SCOTUS fails the most consequential Free Speech case ever - Murthy v. Missouri

Rather than looking at the facts of the case, a majority of the justices punted, claiming that the petitioners could not show a direct causal link between the actions of those in government and social media platform censorship.

Justice Barrett, writing the opinion, makes the court’s point very succinctly. We begin—and end—with standing. At this stage, neither the individual nor the state plaintiffs have established standing to seek an injunction against any defendant. We therefore lack jurisdiction to reach the merits of the dispute.

Standing is the only thing the majority of the court even bothered considering?

The court goes on to explain that, while the plaintiffs have had their content restricted, they could show no direct causal link to government actors. The link actions taken by the social media companies could simply be coincidental to the communications with government agencies and, therefore, do not show that the injuries they suffered were caused by the federal government.

Read the full article... watch and learn from Constitutional Expert Paul Engel; there is always much more to learn back at America Out Loud: https://www.americaoutloud.news/.