BREAKING: Trump Vindicated in Newly Released 'Epstein Files' Interview
There’s a Blue Collar Boom Happening in America
Abrego Garcia, 'Maryland Man,' MS-13 Member, and Alleged Human Trafficker, Has Been Sprung...
Antifa Tried to Incite Violence Between Black and Jewish Neighbors – Watch How...
Defiant DeSantis Hits Back Hard at Federal Judge Who Slapped Down 'Alligator Alcatraz'
The First Wave of Epstein Files Is on its Way to Congress –...
SAFE HAVEN IN OHIO
Pennsylvania Man Sentenced to 28 months for SNAP, Medical Fraud
Ghislaine Maxwell Transcript: 'There is no list'
Canada Drops Retaliatory Tariffs Against the US
Trump: Lisa Cook Must Resign or Be Fired Over Mortgage Fraud Allegations
Nevada Man Sentenced for Over $11M COVID-19 Relief Fraud and Money Laundering Scheme
Joni Ernst Takes a Chainsaw to Washington Waste — And Taxpayers Are Winning
Chip Roy Champions Texas’s Redistricting
Trump Brings Law and Order — And Dinner — to D.C.'s Front Lines
Tipsheet

Alito Dissents: The Supreme Court Has Shirked Its Duty

Erin Schaff/The New York Times via AP, Pool

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 Wednesday that the state of Missouri lacked standing in its lawsuit against the Biden administration over social media censorship. 

Advertisement

In their dissent, Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch stressed that the issue of the federal government using private big tech companies to subvert the First Amendment and censor speech is a crucial issue that ultimately must be addressed. 

"This case involves what the District Court termed 'a far-reaching and widespread censorship campaign' conducted by high-ranking federal officials against Americans who expressed certain disfavored views about COVID–19 on social media," Alito wrote in the opinion. "This is one of the most important free speech cases to reach this Court in years. Freedom of speech serves many valuable purposes, but its most important role is protection of speech that is essential to democratic self-government, see Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U. S. 443, 451–452 (2011)  and speech that advances humanity’s store of knowledge, thought, and expression in fields such as science, medicine, history, the social sciences, philosophy, and the arts."

"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. But government officials may not coerce private entities to suppress speech, see National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo, 602 U. S. 175 (2024), and that is what happened in this case," he continued. "For months in 2021 and 2022, a coterie of officials at the highest levels of the Federal Government continuously harried and implicitly threatened Facebook with potentially crippling consequences if it did not comply with their wishes about the suppression of certain COVID–19-related speech. Not surprisingly, Facebook repeatedly yielded."

Advertisement

Alito went on to criticize the failure of the Court to address the issue. 

"We are obligated to tackle the free speech issue that the case presents. 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. That is regrettable. What the officials did in this case was more subtle than the ham-handed censorship found to be unconstitutional in Vullo, but it was no less coercive," he continued. "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."

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos