Have We Reached Terminal Stupidity?

A shocking video from Missouri v. Biden arguments

Mar 19, 2024

Happy Tuesday, Screamers! (At least until you finish this article, that is.) I don’t have much time today, but I wanted to highlight the absolute insanity coming out of the Supreme Court this week.

From time to time I’ve been providing updates on the progress of Missouri v. Biden, which revolves around government pressuring social media companies to ban users who are engaging in legal, Constitutionally protected speech. The case has wound its way to the Supreme Court, but we can review the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s 74-page ruling about the case to quickly summarize what it’s about.

The plaintiffs in the case allege that government officials directed social media companies to stifle their speech, either through ‘deamplification’ or an outright ban. Note that while much of the case involves covid and vaccine information, the scope of the government’s censorship goes FAR beyond this issue:

The ruling shows that government, indeed, pressured the social media companies into taking action against non-approved material:

And while government was pressuring social media companies to deamplify SOME views, it demanded those companies AMPLIFY government’s own speech:

This probably doesn’t come as a surprise to long-time readers, because the covid censorship playbook is still available for all to see.

Ever wonder why your former favorite celebrity went off the deep end during covid? It’s likely they were being paid — using your tax money — to go off the deep end during covid.

It sure beats getting banned, right? (Obviously, I disagree.)

This is how it works. The White House demands something, and the social media companies acquiesce. But — as Orwell might say — to acquiesce isn’t enough…how do you know the social media companies are obeying your will and not their own?

You make them suffer. You threaten them with legal consequences for the death of Americans.

Sure, it’s a little less subtle than “Nice restaurant you’ve got here….”, but when you’re swinging the biggest club in the history of the world, who needs subtlety?

But the case goes far beyond the White House. It also encompasses the actions of the CDC — who became the de facto authority on all things covid, and therefore basically wrote the censorship policy for Facebook, Twitter, and nearly all the rest of social media companies:

That last line amplifies my point — the moderation teams were just sitting around waiting for somebody in government to tell them what to take down. This is clearly government censorship.

And as I mentioned earlier, this censorship went far beyond covid and vaccine information. The FBI was battling “election disinformation” during the 2022 midterms using the same apparatus as the covid censorship:

Around this time — but not mentioned in the court case — we also saw censorship revolving around the Russia/Ukraine war. I think it’s fair to say this censorship encompasses every single “big” issue in the country — and it catches even elected officials in its grasp:

In summary:

Of course, the Biden administration didn’t want to give up the power to censor Americans, and it appealed the case to the Supreme Court. That led us to yesterday’s shocking statement from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson:

“My biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways in the most important time periods.”

“Some might say that the government has a duty to take steps to protect the citizens of this country.”

“You’ve got the First Amendment operating in an environment of threatening circumstances — from the government’s perspective — and you’re saying the government can’t interact with the source of those problems.”

A quick refresher:

You know what I don’t see in the First Amendment? “Unless there’s an emergency” or “Unless there’s a virus” or “Unless the government REALLY wants to censor you.”

I would expect Justice Jackson’s argument from a first-year law student — and I would expect her professor would promptly set her straight about what the Constitution actually does. (Hint: Its whole purpose is “hamstringing” the government.)

How is it that we’ve gotten to the point where a Supreme Court Justice doesn’t even understand the nature of our founding documents? And how scary is it that we’re one bad SCotUS ruling from enshrining this censorship into law?