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