U.S. Supreme Court says it’s OK for federal government to outsource online censorship to Big Tech, curtailing free speech of all Americans

By Leo Hohmann

Today is a dark day for freedom in America.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 Wednesday in Murthy v. Missouri that challengers alleging the Biden regime colluded with social-media companies to remove content the government viewed as unfavorable did not have the legal right to sue and did not rule on the merits.

ing to seek an injunction against any of the government defendants.

The challengers attributed the restrictions they experienced on social media to the U.S. Surgeon General, the White House Press Secretary and dozens of other Biden administration officials from the White House, FBI, and CDC. They alleged a “coordinated campaign” between the officials and Big Tech companies, such as Facebook, Twitter, and Google, to censor content dealing with opposition to government narratives about COVID-19, the validity of the 2020 election, the Hunter Biden laptop story, abortion, gender discussions, and more.

More

U.S. Supreme Court says it’s OK for federal government to outsource online censorship to Big Tech, curtailing free speech of all Americans

Today is a dark day for freedom in America. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 Wednesday in Murthy v. Missouri that challengers alleging the Biden regime colluded with social-media companies to remov…

leohohmann.com

 

[Tall Timbers]

US Supreme Court will not curb Biden administration social media contacts​

The plaintiffs in 2022 sued officials and agencies across the federal government, including in the White House, FBI, surgeon general's office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency.

Barret wrote that the plaintiffs could not show a "concrete link" between the conduct by the officials and any harm that the plaintiffs suffered. They "emphasize that hearing unfettered speech on social media is critical to their work," Barrett wrote. "But they do not point to any specific instance of content moderation that caused them identifiable harm."
Conservative Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch dissented from the decision.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-wont-curb-biden-administration-social-media-contacts-2024-06-26/

Seems that in this case the plaintiffs failed to present a winning argument. Plaintiff attorneys should have done a better job... probably thought they had a slam dunk case.