Photo: Alamy
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of the Biden administration. Spearheaded by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the Supreme Court determined that Missouri, Louisiana, and five private individuals lacked the legal standing to challenge the issue on the legal merits regarding government oversight of controversial social media posts during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett said, “They do not point to any specific instance of content moderation that caused them identifiable harm.”
The Supreme Court ruling continues the ongoing controversial oversight that the Biden administration and government officials are mandating regarding what posts can or can’t be allowed on social media as a form of suppressing conservative opinions, especially during a pivotal presidential election year.
For example, the Biden administration has urged social media platforms to be more aggressive in taking down controversial social media posts about COVID-19 from the Surgeon General as a public health crisis. Big tech giants, such as Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter, found themselves at the epicenter of this ongoing debate of silencing conservative posts since the COVID-19 pandemic and the 2020 presidential election.
Big tech implemented various measures, such as labeling posts as misinformation with independent fact-checkers, adding “reliable” sources, or removing social media posts while shutting down social media accounts. These measures were meant to safeguard the general public from false information during the COVID-19 pandemic and the 2020 presidential election.
However, big tech controlling the flow of information also raised numerous red flags for the ongoing suppression of freedom of speech from differing opinions on all social media platforms, specifically targeting conservatives and Trump supporters.
Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Alito sided for the protection of freedom of speech on social media posts against big-tech
Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Neil Gorsuch, and Justice Samuel Alito all dissented against the Supreme Court’s majority ruling by holding the lane for free speech. They highlighted the threats to freedom of speech as unconstitutional, as big tech threatens to suppress freedom of speech for all Americans.
The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution should be preserved at all costs under the foundation of our founding fathers. Freedom of speech needs to be protected in the digital age as information spreads quickly through word of mouth through the power of social media.
This ruling not only affects conservative voices on social media platforms, but the dangers of censorship in the digital age should be a nonpartisan issue.
This case is not yet over, the lower courts can still proceed on the basis of merit, as stated by Rogan O’Handley.