Revisiting SCOTUS' Failure to Protect Americans' Rights From Weaponized Government in Murthy v. Missouri
Zuckerberg comments underscore a grave dereliction of duty that threatens to eviscerate our liberties going forward
Mark Zuckerberg Confirmed The Supreme Court Ignored Direct Evidence Of Massive Federal Censorship Scheme
Following Mark Zuckerberg’s putative mea culpa for having made Meta complicit in the largest censorship regime in American history, and his vow to restore free expression on his platforms, the CEO made perhaps his most consequential statement of all in an interview with Joe Rogan.
There, after describing the pressure campaign the Biden administration waged against his company to suppress disfavored speech, primarily regarding Covid-19, Zuckerberg told Rogan: “I don’t think that the pushing for social media companies to censor stuff was legal.”
The Meta CEO’s silence as this very issue was being litigated all the way up to the Supreme Court was as deafening then as it is maddening now. But in making this assertion, he has inadvertently highlighted one of the Roberts Court’s gravest derelictions of duty — one that emphasizes the necessity of vigorous executive and legislative actions in defense of our rights.
The dereliction of duty came in the Supreme Court’s punting of the case of Murthy v. Missouri, previously known as Missouri v. Biden.
By refusing to rule on the merits of the case, concerning the Censorship-Industrial Complex’s targeting of Americans’ protected speech at mass scale, the Supremes signaled that it was open season on free speech in America.
They also gave the green light, I explain in a new piece at The Federalist, for the feds to weaponize private sector cutouts to target government dissenters in realms beyond speech.
Why not replicate the censorship-industrial complex’s structure and practices to de-bank wrongthinkers, deny them mortgages, or dictate their health insurance options?
Why not leverage and perfect the model to impose a total social credit system with American characteristics?
These questions just became live with the House Oversight Committee’s opening of a probe into the debanking of dozens of prominent individuals based on their political affiliations — potentially under government coercion.
Read my piece on a ruling that should live infamy — one that is likely to loom over many controversies concerning weaponized government going forward — here.