最新杏吧原创

In a 6-3 decision written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the court held that neither the states nor seven individuals who were co-plaintiffs in the case were able to demonstrate any harm or substantial risk that they will suffer an injury in the future.

Therefore, they do not have legal standing to bring a case against the federal government.

Plaintiffs failed to prove that social media platforms acted due to government coercion, Barrett wrote, rather than their own judgment and policies. In fact, she wrote, social media platforms 鈥渂egan to suppress the plaintiffs鈥� COVID鈥�19 content before the defendants鈥� challenged communications started.鈥�

Plaintiffs cannot 鈥渕anufacture standing,鈥� Barrett wrote, 鈥渕erely by inflicting harm on themselves based on their fears of hypothetical future harm that is not certainly impending.鈥�

The ruling overturns a lower court decision that concluded officials under Presidents Joe Biden and Donald Trump unlawfully coerced social media companies to remove deceptive or inaccurate content out of fears it would fuel vaccine hesitancy or upend elections.

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey, who inherited the lawsuit from his predecessor, has called the federal government鈥檚 actions 鈥渢he biggest violation of the First Amendment in our nation鈥檚 history.鈥�

But those arguments were greeted with skepticism by the court in March, with justices from across the ideological spectrum punching holes in the lawsuit and raising concerns about the consequences for public safety and national security.

In his dissent, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the government鈥檚 actions in this case were not 鈥� ham-handed censorship鈥� that the court has routinely rejected, but they were coercive and illegal all the same.

鈥淚t was blatantly unconstitutional,鈥� he wrote, 鈥渁nd the country may come to regret the court鈥檚 failure to say so鈥� If a coercive campaign is carried out with enough sophistication, it may get by. That is not a message this court should send.鈥�

Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill released a statement on social media calling Wednesday鈥檚 ruling 鈥渦nfortunate and disappointing.鈥�

鈥淎 majority of the Supreme Court gives a free pass to the federal government to threaten tech platforms into censorship and suppression of speech that is indisputably protected by the First Amendment,鈥� Murril said. 鈥淭he majority waves off the worst government coercion scheme in history.鈥�

In an emailed statement, Bailey made no mention of the court鈥檚 decision to dismiss the case, instead declaring that his office will continue to pursue evidence of social media censorship by the federal government.

鈥淢issouri is not done,鈥� Bailey said. 鈥淲e are going back to the district court to obtain more discovery in order to root out Joe Biden鈥檚 vast censorship enterprise once and for all.鈥�

The lawsuit was filed in 2022 by Missouri and Louisiana, along with seven people who either were banned from a platform or whose posts were not prominently featured on social media sites such as Facebook, YouTube and X, then known as Twitter.

Among the co-plaintiffs is Jim Hoft, founder of the 最新杏吧原创-based right-wing conspiracy website Gateway Pundit. Hoft has built a career on promulgating false conspiracies on a wide range of topics, from the 2018 Parkland school shooting to former President Barack Obama鈥檚 birth certificate.

His company recently filed for bankruptcy as it faces defamation lawsuits in Missouri and Colorado filed by people who say they faced threats after being vilified by Gateway Pundit in false stories.

During appeals court arguments last year, the attorneys general specifically cited Hoft, claiming that he is 鈥渃urrently subjected to an ongoing campaign by federal officials to target the content on his website.鈥�

Hoft claims claims that Twitter, in December 2020, censored content about the Hunter Biden laptop story at the urging of the federal government. But Barrett wrote that Twitter acted according to its own rules against posting or sharing 鈥減rivately produced/distributed intimate media of someone without their express consent.鈥�

There is no evidence, Barrett wrote, that Twitter adopted its policy in response to pressure from the federal government.

Benjamin Agui帽aga, the solicitor general for the Louisiana attorney general, argued before the court in March that the government has no right to try to persuade social media platforms to violate Americans鈥� constitutional rights, 鈥渁nd pressuring platforms in back rooms shielded from public view is not using the bully pulpit at all. That is just being a bully.鈥�

Emails obtained as part of the lawsuit, Agui帽aga argued, show the government badgered platforms behind closed doors, abused them with profanity and 鈥渙minously says that the White House is considering its options鈥� all to get the platforms to censor more speech.鈥�

鈥淯nder this onslaught,鈥� he said, 鈥渢he platforms routinely cave.鈥�

The federal government, represented by Brian Fletcher, principal deputy solicitor general, argued Agui帽aga鈥檚 accusations simply don鈥檛 hold water.

There is no evidence that decisions by social media companies to remove or deprioritize content can be attributed to the government. Instead, Fletcher argued, the companies made their own decisions relying on their own content moderation policies.

There was no coercion or attempted intimidation, Fletcher said, and the best proof is that social media companies 鈥渞outinely said 鈥榥o鈥� to the government.鈥