After the devastating ruling in Murthy v. Missouri, where the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that litigants did not have standing—and refused to restrict or stop the government’s anti-First Amendment censorship work with Big Tech—free-speech advocates are emphasizing the ruling’s far-reaching impact.
PJ Media’s Chris Queen explained, “The court ruled that the plaintiffs didn't have standing to sue the federal government for pressuring social media companies to suppress opinions about COVID that didn't fit the government's narrative.” This tacitly gives the government carte blanche to demand that social media censor whatever they falsely label “misinformation,” a serious blow to the sacred First Amendment, one which legal analyst Jonathan Turley labeled “censorship by surrogate.”
Blaze TV podcaster Matt Kibbe pulled no punches: “This reveals the real majority in the Supreme Court, and they hate you for your liberties.”
Constitutional law expert Jonathan Turley told Fox News, "It's very frustrating for the free speech community because standing is often used to block meritorious claims."
"This is one of the most fundamental issues that we are facing," he added. "I just wrote about this issue, this case, in my recent book because you have one of the largest censorship systems in our history, if not the largest. It's been called Orwellian by lower court judges, and what the court is saying is that we won't hear you on this issue because you're not the right litigants."
Turley noted that he's always been a "dove" on standing, and added, "I believe that these standing decisions are too narrow because they do prevent the court from rendering a decision on such important constitutional questions."
"So this issue will have to wait for another day," he continued, "but one of the things that many of us have been arguing for years is that the government is engaging in censorship by surrogate. I testified about this in Congress, that they have made a mockery of the limits of the First Amendment by doing indirectly what they're barred from doing directly. They're using academic and corporate allies to bar and cancel and blacklist critics on a variety of different subjects. So it's going to be very frustrating for the free speech community."
Murthy v. Missouri plaintiff Dr. Jay Bhattacharya emphasized how vital the 2024 election is now in saving free speech, since “The Supreme Court just ruled in the Murthy v. Missouri case that the Biden Administration can coerce social media companies to censor and shadowban people and posts it doesn't like. Congress will now need to act to enforce the Constitution since the Sup[reme] C[our]t. won't.”
MRC Free Speech America Vice President Dan Schneider agreed: “After Barrett's disast[rous] opinion, the only way Americans can ensure that the Feds will not censor, silence and erase them is to elect a president commited [sic] to safeguarding their rights. Nov 5 can't come soon enough.” (Disclosure: I contribute content to MRC.)
Babylon Bee CEO Seth Dillon emphasized the heightened threat to free speech: “[Justice] Alito was right to argue in his dissent that the threat of renewed or ongoing censorship remains real and concrete enough to satisfy standing requirements. In fact, you could argue that the threat is elevated even higher now as a result of this ruling.” Kara Frederick, director of The Heritage Foundation’s Tech Policy Center, commented on Biden administration censors, “They just got the green light to keep going.” As show host Glenn Beck said, the ruling was a “gut punch.”
Related: Two Statutes Can Help States Purge Illegal Voters
Former Trump official and legal expert Jeff Clark gloomily posted, “The Supreme Court wrongly booted the most significant First Amendment case in U.S. history on standing grounds today.” He warned this ruling “cannot be the final word or else censorship to maintain leftist orthodoxies about important matters like COVID and elections will continue and expand.” Show host Steve Bannon, meanwhile, discussing the ruling with legal expert Mike Davis, described it as a “big loss” for Americans.
Mike Davis Reports On 6-3 SCOTUS Decision With Barrett, Kavanaugh, And Roberts Joining Liberals In Declaring No First Amendment Violations Took Place When Biden Admin Pressured Social Media Platforms Into Censoring Covid Information @mrddmia pic.twitter.com/fBD3nrtdfR
— Jayne Zirkle (@JayneZirkle) June 26, 2024
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) bashed the ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Biden admin’s power to influence Big Tech oligarchs.
They've given platforms like Facebook, coerced by the Deep State, the power to decide what speech is "acceptable" instead of protecting the free exchange of ideas.
A very dangerous precedent has been set today.
Finally, The Federalist CEO Sean Davis called the ruling “an abomination that ignores both the facts and the law” and added, “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.” It’s certainly a joke on the American people, but hardly a funny one.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member