In a disappointing 6-3 ruling the court found that the states and individual plaintiffs lack standing to seek an injunction against the government. Meanwhile, the censorship leviathan soldiers on.
Dr. Kheriaty, I can’t tell you how sorry I am regarding the Supreme Court decision on your case. I have been anxiously awaiting the ruling and couldn’t believe it when I read the results today. Thank you for writing an explanation of how the decision was decided. It’s so obvious that the government is strongly censoring many conservatives while blithely delivering propaganda. Your explanation of the expectations of the SC is beyond belief. I pray for you and the other plaintiffs to be strong and persistent in your fight for freedom of speech. It affects all of us. Thank you.
Thank you, my friend. Rest assured we will continue to fight. There will be lots more information coming out on discovery as we move to the trial phase. We'll get them in the end.
Our legal system is failing at the same rate as our society- quickly. Cowardice from the Supreme Court, lifetime appointments to the highest court do not translate to courage.
Courtiers to power, one and all, avoiding their responsibility to make a legal decision that is based on examining the facts presented to the high court.
I admire you for resisting being coerced into being an unwilling human subject and upholding fundamental principles laid down in the Nuremberg Code. You have your good name and reputation, which others don't.
Here is the title of the Wall Street Journal article on the 'ruling' :
"Supreme Court Rejects GOP Suit on Social-Media Censorship in Win for Biden"
"GOP Suit"? "Win for Biden"???
Here I was thinking it was a CONSTITUTIONAL matter.
While the WSJ headline did reveal the purely political nature of the criminal medical malfeasance, the ruling itself is assuredly a LOSS for ALL AMERICANS.
Perhaps the Supreme Court would respond to a class action suit brought by the millions of people suffering injuries and loss due to the government's manipulation of the data, concealment of the facts, and censorship of the truth tellers.
Perhaps those millions of victims would have standing?
The WSJ has lost its way and I cancelled my subscription some time ago. It is just NYT Lite now. The writers (one cannot call them journalists) want to preserve their path to moving up the ladder at NYT and WaPO, and they are all cut from the same shabby cloth.
I do not subscribe to the WSJ, so the actual article might have been poorly represented by the title, but that is one of the reasons I do not subscribe. Objectivity can no longer be counted upon. The simple but revelatory error about it being a "GOP Suit" is just one example of a careless mistake(?) that should never have made it into print.
The GOOD news? This controversy is raising awareness. Think, People, THINK.
I knew Amy Barrett didn't think clearly. She would recuse herself from a death-penalty case because she thought Pope John Paul II ruled infallibly that we can't employ capital punishment.
Glad the case will continue. I'll send something to NCLA Legal.
I'm so sorry for this setback. Matt Taibbi at Racket News also gives good analysis but he doesn't seem to mention what you do, that this is not the end of the road. That's something. Dr Kheriaty: trust in the Lord, do good in the land, don't give up!
Here is the link to Matt's analysis (with a very similar headline). He seems to think the public won't be misled by this verdict; I hope he's right!
The idea of harm by the government has to have a high level of proof for them to start paying attention. It seems that Alex Berenson has the "traceability" factor that they are looking for. Because he has emails proving how Scott Gottlieb demanded to censore him and how twitter complied. This is a proof of harm. They can't accept something that they don't see black on white.
Yes, Berenson and RFK Jr. might be able to meet this almost impossibly high hurdle. RFK's case has been combined with ours at the District Court, so that may help on standing.
I wonder if this “traceability” is really a red herring in the context of the first amendment. Can’t you guys show that there was an “legal apparatus“ the purpose of which was to censor? What happened to the chilling effect concept or the prohibition against a prior restraint? Something got lost in the weeds maybe? Why should harm have to be proven in advance? Isn’t this like saying that a prior restraint in itself may not have stopped a person from publishing something, because his family also talked him out of it?
“ Instead, they seek to enjoin the Government agencies and officials from pressuring or encouraging the platforms to suppress protected speech in the future.”
No kidding! Yes that’s EXACTLY what is being asked to be done! Am I the only one face palming at this quote?? As private entities, the social media platforms are welcome to censor or “moderate” however they may choose. The entire issue here is that it is illegal and unconstitutional for the Government to have a hand in any of that censorship. So yes, emphatically yes, Justice Barrett, we do absolutely expect you to uphold the first amendment protections and enjoin our government and its actors from directing private entities in its censorship endeavors…future efforts included. Sheesh!
Also, could Aaron, or some knowledgeable commenter here, say more about why we should expect the standing rules for the main case, to be different? Many conservative pundits, such as John Hinderaker at Powerline, are saying that if the standing was not granted here, it probably won't be granted in the main case. But Aaron seems to be saying that the burden for prelim injunction standing is substantially higher.
What about finding a patient that died from myocarditis after receiving the vaccine at the recommendation of their physician. That physician would need to testify that they searched all the available platforms, including Google, but could find no evidence of the increased risk of myocarditis in young men, though the evidence we now know was already documented but censored and suppressed by the Biden administration coercion. You guys have shown that.
The decision is pure legal sophistry supporting the criminal status quo, nothing less.
Dr. Kheriaty, I can’t tell you how sorry I am regarding the Supreme Court decision on your case. I have been anxiously awaiting the ruling and couldn’t believe it when I read the results today. Thank you for writing an explanation of how the decision was decided. It’s so obvious that the government is strongly censoring many conservatives while blithely delivering propaganda. Your explanation of the expectations of the SC is beyond belief. I pray for you and the other plaintiffs to be strong and persistent in your fight for freedom of speech. It affects all of us. Thank you.
