Censorship of free speech - Supreme Court is reviewing federal government restraining social media companies

[LiveLife]

Censorship of free speech ... release of Twitter Files exposing DOJ/FBI/CIA involvement with Twitter (Now "X") of content moderation during 2020 election.

And now the Supreme Court is reviewing federal government restraining social media companies ... "First Amendment was intended to restrain the government to allow free press"

Carried over from another thread discussion - https://notechtyranny.com/index.php...mp-with-some-differences.336/page-4#post-9831

Now Supreme Court is reviewing whether social media content moderation during pandemic/2020 election restrained by federal government was unconstitutional in Murthy v Missouri (Case was argued before the justices on 3/18/24 and ruling is expected later this year) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murthy_v._Missouri

And this is not the first First Amendment case for the Supreme Court as there's a long list of First Amendment cases ruled unconstitutional - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...eme_Court_cases_involving_the_First_Amendment

Supreme Court to Examine Social Media Content Moderation as State Action - https://www.dykema.com/news-insight...media-content-moderation-as-state-action.html

• Supreme Court will decide whether interactions with federal government officials transformed social media content moderation decisions into state action and whether those decisions violate the First Amendment.
• Surgeon General and federal government officials were sued in their official capacities because of interactions they had with social media platforms regarding certain types of content, mainly related to the COVID-19 pandemic and the 2020 election.
• State of Missouri, state of Louisiana, and five individuals claiming deprivation of their right to free speech by content moderation decisions on certain social media platforms. They alleged that their accounts or posts were removed or downgraded by social media content moderation decisions that were done at the direction of federal government officials.
• District court granted preliminary injunction finding that some defendants had violated the states’ and individuals’ First Amendment rights by coercing and significantly encouraging platforms’ content moderation activities.
• Preliminary injunction limited how federal officials could interact with social media companies in urging or encouraging the suppression or deletion of content. But the injunction had a series of carveouts allowing such communications if they involved criminal activity or national security threats.
• Federal government appealed.
• Fifth Circuit vacated part of the injunction and modified the rest, concluding that: (1) the states and individuals had standing to sue, (2) the federal government had violated the claimants’ First Amendment rights by making threats, using a coercive “tone” in their communications, and entangling themselves in the platforms’ decision-making process, and (3) equitable considerations made a preliminary injunction appropriate.
• During Supreme Court oral argument, Justice Sotomayor questioned how the injunction would harm the federal government, and questioned the scope of the injunction. Justice Alito focused on the standing issue and questioned the level at which the traceability of the alleged First Amendment injuries as caused by the federal government needed to be examined for standing purposes. Justice Gorsuch also questioned what standard was appropriate to show injury for standing purposes. Justices Kagan and Jackson questioned what conduct the government could legally engage in that could abridge the freedom of speech. Chief Justice Roberts questioned how there could be coercion here in light of the fact that the federal government is not monolithic and often has competing interests.
• A decision is expected later in the term