Supreme Court’s Censorship Ruling Lets Biden Muzzle Us Online — and Meddle in the Election; Amy Coney Barrett Acts Clueless About Hunter Biden’s Laptop; A Supreme Court License for Social-Media Censorship

Supreme Court’s censorship ruling lets Biden muzzle us online — and meddle in the election:

On the eve of the first presidential debate of 2024, the Supreme Court preemptively gave President Biden and his minions an implicit license to meddle in the election — by suppressing news and opinions they dislike.

Will the court’s refusal to stop federal censorship be a wooden stake in the credibility of American democracy?

The court’s ruling came in the case of Murthy v. Missouri, brought by individuals who were censored on social media thanks to federal threats and machinations behind the scenes of companies like Facebook.

Last year, in decisions that vividly chronicled a byzantine litany of anti-free speech interventions by multiple federal agencies and the White House, a federal district judge and a federal appeals court imposed injunctions that prohibited those officials from acting “to coerce or significantly encourage social-media companies to remove, delete, suppress, or reduce . . . posted social-media content containing protected free speech.”

On Wednesday, in a 6-to-3 decision, the Supreme Court gave the benefit of the doubt to Washington’s browbeating, arm-twisting and jawboning of influential social-media companies — regardless of how many Americans are wrongfully muzzled.

The Biden censorship industrial complex triumphed, it appeared, because most of the justices could not be bothered to honestly examine the massive evidence of its abuses.

The majority opinion, written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, whined that “the record spans over 26,000 pages.”

Quoting an earlier court decision, Barrett scoffed that “judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in the record.”

Rather than grovel in the muck, the justices instead disposed of this landmark case on a quibble, putting their legal pinkies in the air like white-wine drinkers at a cocktail party.

The court ruled that the plaintiffs — including two state governments and eminent scientists banned from social media — did not have “standing,” because they had not proven to the negligent justices (how many pages in the files did they actually read?) that all the federal intervention and string-pulling had injured them. —>READ MORE HERE

Amy Coney Barrett Acts Clueless About Hunter Biden’s Laptop:

Justice Barrett painted Big Tech’s suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop stories four years ago as a safeguard against foreign interference.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett painted Big Tech’s suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop stories four years ago as a safeguard against foreign interference in an official Supreme Court ruling on Wednesday.

In what could have been a landmark censorship case, Barrett, who wrote the majority opinion in Murthy v. Missouri, characterized tech giants’ reactionary censorship of the laptop story as a good-faith effort to minimize Russian meddling in the 2020 election.

After summarizing social media companies’ content moderation programs throughout the coronavirus epidemic, Barrett wrote “platforms also applied their misinformation policies during the 2020 Presidential election season.”

“Facebook, in late 2019, unveiled measures to counter foreign interference campaigns and voter suppression efforts,” she wrote. “One month before the election, multiple platforms suppressed a report about Hunter Biden’s laptop, believing that the story originated from a Russian hack-and-leak operation.”

Except the only people who believed this were gullible Democrats who fell for an intelligence hoax peddled by the deep state to protect then-candidate Joe Biden.

On Tuesday, the House Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government revealed several of the 51 former intelligence officials who sought to discredit the laptop as Kremlin interference in Politico were actively on payroll with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The infamous letter published near immediately after the first stories from the laptop surfaced in the New York Post, claimed the computer had “all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.” The statement was made despite the director of national intelligence at the time dismissing allegations of Kremlin interference. His rare on-the-record rebuke would be followed by similar dismissals from the FBI, Department of Justice, and the Department of State — all well before the November election.—>READ MORE HERE

Follow link below to a relevant story:

+++++A Supreme Court License for Social-Media Censorship+++++

Source