Staff Reports
The U.S. Supreme Court recently made a decision that left many conservative Americans shaking their heads. In a 6-3 ruling, the Court sided with the Biden administration in a case where conservatives argued that the president had gone too far by pressuring social media companies to ban users and remove posts related to the pandemic. Despite the efforts of the Republican attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana, as well as five other plaintiffs, the Court reversed the lower court’s opinion and upheld the administration’s actions.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, pointed out that the plaintiffs failed to provide substantial evidence linking past government censorship to the specific communications that led to the social media restrictions. On the other side, conservative justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Samuel Alito dissented, expressing concerns about the implications of allowing such governmental coercion in controlling public discourse.
BREAKING: Supreme Court Releases Massive Ruling, Conservatives Explode – I Love My Freedom https://t.co/SjQaQa2scY
— oneoldguy2327 (@Oneoldguy3237) June 27, 2024
Back in July 2023, Louisiana U.S. District Judge Terry A. Doughty had already warned about the government’s overreach in pressuring social media companies, calling it potentially one of the most significant attacks on free speech in U.S. history. Despite some adjustments by the Fifth Circuit court, the concerns about violations of the First Amendment remained.
The Biden administration criticized the previous injunction against its actions, arguing that it limited the government’s ability to address public concerns effectively. Online conservatives voiced their disappointment with the Supreme Court’s decision, with figures like Glenn Beck and Amber Duke highlighting the potential repercussions on Americans’ rights to free speech.
Investigative reporter Julie Kelly shared insights into Justice Barrett’s reasoning, emphasizing the lack of evidence tying the government directly to the social media censorship. The Court’s ruling, while disappointing to many on the right, sets a precedent that may have far-reaching consequences for the future of online discourse and government influence over private platforms.
