(Patriot.Buzz) – Accusing his colleagues of evading their duty to curb government censorship efforts, Justice Samuel Alito blasted the Supreme Court’s majority decision in a significant free speech case for being “blatantly unconstitutional.”
In Murthy v. Missouri, the 6-3 majority supported the Biden administration and determined that the challengers did not have the standing to seek an injunction against the government’s actions to suppress online speech.
This ruling covered the government’s requests to social media platforms like Facebook and X to remove certain content, which included factual information and targeted conservative viewpoints disproportionately.
Justices Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas dissented and argued that the majority’s decision “permits the successful campaign of coercion in this case to stand as an attractive model for future officials who want to control what the people say, hear, and think.”
Alito said the government’s “communications with Facebook were virtual demands” and highlighted that Facebook’s tentative compliance suggested it was under considerable pressure to conform to these demands.
The majority reasoned that the plaintiffs could not conclusively connect their social media restrictions to the government’s interactions with the platforms and suggested that these platforms acted out of their own volition to moderate content.
Alito countered this view by citing internal Facebook communications that he believed demonstrated the company’s compliance.
“Facebook’s responses resembled that of a subservient entity determined to stay in the good graces of a powerful taskmaster,” he detailed.
Alito used the example of Health Freedom Louisiana co-director Jill Hines to argue for the need for an injunction.
He pointed out that Hines’s lawsuit demonstrated direct censorship from Facebook influenced by White House directives, making a legal remedy appropriate and necessary.
“Hines showed that, when she sued, Facebook was censoring her COVID-related posts and groups,” he explained.
“And because the White House prompted Facebook to amend its censorship policies, Hines’s censorship was, at least in part, caused by the White House and could be redressed by an injunction against the continuation of that conduct,” he concluded.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the majority opinion in this case.
Copyright 2024, Patriot.Buzz
