What a truly bizarre and concerning day for freedom of speech. The Supreme Court just effectively punted on making a ruling on a gigantic case about government censorship. Saying the litigants didn’t have the standing to bring the suit. From the AP: Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the court that the states and other parties did not have the legal right, or standing, to sue. Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas dissented.
So, as I understand it, (and I’m no lawyer) The US Government told social media platforms what speech they didn’t like. The social media platforms then suppressed or eliminated those posts. The one the government didn’t like. And now that the case has somehow gone to the Supreme Court the wrong people are suing? And the Court won’t hear the case. Is that it?
How does this end well? Isn’t thit pretty damn close to Carte Blanche for big brother to step in whenever they don’t like some critique? Seems like it is. And again, I’m not a lawyer, but who IS supposed to sue? Who does have standing in a case like this? And how does something that seems so basic go all the way to the supreme court? It’s really odd to me. So, let’s turn to some legal eagles for mor insight. Shall we?
