Free speech advocates denounce Supreme Court ruling on Biden censorship collusion case – LifeSite

Canadians: Send an urgent message to legislators urging them to stop Trudeau’s ‘Online Harms Act’

(NewsBusters) — Free speech advocates are ripping the U.S. Supreme Court‘s refusal to protect the First Amendment from government-tech censorship collusion.

State and individual plaintiffs in Murthy v. Missouri provided evidence of severe government pressure on Big Tech companies to censor specific users. The majority of the court ruled, however, on Wednesday that the plaintiffs did not have “standing.” Numerous pro-free speech advocates called out the outrageous, tone deaf decision issued by the majority, including Mark Levin, Jonathan Turley, and one of the case’s plaintiffs, Dr. Bhattacharya.

As MRC President Brent Bozell soberly commented on X (formerly Twitter) about the decision, “Censorship from our government continues unchecked. A devastating loss for free speech.”

In the same vein, MRC VP for Free Speech Dan Schneider posted in a hard-hitting X thread, “We have just witnessed a dagger in the heart of the First Amendment’s right to free speech. The guarantee of our right to criticize government is lost.”

Schneider continued, “The First Amendment is supposed to guarantee our rights to speak against government power and against the people who wield that power.” But the majority decision written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Schneider stated, allows government censorship of individuals “unless LATER proven to have violated … something. She never gets around to explaining what this something is, giving Joe Biden carte blanche license to strong arm Big Tech (and other powerful allies) to erase dissenting views.”

READ: Supreme Court rejects challenge to Biden admin’s censorship collusion with Big Tech

Agreeing with Schneider, MRC Free Speech America Director Michael Morris castigated the ruling as a “fundamental misunderstanding of the First Amendment.”

Other free speech advocates also expressed their critiques of the court on X. Nationally syndicated radio host Mark Levin mourned an “[a]wful Supreme Court duck” from multiple supposedly conservative judges. The Federalist CEO Sean Davis posted, “The Supreme Court’s ruling and opinion … is an abomination that ignores both the facts and the law. I never thought I would see the Supreme Court rubber stamp the most egregious and illegal censorship campaign in American history, but here we are. What a joke.”

Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, one of the plaintiffs, noted that social media censorship will now be “a key issue in the upcoming election.” He urged“voters should ask every candidate for office down to dog catcher where they stand on the power of government to censor.” Schneider concurred with Bhattacharya’s assessment: “Nov 5 can’t come soon enough.”

Legal analyst Jonathan Turley concluded: “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.” He appeared on a Fox News interview and was just as vocal, saying, “This is one of the most fundamental issues that we are facing.”

Jeff Clark, a former assistant attorney general for the Civil Division in the Trump DOJ, also tied the decision to the election, adding, “The Judicial Branch checking out of this issue as it is postured in Murthy cannot be the final word or else censorship to maintain leftist orthodoxies about important matters like COVID and elections will continue and expand.”

Meanwhile, Kara Frederick, the director of The Heritage Foundation’s Tech Policy Center, described the ruling, “The government says that the government can work with Big Tech to censor the speech of Americans.”

Americans for Limited Government President Rick Manning bashed the ruling in a statement, “The contorted logic that those in the federal government who abused their power with the worst censorship operation in U.S. history should be protected under the guise that they did not voluntarily release enough details of their abuse for the plaintiffs to achieve standing, gives jet fuel to these agencies’ unchecked power to continue abusing the Constitution.”

Legal expert and Article III Project President Mike Davis pointed out that, contrary to the majority ruling, Big Tech companies are not private anymore, with “antitrust amnesty, government grants” and eagerness to censor at government behest.

Reprinted with permission from NewsBusters.

Canadians: Send an urgent message to legislators urging them to stop Trudeau’s ‘Online Harms Act’

Previous ArticleNext Article