Thank you, my friend. Rest assured we will continue to fight. There will be lots more information coming out on discovery as we move to the trial phase. We'll get them in the end.
Godspeed!
Coney-Barrett and Kavanaugh are proving to be a disappointment..
Our legal system is failing at the same rate as our society- quickly. Cowardice from the Supreme Court, lifetime appointments to the highest court do not translate to courage.
Courtiers to power, one and all, avoiding their responsibility to make a legal decision that is based on examining the facts presented to the high court.
That’s not a punt, that’s a stand in favor of usurpation of power. The decision is one in favor of unconstitutional governance and tyranny.
Aaron, you obviously were harmed by the monopoly on information created by government agents. Mono-thought punishes those with minority opinions.
I agree! I'm not sure how much harm I need to suffer before I'll be considered to have standing.
I admire you for resisting being coerced into being an unwilling human subject and upholding fundamental principles laid down in the Nuremberg Code. You have your good name and reputation, which others don't.
Here is the title of the Wall Street Journal article on the 'ruling' :
"Supreme Court Rejects GOP Suit on Social-Media Censorship in Win for Biden"
"GOP Suit"? "Win for Biden"???
Here I was thinking it was a CONSTITUTIONAL matter.
While the WSJ headline did reveal the purely political nature of the criminal medical malfeasance, the ruling itself is assuredly a LOSS for ALL AMERICANS.
Perhaps the Supreme Court would respond to a class action suit brought by the millions of people suffering injuries and loss due to the government's manipulation of the data, concealment of the facts, and censorship of the truth tellers.
Perhaps those millions of victims would have standing?
The WSJ has lost its way and I cancelled my subscription some time ago. It is just NYT Lite now. The writers (one cannot call them journalists) want to preserve their path to moving up the ladder at NYT and WaPO, and they are all cut from the same shabby cloth.
WSJ???
Fake conservatives here, fake conservatives there, fake fake fake fake everywhere!!!!
indeed
I do not subscribe to the WSJ, so the actual article might have been poorly represented by the title, but that is one of the reasons I do not subscribe. Objectivity can no longer be counted upon. The simple but revelatory error about it being a "GOP Suit" is just one example of a careless mistake(?) that should never have made it into print.
The GOOD news? This controversy is raising awareness. Think, People, THINK.
I knew Amy Barrett didn't think clearly. She would recuse herself from a death-penalty case because she thought Pope John Paul II ruled infallibly that we can't employ capital punishment.
Glad the case will continue. I'll send something to NCLA Legal.
I'm so sorry for this setback. Matt Taibbi at Racket News also gives good analysis but he doesn't seem to mention what you do, that this is not the end of the road. That's something. Dr Kheriaty: trust in the Lord, do good in the land, don't give up!
Here is the link to Matt's analysis (with a very similar headline). He seems to think the public won't be misled by this verdict; I hope he's right!
https://www.racket.news/p/the-supreme-court-punts-on-censorship?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1042&post_id=146018196&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=false&r=8sytp&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
The idea of harm by the government has to have a high level of proof for them to start paying attention. It seems that Alex Berenson has the "traceability" factor that they are looking for. Because he has emails proving how Scott Gottlieb demanded to censore him and how twitter complied. This is a proof of harm. They can't accept something that they don't see black on white.
Yes, Berenson and RFK Jr. might be able to meet this almost impossibly high hurdle. RFK's case has been combined with ours at the District Court, so that may help on standing.
I wonder if this “traceability” is really a red herring in the context of the first amendment. Can’t you guys show that there was an “legal apparatus“ the purpose of which was to censor? What happened to the chilling effect concept or the prohibition against a prior restraint? Something got lost in the weeds maybe? Why should harm have to be proven in advance? Isn’t this like saying that a prior restraint in itself may not have stopped a person from publishing something, because his family also talked him out of it?
“ Instead, they seek to enjoin the Government agencies and officials from pressuring or encouraging the platforms to suppress protected speech in the future.”
No kidding! Yes that’s EXACTLY what is being asked to be done! Am I the only one face palming at this quote?? As private entities, the social media platforms are welcome to censor or “moderate” however they may choose. The entire issue here is that it is illegal and unconstitutional for the Government to have a hand in any of that censorship. So yes, emphatically yes, Justice Barrett, we do absolutely expect you to uphold the first amendment protections and enjoin our government and its actors from directing private entities in its censorship endeavors…future efforts included. Sheesh!
Also, could Aaron, or some knowledgeable commenter here, say more about why we should expect the standing rules for the main case, to be different? Many conservative pundits, such as John Hinderaker at Powerline, are saying that if the standing was not granted here, it probably won't be granted in the main case. But Aaron seems to be saying that the burden for prelim injunction standing is substantially higher.
What about finding a patient that died from myocarditis after receiving the vaccine at the recommendation of their physician. That physician would need to testify that they searched all the available platforms, including Google, but could find no evidence of the increased risk of myocarditis in young men, though the evidence we now know was already documented but censored and suppressed by the Biden administration coercion. You guys have shown that.
Death is certainly a harm.
SCOTUS captured by Davos satanists. It's gonna be a rougher road ahead.