.
Editor's Note: AFA Action is an affiliate of the American Family Association, the parent organization of the American Family News Network, which operates AFN.net.
