Yes. What a shame the lawyers missed a pivotal defect in the action they brought to SCOTUS. There is no getting past the logic that destroyed their standing.
Good news is, this case was not heard on the merits and the mistakes made in this instance will likely not be made the next time this issue presents to the court.
Sometimes you're the windshield. Sometimes you're the bug.
Alex Berenson posted that the particulars of the decision help his case as he has the particulars. While I am glad for him, the decision is still appalling.
Yes. As is the failure to see the controlling deficit in the case before SCOTUS pointed it out. Due Process can be a brutal thing.
Berenson may yet prevail. The issue he champions deserves to prevail.
The greater issue may be qualified immunity for agency employees who behave unconscionably in pernicious ways to deny citizens their unalienable and civil rights. There should be no qualified immunity for persons who conduct their government office or trustee position to such effect.
The sociopathic and disordered personalities need to be weeded-out of public service. If we fail that, they corrode, corrupt, congeal and dominate the power culture of the institution. This is the history of this human problem. This is the Big Problem in every human family, neighborhood, corporation, institution and society across every era of human history.
Many of our federal, state and local governing institutions of today are in such crises, dominated by these malignants and are in desperate need of an intervention to restore conviviality rooted in mutualism. If we don't solve this there is a very real risk of Russian missiles arriving 7-12 minutes after launch. Not joking. These bubble people and their proximity to power and policy are the greatest danger now threatening the planet, its human population and the ecology upon which all life depends.
I was a fed. I took an oath of office, which includes upholding and defending the Constitution. To my knowledge, there have been no SCOTUS decisions related to the oath, specifically to the failure to honor it. But there should be IMO. I whistle blew twice for subversion of a law (republican) and for actually breaking another one (democrat). They were both dealt with swiftly and I was able to remain anonymous. But that is another story.
It seems to me that the SCOTUS majority under Roberts is trying to split the baby and running scared. This seems to be a typical reaction when an election looms. Given that security services tapped congressional communications, I would not be surprised if SCOTUS weren't as well. It doesn't even take real facts to destroy, and you are correct, the sociopaths have nothing to restrain them when they have an agenda.
I read Dr. Kheriaty’s essay, and I admire his optimism and tenacity. We all need to exercise those two characteristics if we are to get through this Hellscape. Three more characteristics that would come in mighty handy about now are reason, discipline and selflessness.
Unsophisticated, simple-minded fellow that I am, I try to look for simple answers to problems.
One of my simple-minded ways to not allow the censorship by social media into my life, at least not directly, is that I do not use Facebook, Ticktock, X/Twitter, Truth Social, etc. Platforms such as this are the extent of my social media, and if it becomes evident that this or others are censoring content, I'll abandon them, too.
All that may sound absurd to most. If so, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I look at it like this: Collectively, We The People have the power and legal authority to make any change in this country we want to make, unless of course God opposes us. If we truly united, we could put Facebook or any company completely out of business, fairly quickly.
I became frustrated with FB a couple of years ago, and abandoned it - before all the government censorship thing started being talked about. I probably still have a FB page floating around out there but its been inactive for years.
Not long ago, after hearing how wonderful X/Twitter had become, after Elon Musk acquired it, I opened a paid account, and very quickly learned that it has what I consider to be strict censorship.
I found the censorship absurd in that people could easily disguise foul language or even violent rhetoric by simply substituting a letter here or there, or inserting a symbol or punctuation mark in a key place, and their posts remained viewable. On the other hand, when I stated something the censorship program found displeasing by spelling it out in plain English, my posts were removed and I got put in time out. I tried that masking for a time, I've done it on this platform, but to me, those are childish games and I've decided I will no longer participate. It's either a free speech platform or it isn't. My decision has inspired me to clean-up my language, a little - and that's not a bad thing.
Of course, I'm not naive enough to believe that many people would do what I'm suggesting.
After it came to light that FB colluded with the regime to censor content they disagree with, I tried to convince people close to me that the solution is to close your FB account and never go back.
