Peloni: Today’s decision by SCOTUS to overturn the stay placed on the Murthy v. Biden case does NOT overturn the actual Murthy v. Biden case, as the injunction associated with the case was all that SCOTUS was hearing. Also, the case which was brought to SCOTUS was criticized at the time it was brought as being poorly argued and badly presented, inviting today’s decision. It is none the less regretful that the injunction was not upheld, and the use of standing to once again dodge an important ruling does little to raise hopes for SCOTUS, but the primary case, Murthy v. Biden continues as DC Draino explains below, and will likely come to be ultimately assessed by SCOTUS at a later date. Hopefully when that eventuality does come to be, the presentation will be better prepared and better argued than during the case on the injunction.
There is a lot of doom and gloom about the 6-3 SCOTUS decision in Murthy v. Biden and how it impacts the 1st Amendment
I would like to quell some of those concerns
This decision reversed the injunction based on *standing*
SCOTUS said that without the plaintiffs having…
— DC_Draino (@DC_Draino) June 26, 2024
@Adam
The case is very far reaching, but in a nutshell, it addresses the ability of the govt to force social media giants such as Twitter to carryout state ordered censorship of ideas challenge the govt on any topic which the govt deems to be too important to discuss.
The outcome of the case will determine if the market place of ideas will be allowed to exist without a federal cypher which will permit only Right Think to exist.
Tracy Beanz has had the best coverage of this topic, bar none, and here is a short overview of the case and the purpose of the injunction which was just overturned.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VBaVZGoqmo
The case is not over, as I stated above, but we should recognize that lossing the battle over the injunction was a significant loss which might indicate where things will go when SCOTUS reviews the outcome of the case which is still in District Court at this point.
I am not familar with this case or its importance. Could someone enlighten me? My impression is that it has something to do with the government’s efforts to supress dissenting speech on social media platforms by labelling it “misinformation.” But that’s all I know.