• News Categories
    ▼
    • Surveillance & Technology
    • U.S. News & Reports
    • International News
    • Finance
    • Defense & Security
    • Politics
    • Videos
  • Blog
  • Directory
  • Support Us
  • About
  • Contact

T-Room

The Best in Alternative News

  • News Categories
    • Surveillance & Technology
    • U.S. News & Reports
    • International News
    • Finance
    • Defense & Security
    • Politics
    • Videos
  • Blog
  • Directory
  • Support Us
  • About
  • Contact

June 28, 2024 at 7:59 pm

Supreme Court Allows Government Control Over Speech on Social Media Platforms, Rejects Standing in Murthy vs Missouri…

Amy_Coney_Barrett_nomination_hearing
ParlerGabTruth Social

by Sundance at The Conservative Treehouse

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,…

ParlerGabTruth Social
Continue Reading
This website lives off the kindness of your donations. If you would like to support The T-Room please visit our PayPal.

Editor’s Picks

States Illegally Issued 194,000 Commercial Driver’s Licenses to Foreign Truckers…

Netanyahu: ‘There will not be a Palestinian state,’ Even at Cost of Ties with Saudis…

Secret CIA Report Boasted About Tricking Congress in JFK Probe, Whistleblower Says…

How Trump’s Own Appointees Aided Russiagate Plot Against Him…

George Soros Gave $250K to British Group Working To Censor Conservative News Sites and ‘Kill Musk’s Twitter’…

Any publication posted at The T-Room and/or opinions expressed therein do not necessarily reflect the views of The T-Room. Such publications and all information within the publications (e.g. titles, dates, statistics, conclusions, sources, opinions, etc) are solely the responsibility of the author of the article, not The T-Room.

Twitter Icon

View Old Archives

Copyright © 2025 T-Room

Site by Creative Visual Design