(TheLastPatriotNews.com) – In what seems like perfectly reasoned reaction, US Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has slammed the Biden White House in a dissenting opinion in a case involving US government censorship on social media platforms.
On Wednesday, Alito accused the Biden administration of orchestrating a “campaign to coerce Facebook” in its efforts to control the spread of misinformation regarding the COVID-19 pandemic on social media platforms.
Joined by his conservative colleagues, Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, Alito expressed his dissent from the six other justices, who formed the majority that dismissed the lawsuits.
These lawsuits challenged the administration’s communications, citing that the plaintiffs lacked legal standing to sue, The Hill reports.
The majority opinion, penned by conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, chose not to delve into the core issues regarding free speech.
Alito, on the other hand, argued that avoiding these critical issues was a neglect of the Supreme Court’s responsibilities.
“For months, high-ranking Government officials placed unrelenting pressure on Facebook to suppress Americans’ free speech,” Alito stated.
“Because the Court unjustifiably refuses to address this serious threat to the First Amendment, I respectfully dissent,” he added.
During the reading of Barrett’s opinion, Alito predominantly kept his gaze on a set of documents in front of him, occasionally resting his head on his hand, and did not vocalize his dissent in the courtroom.
Similarly, Thomas spent most of the time looking down during the reading and periodically rested his head on his hand.
Midway through the reading, he was observed putting his glasses back on, perusing the documents he held, and occasionally scanning the courtroom.
Justice Gorsuch was not present in the courtroom that Wednesday.
The legal challenge originated from Republican state attorneys general and a consortium of private plaintiffs.
They argued that the Biden administration’s recommendations for social media platforms to remove certain content related to COVID-19, the 2020 election, and other contentious topics constituted unconstitutional censorship.
“I assume that a fair portion of what social media users had to say about COVID-19 and the pandemic was of little lasting value,” Alito remarked in his dissent.
He added that while some of the information was likely untrue or misleading, and potentially harmful, it was also clear that valuable discourse was stifled.
The Biden administration maintained that it was simply encouraging these platforms to moderate content, which did not equate to unconstitutional coercion.
Alito, however, firmly disagreed, suggesting that White House officials aggressively pressured Facebook into removing posts, leading to a response from the platform that “resembled that of a subservient entity determined to stay in the good graces of a powerful taskmaster.”
“If the lower courts’ assessment of the voluminous record is correct, this is one of the most important free speech cases to reach this Court in years,” Alito asserted.
Copyright 2024, TheLastPatriotNews.com
