Supreme Court To Hear Arguments On Government Censorship Of Online Opinions They Don’t Like

I love the way the AP terms this in their headline

Supreme Court weighs how far federal officials can go to combat controversial posts on hot topics

Realistically, it should be “none”. If the government wants to attempt to provide counter information, feel free, though, that would be pretty disturbing if they are replying to a standalone post/tweet/whatever.

In a busy term that could set standards for free speech in the digital age, the Supreme Court on Monday is taking up a dispute between Republican-led states and the Biden administration over how far the federal government can go to combat controversial social media posts on topics including COVID-19 and election security.

The justices are hearing arguments in a lawsuit filed by Louisiana, Missouri and other parties accusing officials in the Democratic administration of leaning on the social media platforms to unconstitutionally squelch conservative points of view. Lower courts have sided with the states, but the Supreme Court blocked those rulings while it considers the issue.

The high court is in the midst of a term heavy with social media issues. On Friday, the court laid out standards for when public officials can block their social media followers. Less than a month ago, the court heard arguments over Republican-passed laws in Florida and Texas that prohibit large social media companies from taking down posts because of the views they express.

The cases over state laws and the one being argued Monday are variations on the same theme, complaints that the platforms are censoring conservative viewpoints.

I wonder if the lawyers will mention that many of the opinions expressed online that government asked social media companies to censor were actually true?

The states argue that White House communications staffers, the surgeon general, the FBI and the U.S. cybersecurity agency are among those who coerced changes in online content on Facebook, X (formerly Twitter) and other media platforms.

“It’s a very, very threatening thing when the federal government uses the power and authority of the government to block people from exercising their freedom of speech,” Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill said in a video her office posted online.

It is threatening, and disturbing, that government forces are trolling social media looking for posts they do not like. It tells me that they are Fascists and there are way too many federal employees if they have time to do this. And that they have lost sight of what the Constitution states. Where did they get any authority to do this when the 1st Amendment specifically states that government cannot censor Free Speech?

Free speech advocates say the court should use the case to draw an appropriate line between the government’s acceptable use of the bully pulpit and coercive threats to free speech.

“The government has no authority to threaten platforms into censoring protected speech, but it must have the ability to participate in public discourse so that it can effectively govern and inform the public of its views,” Alex Abdo, litigation director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, said in a statement.

They’re welcome to participate: offer information. But, most of what we see from government is government-speak talking points which usually sound like mule fritters.

The opinion should be out this summer. Realistically, if Biden’s regime was doing this he and anyone involved should be impeached/fired.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

11 Responses to “Supreme Court To Hear Arguments On Government Censorship Of Online Opinions They Don’t Like”

  1. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    The proper response to false information is the truth, repeated as often as necessary.

    The question is, “Do governments, and officials, have the right to respond?” Should a newly-elected President Trump be able to respond on X to critics?

    Social media is a cesspool of floating garbage and there is nothing to be done other than repeating the truth.

    • drowningpuppies says:

      …there is nothing to be done other than repeating the truth.

      From the fat boy who has proven tme after time he hasn’t the slightest acquaintance with the truth.

      Bwaha! Lolgf

    • Brother John says:

      The proper response to false information is the truth, repeated as often as necessary.

      Yes, this is why anyone wastes any time on your dumb ass around here.

      • Elwood P. Dowd says:


        Yet, repeatedly, you submit life-altering observations!!

        Now. Kiss my ass and sin no more, covfefe.

  2. Jl says:

    In oral arguments in that case today rocket scientist justice KBJ stated (when talking to the LA solicitor general) “My biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways”. Yes, quite literally that is the entire point of the First Amendment.

    • Jl says:

      The BB commenting on the above: “at publishing time, arguments had to be suspended to give Justice Jackson an opportunity to read a second-grade history textbook about the Constitution”.

    • Dana says:

      I’m old enough to remember the Berkeley Free Speech Movement, and the position of the left that the freedom of speech is absolute. Today we have the left wanting the government to have some sort of power to suppress what the government define as falsehoods. They’d have screamed bloody murder had President Trump tried to exercise such power, but now that the dummkopf from Delaware is in the White House, why it seems like a nifty idea.

      • Professor Hale says:

        The Left was never really about personal liberty nor were they anti-establishment. They only rode that horse to get into power. Now that they are the establishment, they will tolerate no dissent, just like in every country where they come to power. Just look at what they are doing to Trump. The message is: if you stand against us, we will go after you. We will go after your family. We will impoverish you with endless lawsuits and excessive fines. We will go after you long after you are out of office. We will go after your businesses and your employees and anyone who defends you. We will put you in jail for make-believe crimes and ignore your due process. We will even make it a crime to proclaim your innocence. We will make you regret ever standing against us.

  3. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    Justice Amy Coney Barrett expressed surprise when Louisiana Solicitor General J. Benjamin Aguiñaga questioned whether the FBI could call Facebook and X (formerly Twitter) to encourage them to take down posts that maliciously released someone’s personal information without permission, the practice known as doxxing.

    He said that calls merely encouraging the platforms to act also could violate speech rights, responding to a hypothetical situation conjured by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, about an online challenge that “involved teens jumping out of windows at increasing elevations.”

    Jackson, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, pressed the Louisiana lawyer about whether platforms could be encouraged to remove such posts.

    “I was with you right until that last comment, Your Honor,” Aguiñaga said. “I think they absolutely can call and say this is a problem, it’s going rampant on your platforms, but the moment that the government tries to use its ability as the government and its stature as the government to pressure them to take it down, that is when you’re interfering with the third party’s speech rights.”

    That’s free speech isn’t it, Justice Barrett? What about drag queens dancing seductively, should states be able to block the videos?

  4. Jl says:

    “KBJ warns right to free speech could lead to people speaking freely”.
    Scary. BB

Pirate's Cove