Reactions to SCOTUS 6-3 Rule in Murthy v. Missouri (Censorship Case)

Here are some reactions to today’s Supreme Court ruling (6-3) that the plaintiffs lacked standing in censorship case

GWU law professor Jonathan Turley: NEW: Jonathan Turley shreds the Supreme Court’s decision to allow the U.S. government to demand the removal of ‘misinformation’ on social media. The Supreme Court ruled that the government’s communications with social media giants about removing Covid-19 “misinformation” did *not* violate the First Amendment. “This is one of the most fundamental issues that we are facing.” “It’s been called Orwellian by lower court judges. And what the court is saying is that we won’t hear you on this issue ’cause you’re not the right litigants.” “I testified about this in Congress, that they have made a mockery of the limits of the First Amendment by doing indirectly what they’re barred from doing directly.” NEW: Jonathan Turley shreds the Supreme Court's decision to allow the U.S. government to demand the removal of 'misinformation' on social media. The Supreme Court ruled that the government’s communications with social media giants about removing Covid-19 "misinformation" did… pic.twitter.com/QUtnpJd5gD — Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) June 26, 2024 Jonathan Turley breaks down the frustrating anti-free speech ruling in Murthy v. Missouri. "The Government is engaging in censorship by surrogate… they have made a mockery of the limits of the 1st Amendment." pic.twitter.com/K2eKnJtloF — Media Research Center (@theMRC) June 26, 2024 Matt Taibbi: This was the central complaint of plaintiffs @DrJBhattacharya, @AaronKheriatyMD, and @MartinKulldorff – decorated professionals who were suppressed, and whose opinions countered incorrect or dubious government claims. That situation is exactly why we have a First amendment. https://t.co/FKso9qO8fs — Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi) June 26, 2024 Dr. Jay Bhattacharya: The court ruled that the plaintiffs (Missouri and Louisiana, as well as me and other blacklisted individuals) lacked standing to sue. This means that the Administration can censor ideas & no person will have standing to enforce the 1st Amendment. Free speech in America, for the… — Jay Bhattacharya (@DrJBhattacharya) June 26, 2024 And since it was petty bureaucrats doing the censoring at the behest of elected officals, voters should ask every candidate for office down to dog catcher where they stand on the power of government to censor. Let's make it a political liability to favor censorship. — Jay Bhattacharya (@DrJBhattacharya) June 26, 2024 NCLA Legal: 🏛️We will continue our fight for free speech! 🧵Thread (1/5) Today's decision Murthy v. Missouri enables the censorship industrial complex and will have grave consequences for Americans’ freedom for years to come. As a practical matter, for the vast majority of plaintiffs,… pic.twitter.com/aw2BjaCmHJ — New Civil Liberties Alliance (@NCLAlegal) June 26, 2024 Former litigator Viva Frei: Thank goodness for the “standing” doctrine. If it didn’t exist, the Supreme Court might actually have to rule on decisions of substance. pic.twitter.com/K1XcZIk3Fx — Viva Frei (@thevivafrei) June 26, 2024 Former DOJ lawyer Jeff Clark: The Supreme Court wrongly booted the most significant First Amendment case in U.S. history on standing grounds today, Murthy v Missouri. And I say that as a true maven of standing doctrine. In effect, the Supreme Court majority is requiring government-private partnerships aimed… — Jeff Clark (@JeffClarkUS) June 26, 2024 Standing is a vital constitutional requirement. I have friends in the law who hate it and so I am postured oftentimes as the “designated defender of standing doctrine. OK, Jeff, defend this one.” I gotta say that after this and the 2020 abdication on standing grounds of taking… — Jeff Clark (@JeffClarkUS) June 26, 2024 .

###

This post might be updated later on.