By A. Dru Kristenev ——Bio and Archives--June 29, 2024

Cover Story | CFP Comments | Reader Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us

The 6-3 decision from SCOTUS on Murthy v. Missouri sidestepped the reality of government interference in what’s published on the internet for public consumption. Seeing Justice Coney-Barrett and fellows deny the original petitioners’ standing to make their claim of injury, it left the question of government applied censorship unanswered. With America First Legal releasing details of the Biden administration’s plan to deal with “domestic terrorism,” government hounding of conservatives, religionists, and veterans is still a concern.

What it did was give the three conservative justices an opening to address the current state of free speech, in that dealing with the internet and social media, there virtually is none.

The dissenting opinion to the majority’s rejection of the standing of the plaintiffs in the Murthy v. Missouri appeal makes plain how much internet platforms have given themselves over to limiting free exchange of ideas. Justice Alito made the case for the return for the “pamphleteers” that founders of Scribes College of Journalism have been calling for over the last decade.

Ease of access to online publishing has enticed writers, entrepreneurs, and sundry professionals into submitting to the standards set by web giants Google, Meta, what was Twitter, and other woke messaging, teaching, and informational platforms.

With news, teaching, and communication moving predominantly online, it didn’t take two decades to effectively throttle........

© Canada Free Press