Naturally, I got lots of pushback, usually along this line: "Well, I don't use FB for political stuff. I just use it to keep up with family members. It's the 'only way' I get to see family photos.", or "If I didn't have FB, I'd never know what Joanie is doing.", or "Oh, I don't pay any attention to stuff like that. I just use FB to watch my church's bible studies.". I'm sure that if this comment were read by a few million people, there would be a few million similar lame excuses.
The People have the Power, but they're too divided to use it.
Gee, I wonder if 'division' was part of the plan all along?
This is slightly off topic except insofar as RFK, Jr. was one of the biggest victims of the Censorship Industrial Complex and is helping lead the fight against it, including in his companion lawsuit: People may watch tonight's presidential debate in real time WITH RFK, Jr., here: https://therealdebate.com/ . It will also be webcast on X. RFK, Jr. will be answering the same questions posed to Trump and Biden. Please help spread the word!
As joint readers of CD and Unreported Truths know, Alex Berenson has a pending Supreme Court Case in which the standing issue does not apply. He has clear evidence of being specifically targeted by specific govt actors. If SCOTUS knowingly punted this case maybe it’s because Berenson’s is stronger,
But I will add that this decision seems to be part of a worrying trend that makes it seem like SCOTUS is owned by the Big Pharma-Govt complex — as it recently threw out a whole raft of cases and upheld the state of CT’s new ban on religious exemptions to medical mandates.
This madness is not going to end under Trump if he has pharma lobbyist Wiles as a senior advisor. I don’t have to love everything about Booby to see that he is the voter’s only long-shot hope against this dangerous threat to civil liberties.
Can state AGs, as representatives of We the People, have standing? We the People have been harmed by this censorship. The government has had a greater impact on the population in its spread of dis-, mal- and misinformation more than those on social media.
I believe they should have standing, particularly where a state employee is involved. The real news here is, don't use major media and sites, don't use major search engines, or if you do, double check the smaller ones where government is less likely to focus its efforts --if you want to actually get any true information.
Mine, too. But what can you do? I am making contributions to certain groups that fight for our Bill of Rights, voting, and other freedoms and rights. All I can do beyond that is try to share good information. Certainly my 🤡representative🤡 who supports the WHO treaty and worries about "misinformation" doesn't listen, but he won't get my vote. But I'm sure he knows that.
Just my opinion here: While they could not prove they were injured by the government, they could have proven that they were injured by the big tech companies. Instead they decided to leap frog over those companies. Think of this this way: Mr. A hires Mr. B to rob your house. Mr. B robs your house and takes your property. You want your property back. You have no definitive proof of Mr. A’s involvement (unable to procure secret phone calls, no viable witnesses, or comparable ‘evidence’ according to what the Kheriaty case claims). Do you go after the shadowy Mr. A for your things? Or the very physical Mr. B? If, instead of playing leapfrog to ‘get’ the government, Kheriaty had sued Facebook, etc, where there was actual evidence of Facebook’s involvement, perhaps the case would have been successful, and big tech companies would have been forced to remove censorship.
I just finished reading the dissent. What the majority of the court found (and ignored) is horrifying and their finding a shock to the conscience. I haven't read the analysis from the doctor, yet, but highly recommend reading the dissent.
Whether Trump wins and is allowed to assume office, or not, hardly matters. His appointment of Barrett is a perfect example. Who would have thought?
And unfortunately Trump is a puppet of the Jewish Fifth Column.
Nevertheless, we should certainly vote for him and support him. But separating ourselves from the idiotic and/or evil 45% who love Biden, the Deep State, the warmongering Military-Industrial-Financial Complex, et al, will be our only salvation.
Madame, I realize you are probably using 'salvation' in a figurative sense, and I am not trying to be argumentative, but how would you imagine that we could separate ourselves from 45% of the population. That's about 150 million people, and we're commingled with them; they're our neighbors.
In fantasies I've imagined that "Well, we could just give 'em California, Oregon and Washington, New York and New England, and throw in Hawaii for good measure. Then build walls in strategic places - kinda like 'Escape From New York', and we're good" I've also imagined Civil War II, where we exterminate all of 'em, and they of course exterminate most of us in the process.
If we examine a more "practical" (tongue in cheek) approach of say, ostracizing them, and they us, how's that gonna work? I think that's about where we're at, now. (?)
