Democrats have been attempting to undermine the Supreme Court.
That’s why they openly talk about court-packing.
But the high-court made one huge ruling that left Donald Trump and his supporters speechless.
In a surprising move, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 temporarily blocking a Texas law that would prohibit Big Tech companies from engaging in ideological censorship.
Donald Trump won’t like that Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett voted with the liberals alongside—unsurprisingly—Chief Justice John Roberts; Elena Kagan actually voted with conservatives Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch.
Matt Schruers, president of the Computer & Communications Industry Association, who is litigating against the Texas law, said, “This ruling means that private American companies will have an opportunity to be heard in court before they are forced to disseminate vile, abusive or extremist content under this Texas law. We appreciate the Supreme Court ensuring First Amendment protections, including the right not to be compelled to speak, will be upheld during the legal challenge to Texas’s social media law.”
But that is a mischaracterization of the argument put forward by the Texas law.
The crux of the argument is ideological censorship, and companies like Twitter are violating their own terms of service in order to disproportionately punish users who lean Right.
For example, Twitter allowed Donald Trump’s tax returns to be spread far and wide across the platform, but the Hunter Biden “laptop from hell” bombshell from The New York Post was suppressed, so much so that the story could not even be shared via private message.
And the Post, the oldest U.S. paper in circulation, was locked out of its account for a week.
Twitter’s lame excuse was that The Post violated Twitter’s so-called “hacked materials” policy, which was not even true.
Justice Thomas argued that major tech companies that have become the de facto public square should be treated as common carriers.
In a dissent from a 2021 decision, Thomas argued, “The similarities between some digital platforms and common carriers or places of public accommodation may give legislators strong arguments for similarly regulating digital platforms.”
Ideological censorship is a huge problem.
Shadowy figures in Silicon Valley should not get to determine what is true and what is not.
The issue of whether or not Big Tech platforms should be treated as common carriers has yet to be decided, and the legal fight is not over.
Stay tuned to Unmuzzled News for any updates to this ongoing story.