SCOTUS sides with BIDEN in censorship case to prevent ‘grave harm’
The Supreme Court has ruled that the Biden administration may coordinate with social media companies to censor viewpoints it deems dangerous.
“We all know the Biden regime is not going to censor leftists,” Sara Gonzales says, frustrated by the ruling.
This decision from Murthy v. Missouri saw state attorneys general who accused government officials of working with social media companies under the guise of combating misinformation and disinformation. The AGs argued that officials suppressed discussions on Hunter Biden’s laptop, COVID-19 origins, and vaccine efficacy.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals had sided with the plaintiffs on the grounds of the First Amendment.
The Justice Department then argued that the temporary ban of this “public private partnership” would cause irreparable harm because it may prevent the federal government from working with social media companies to prevent “grave harm” to the American people and the democratic process.
SCOTUS indirectly agreed with the Justice Department by reversing the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision. Only Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch dissented.
They claimed that a “review of extensive government social media communications is outside of the Court’s scope,” that “allegations of past censorship are not enough to prove future censorship,” and that “injuries claimed by plaintiffs are indirect and anticipatory.”
The timing couldn’t be worse for conservatives.
“This is not really the decision that you want, walking into an election as a conservative, where like all but one of the social media platforms very much want to censor your opinion,” Gonzales says.
“The reasons that they argue that these plaintiffs lack standing just seem to be the most convoluted bogus reasons in my opinion. How can you say that past actions are not proof of future actions? Like the Biden regime has a very clear record of pressuring social media companies, Big Tech platforms to censor conservatives,” she adds.
Want more from Sara Gonzales?
To enjoy more of Sara's no-holds-barred take to news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
www.theblaze.com
www.theblaze.com
Stu REACTS to last night’s GOP debate – see what you missed!
Stu Burguiere thought the first GOP debate held back in August was a relative success, even considering Trump’s absence.
The second GOP debate, however, was “a catastrophic failure,” he says.
“It was absolutely terrible – all they did was talk over each other the entire time; all of them made the same freaking decision that they needed to be more aggressive and yell about everything,” Stu reproves.
For example, all the candidates clearly “believe the path to the presidency is to yell at Vivek Ramaswamy,” which Stu can’t make sense of, given that Ramaswamy is likely “not going to be president … not at 38 years old.”
He was also unimpressed with Nikki Haley’s failed attempt to pull off the “Donald Trump schtick” by “[yelling] at everybody” and being “insulting for no reason.”
On a positive note, Stu thought Ron DeSantis performed well.
“I don't think DeSantis has had a lot of bad moments, and I don't know that he's done anything to separate himself from the rest of this pack,” he says.
When it comes to Tim Scott, who certainly took on an aggressive disposition, Stu has “seen enough.”
“He just does not seem like he's ready for this or able to do it very well,” he says.
“Pence–same thing … I just don’t see it.”
As for Ramaswamy, Stu thinks he has “a lot to add to the conversation” and is “clean with his language.”
“Now he is, at some level, doing an impersonation of a candidate,” Stu admits, “and I get that – that's a fair criticism of him, but he's not stupid, he’s not a dumb guy; he's a really smart guy, and, you know, he has something to add to the conversation.”
Doug Burgum, on the other hand, might have “a good record in North Dakota,” but “I don’t think [he] has any chance,” says Stu.
Chris Christie, whom one commenter hilariously refers to as “Krispy Kreme,” is similar to Burgum in that he has no chance whatsoever. However, Stu finds him “interesting,” although he admits that he’s “in the minority on this one.”
“He's way more entertaining than Pence, he's way more entertaining than Burgum, he's way more entertaining than Scott … I think he brings something better to this debate,” Stu admits.
In sum, Stu says he’d like to see DeSantis, Ramaswamy, Haley, and Christie back on the stage again.
“And obviously … Trump would be great if he decided to show up.”
To hear Stu’s full analysis, watch the video below.
Want more from Stu?
To enjoy more of Stu's lethal wit, wisdom, and mockery, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.