Home»US»What Today’s SCOTUS Ruling on a Temporary Injunction To Forbid Pressuring Social Media Companies To Censor Free Speech Means

What Today’s SCOTUS Ruling on a Temporary Injunction To Forbid Pressuring Social Media Companies To Censor Free Speech Means

Pinterest WhatsApp

Having been the plaintiff in numerous free speech cases against the government and winning, here are my preliminary thoughts on today’s SCOTUS ruling.

Just to be clear,  the SCOTUS ruling today on the Missouri v Biden was for a temporary injunction sought by the plaintiffs: The plaintiffs in Missouri v Biden – the state Attorney Generals of Missouri and Louisiana asked the Supreme Court to grant them a temporary injunction that forbid Big Tech companies [X, FB, Youtube, Instagram, etc] from censoring their users. The case has yet to be heard.

The bottom line is private companies can do what they want. It is when the government censors our speech that our first amendment rights are violated. The burden rests on the plaintiffs to show the government censored the speech by pressure or coercion.

Private companies can do what they want. We must provide any evidence that linked it to the government.

These lawsuits must addresses that specifically. The thing is there has been evidence of government collusion. Maybe they filed too early and didn’t have it. They had to show the government’s direct involvement in getting their speech censored lawsuit. It’s not relevant that it is all over the internet or existence of collusion was released in the Twitter files. Evidence must be presented in your lawsuit that directly affects your specific case.


You have to show the government’s involvement in their lawsuit. It’s not relevant to the case if it’s in the national conversation or evidence is presented elsewhere. 

SCOTUS ruling: “Because we do not reach the merits, we express no view as to whether the Fifth Circuit correctly articulated the standard for when the Government transforms private conduct into state action.”

Was an Amicus brief filed, a friend of the court, filed in support of the lawsuit with evidence of government collusion? And if not, why not?

The States should have known better.


I’m not trying to be a stickler. But if you put these restrictions on private companies, then that is violation of the rights of private industry. The first amendment guarantees freedom of speech. But not from private companies, but from the government.

Bad lawsuits set bad precedent making it harder for the good lawsuits in the future.

All of the new stories and all of the tweets and all of the banter will be about how it’s OK to restrict free speech, blah blah blah, and the left will rejoice. But that’s not the case at all. And that’s not what happened. It’s like Roe v. Wade. That was a legal ruling because Roe v. Wade was bad precedent and it shouldn’t have taken decades to correct it. But everybody was afraid to touch it. The fact is abortion is not a constitutional right. They didn’t outlaw abortion, but of course the left made it out to be just that and boy oh boy did they get mileage out of it. The fact is abortion is still readily available.

This is the same thing. This lawsuit was contingent upon evidence of government collusion, and it says right there in the ruling no evidence was provided.

Now, the second plaintiff did provide some “tenuous lines”. I’m not giving SCOTUS a free pass. But with the kind of scrutiny and pressure that we are under, yes, we have to be perfect. The fact is if SCOTUS really wanted to, they could ruled in our favor. But they didn’t. And it’s the same turncoats -Amy  Coney Barrett and John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh.

The ruling did not say the government is able to pressure Big tech platforms to remove content. I know it’s splitting hairs.  But lawsuits are hair splitting. And going before the Supreme Court is the big leagues. You have to get it right.

The ruling, written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, also said, “Neither the individual nor the state plaintiffs have established Article III standing to seek an injunction against any defendant.” They have dismissed lawsuits of mine on standing. It’s absurd. The fact is every American has standing.

Bottom line:  the social media platforms are run by leftists. They would’ve done it anyway. They’d been doing it for years and years, long before the Twitter files, Shellenberger et al — before all of it. I was suspended multiple times in the aughties. So even if the lawsuit prevails, it still would be happening.

That’s why X is so so important.

They have a perfect fascist arrangement now.Leftist govt and leftist social media companies working together
That’s national socialism Hitler didn’t nationalize all the corporations. He just made sure they did his bidding. That’s what this is.

Supreme Court Rules for Biden Admin in Social Media Free Speech Case

States had argued the federal government strong-armed social media platforms into toeing the party line on various issues.

By Matthew Vadum, The Epoch Times, June 26, 2024:

The Supreme Court threw out a challenge on June 26 to the federal government’s actions when it communicated with social media platforms about public health issues during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The justices voted 6–3 to find that those challenging the government lacked legal standing to do so. Standing refers to the right of someone to sue in court. The parties must show a strong enough connection to the law or action complained of to justify their participation in the lawsuit.

The states had argued that the federal government strong-armed social media companies into censoring disfavored views on important public issues, such as side effects related to COVID-19 vaccines and the pandemic lockdowns. Applying this kind of pressure violates the First Amendment, the states said.
Story continues below advertisement

Conservatives and others have complained that social media censors information about transgender issues, COVID-19, and the 2020 election. They were particularly concerned about coverage of Hunter Biden’s laptop computer that contained information they say might have harmed President Joe Biden’s 2020 election campaign had it been allowed to circulate freely.

Some on the left say removing posts on social media is necessary to prevent the spread of misinformation, and some have complained that social media platforms don’t do enough to combat falsehoods.
The case is Murthy v. Missouri. The majority opinion was written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

The petitioner, Dr. Vivek Murthy, is the U.S. surgeon general. The state of Missouri and other parties sued the federal government for censorship because it allegedly pressured social media companies to suppress certain content.

During oral arguments on March 18, Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguiñaga said that “government censorship has no place in our democracy.”

Continue reading….

Article posted with permission from Pamela Geller

The Washington Standard

Previous post

Fake Meat Linked To Heart Attacks & Strokes (Video)

Next post

50 migrants brought to US through ISIS-tied smuggling ring remain unaccounted for by DHS