8 Shocking Takeaways From Landmark Murthy v. Missouri Censorship Case
< < Go Back
On Monday, the censorship-industrial complex was put on trial when the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the landmark free speech case Murthy v. Missouri.
Evidence in the case revealed that in the run-up to the 2020 election, and increasingly thereafter, a raft of federal agencies both directly and via cutouts cajoled, coerced, and colluded with social media companies to censor wrongthinking Americans at a magnitude of millions of posts on matters ranging from the New York Post’s Hunter Biden laptop story to the integrity of mass mail-in balloting and the efficacy of Covid vaccines.
If oral arguments were any indication, it appears the government may prevail and eviscerate our First Amendment in the process.
What follows are some of the most critical, and often disturbing, takeaways from oral arguments.
1. Feds Are Appalled at the Probing of Their Speech Policing
2. Feds Believe Their Censorship Is Legitimate So Long as it Doesn’t Strong-Arm Anyone
3. Feds Framed Their Censorship as a Right to Speak
4. The Feds Want SCOTUS to Bless Their Speech Policing During the Election
5. Public Health Emergencies Justify Censorship, Feds Argue
6. Justice Jackson Revealed Her Radical Anti-Speech Position
7. Justice Kavanaugh Seems Likely to Cave
8. The Plaintiffs Backed Down Under Duress, and That’s Concerning for All of Us.
If Justice Jackson’s view prevails, we will face an extinction-level event for the First Amendment, or at least what’s left of it.
More From The Federalist:
Rss Feed