WASHINGTON, DC – Social media companies like Facebook are free to continue censoring conservatives according to a divided Supreme Court, over a vigorous conservative dissent.
Barrett recounted the facts of various officials in the White House, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the surgeon general, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA).
“Though the platforms restricted the plaintiffs’ content, the plaintiffs maintain that the Federal Government was behind it,” Barrett explained. “Acting on that belief, the plaintiffs sued dozens of Executive Branch officials and agencies, alleging that they pressured the platforms to censor the plaintiffs’ speech in violation of the First Amendment.”
The majority held that the plaintiffs failed to show they had suffered legal injuries that were traceable to Facebook and the company formerly called Twitter, that resulted from Biden administration coercion, and that a court could fix by issuing an order.
“The plaintiffs, without any concrete link between their injuries and the defendants’ conduct, ask us to conduct a review of the years-long communications between dozens of federal officials, across different agencies, with different social-media platforms, about different topics,” the majority concluded. “This Court’s standing doctrine prevents us from exercising such general legal oversight of the other branches of Government.”
Conservative Justice Samuel Alito wrote a blistering dissenting opinion, joined by fellow conservative Clarence Thomas and also Neil Gorsuch, who leans libertarian.
“Victims of the campaign perceived by the lower courts brought this action to ensure that the Government did not continue to coerce social media platforms to suppress speech,” Alito began. “All these victims simply wanted to speak out on a question of the utmost public importance.”
“Our country’s response to the COVID–19 pandemic was and remains a matter of enormous medical, social, political, geopolitical, and economic importance, and our dedication to a free marketplace of ideas demands that dissenting views on such matters be allowed,” he announced. “I assume that a fair portion of what social media users had to say about COVID–19 and the pandemic was of little lasting value.”
“Some was undoubtedly untrue or misleading, and some may have been downright dangerous,” Alito noted. “But we now know that valuable speech was also suppressed. That is what inevitably happens when entry to the marketplace of ideas is restricted.”
“Of course, purely private entities like newspapers are not subject to the First Amendment, and as a result, they may publish or decline to publish whatever they wish,” he acknowledged. “But government officials may not coerce private entities to suppress speech, and that is what happened in this case.”
“The Court, however, shirks that duty and thus 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,” the dissent continued against the court majority.
And because of the perpetrators’ high positions, it was even more dangerous. It was blatantly unconstitutional, and the country may come to regret the Court’s failure to say so. Officials who read today’s decision together with Vullo will get the message. If a coercive campaign is carried out with enough sophistication, it may get by. That is not a message this Court should send.
“What these events show is that top federal officials continuously and persistently hectored Facebook to crack down on what the officials saw as unhelpful social media posts,” Alito went on, “including not only posts that they thought were false or misleading but also stories that they did not claim to be literally false but nevertheless wanted obscured.”
Pivoting to the First Amendment standards at stake, Alito cited precedent, holding that free speech does not allow banning speech “regardless of whether the Government carries out the censorship itself or uses a third party to accomplish what . . . is constitutionally forbidden.’”
“For months, high-ranking Government officials placed unrelenting pressure on Facebook to suppress Americans’ free speech,” Alito concluded. “Because the Court unjustifiably refuses to address this serious threat to the First Amendment, I respectfully dissent.”
Breitbart News senior legal contributor Ken Klukowski is a lawyer who served in the White House and Justice Department. Follow him on X (formerly Twitter) @kenklukowski.
The post Supreme Court Dismisses Social Media Censorship Case for Lack of Standing, Alito Issues Blistering Dissent appeared first on Breitbart.
