Twenty-three Democrat run states and the District of Columbia, the home of our nation’s capital, filed amicus briefs in support of government censorship and the banning of free speech in the United States.
These 23 states and the District of Columbia filed amicus briefs in support of the Biden administration in the SCOTUS case is Murthy, et al v. Missouri, et al, 23-411 (Missouri v. Biden) case.
The states essentially argue that they have an interest in collaborating with tech companies to “encourage” the public to behave themselves and “discourage” the public from believing alleged “disinformation” or engaging in online predatory behavior. The clear message is that they believe that the government has the right to shut down and censor speech.
The list of un-American states that support government censorship includes:
New York
Colorado
Arizona
California
Connecticut
Vermont,
Washington,
Washington, D.C.
Wisconsin
New Jersey
New Mexico,
Oregon
Pennsylvania,
Rhode Island,
Delaware,
Hawaii,
Illinois,
Maine,
Maryland,
Massachusetts,
Michigan,
Minnesota,
Nevada
HOWEVER, a number of courageous states filed an Amicus Curiae brief in SUPPORT of Gateway Pundit and the Free Speech Respondents. These (16) heroic states include:
Montana,
Alabama,
Alaska,
Florida,
Georgia,
Iowa,
Idaho,
Tennessee,
Kansas,
Nebraska,
Ohio,
South Carolina,
South Dakota,
Utah,
Virginia,
West Virginia,
and the Arizona Legislature
The “most important free speech case in a generation” Missouri v. Biden (Murthy v. Missouri), is set to be heard by the Supreme Court on Monday, March 18th.
Missouri v. Biden is the case filed by the courageous Attorneys General from Missouri and Louisiana against the Biden Administration for their violations of the First Amendment. Specifically, the case complains to the Court that the federal government violated the Constitution when it specifically directed social media companies to delete and censor comments, articles, accounts, memes, and photos they disliked, and when the FBI’s corrupt agents, agents like Elvis Chan, engaged in a wholesale de-platforming of specific users, specific comments, and specific topics.
The government was purposefully censoring truthful information.
The scale of the censorship regime is massive.
The hearing on March 18th will be for oral arguments, which will likely last one day. The Justices would then decide the case, and if a majority agrees, they will issue an opinion on the last day of the Court’s term, typically in late June or early July. The Supreme Court agrees to hear very few cases each year, typically only 100–150 cases of over 7,000 that usually request review.
The plaintiffs include three prominent doctors, a news website, a healthcare activist, and two states —had posts and stories removed or downgraded by the platforms.
Dr. Aaron Kheriaty
Dr. Martin Kulldorff
Dr. Jayanta Bhattacharya
Jim Hoft
Jill Hines
The State of Missouri
The State of Louisiana
via thegatewaypundit
