Supreme Court Upholds Biden Censorship, Berenson v Biden Remains
Submitted by MAGA Student
Posted 2 days ago
The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the Biden Administration in a major social media censorship case, leaving Berenson v Biden as the only remaining challenge to the Administration's censorship efforts.
In a 6-3 vote, the court found that two states and five private plaintiffs had not shown they were personally damaged by federal efforts to make companies like Facebook suppress Covid skeptics.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the majority, which included the court's three liberal justices and three centrist conservatives.
The decision technically only applies to an injunction a lower federal court has issued for the plaintiffs.
However, it effectively ends the lawsuit, once known as Missouri v Biden and now called Murthy v Missouri.
The ruling leaves Berenson v Biden, a lawsuit filed last year in federal court in Manhattan, as the only serious remaining challenge to the Biden administration’s censorship.
The court ruled against the Missouri plaintiffs only on standing. It did not judge the underlying constitutional issues that arise when government officials push social media companies to censor Americans.
The evidence presented in Berenson v Biden easily surpasses the bar set by the court. The lawsuit has shown that Andy Slavitt targeted the plaintiff by name while he was at the White House beginning in April 2021 and Twitter’s escalating bans on the plaintiff’s account began only after that targeting began.
New emails and other messages that Elon Musk and X - the former Twitter - have turned over to the plaintiff in the last few days show that Slavitt extended his efforts in mid-July 2021, as the White House censorship campaign took on new urgency.
The new messages also show that Twitter escalated the pressure on the plaintiff’s account - and barely a month later, it had banned the plaintiff, for a tweet it later admitted did not violate its rules.
The case is about to enter a far more active phase. The plaintiff plans to amend the complaint to include the many new facts discovered since the initial filing.
The rulings in Murthy v Missouri and another Supreme Court case called NRA v Vullo have created new legal issues for the plaintiff and the defense to spar over.
Things are going to get interesting.
Sources:
bbc.com
msnbc.com
alexberenson.substack.com
In a 6-3 vote, the court found that two states and five private plaintiffs had not shown they were personally damaged by federal efforts to make companies like Facebook suppress Covid skeptics.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the majority, which included the court's three liberal justices and three centrist conservatives.
The decision technically only applies to an injunction a lower federal court has issued for the plaintiffs.
However, it effectively ends the lawsuit, once known as Missouri v Biden and now called Murthy v Missouri.
The ruling leaves Berenson v Biden, a lawsuit filed last year in federal court in Manhattan, as the only serious remaining challenge to the Biden administration’s censorship.
The court ruled against the Missouri plaintiffs only on standing. It did not judge the underlying constitutional issues that arise when government officials push social media companies to censor Americans.
The evidence presented in Berenson v Biden easily surpasses the bar set by the court. The lawsuit has shown that Andy Slavitt targeted the plaintiff by name while he was at the White House beginning in April 2021 and Twitter’s escalating bans on the plaintiff’s account began only after that targeting began.
New emails and other messages that Elon Musk and X - the former Twitter - have turned over to the plaintiff in the last few days show that Slavitt extended his efforts in mid-July 2021, as the White House censorship campaign took on new urgency.
The new messages also show that Twitter escalated the pressure on the plaintiff’s account - and barely a month later, it had banned the plaintiff, for a tweet it later admitted did not violate its rules.
The case is about to enter a far more active phase. The plaintiff plans to amend the complaint to include the many new facts discovered since the initial filing.
The rulings in Murthy v Missouri and another Supreme Court case called NRA v Vullo have created new legal issues for the plaintiff and the defense to spar over.
Things are going to get interesting.
Sources:
bbc.com
msnbc.com
alexberenson.substack.com