It is important to expose evil and lies. But instead of using metaphors for their names it’s past time to hone in on those who lurk behind the mask. That is how you expose them and make them hide their pitiful faces back under the rocks they came from. There are those that hide themselves among the sheep that are really ravenous wolves so never let your guard down and never let them hide in plain sight. They hide in your churches and other public forums where patriotic Americans gather. Expose them also.
Hi Willie! I apologize for being dense but I'm not sure I grasp exactly what you're driving at with "metaphors for their names", and "those who lurk behind the mask". Can you be any more specific about who should be exposed? Are you speaking in generalities about "bad people" in our midst that we might know at a local level, or are your referring to specific people like Soros, Hillary, Bath House Barry, Schumer, McConnell, Raskin, Schiff, Pelosi, Biden, Blinken, Garland, Giggles Harris, Panetta, Nadler, and on and on and on and on...and the almost countless other deep staters and criminals in the regime? The Federal Reserve, CIA, NSA, FBI, ATF, and more all loaded with people the public has never heard of who are traitors. And of course other than Soros, I've not even left the country. There are all those despicable people in the EU, WHO, UN, WEF, NATO, and on and on and...
Now that’s what I call “ A government of the people and by the people”. I know this for sure, If they betray the people again we won’t be so willing to let that go.
Standing is one of those malleable legal doctrines that judges use to avoid judging. It's clear the Supreme Court doesn't like States challenging the Feds, regardless of the merits of the case, as seen in Texas v Pennsylvania on the fraudulent 2020 election. No standing there either. To assert as the Murthy Court did, that Government-directed censorship doesn't harm the entire society, makes the functioning of justice not only blind, but willfully ignorant. More here: https://peterdanielmiller.substack.com/p/a-coincidence-of-two-decisions
SCOTUS is using twisted logic to delay the inevitable and protect the majority of US citizens from the stark reality that their government (Executive branch) overtly violated the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech. It’s a “softball” approach to an obviously egregious violation. To decide expeditiously and only 4 months before the election would be a shock to most Americans who pay moderate to little or no attention to these issues. But technicalities be dammed! SCOTUS is exemplifying what is wrong with our government: it takes much too long to make decisions and the complexity of those decisions is beyond the understanding of the average citizen. Shame on them! Citizens need to demand that Congress enact legislation that requires simple and quick decisions by all federal courts. Congress, too, needs to reign in (decrease) the size and reach of the Executive Branch and return most of its functions to the states. Congress also needs to humble itself to part-time work (6 months max) and term limits (6 years House; 6 years Senate).
I opine it was more than likely he who outed Alito on the Roe v. Wade redo then covered it up by investing in an investigation by the Courts own internal security. Not that the FBI would have helped much either.
Yes. What a shame the lawyers missed a pivotal defect in the action they brought to SCOTUS. There is no getting past the logic that destroyed their standing.
Good news is, this case was not heard on the merits and the mistakes made in this instance will likely not be made the next time this issue presents to the court.
Sometimes you're the windshield. Sometimes you're the bug.
Alex Berenson posted that the particulars of the decision help his case as he has the particulars. While I am glad for him, the decision is still appalling.
Yes. As is the failure to see the controlling deficit in the case before SCOTUS pointed it out. Due Process can be a brutal thing.
Berenson may yet prevail. The issue he champions deserves to prevail.
The greater issue may be qualified immunity for agency employees who behave unconscionably in pernicious ways to deny citizens their unalienable and civil rights. There should be no qualified immunity for persons who conduct their government office or trustee position to such effect.
The sociopathic and disordered personalities need to be weeded-out of public service. If we fail that, they corrode, corrupt, congeal and dominate the power culture of the institution. This is the history of this human problem. This is the Big Problem in every human family, neighborhood, corporation, institution and society across every era of human history.
Many of our federal, state and local governing institutions of today are in such crises, dominated by these malignants and are in desperate need of an intervention to restore conviviality rooted in mutualism. If we don't solve this there is a very real risk of Russian missiles arriving 7-12 minutes after launch. Not joking. These bubble people and their proximity to power and policy are the greatest danger now threatening the planet, its human population and the ecology upon which all life depends.
This is breaking news. SCOTUS denies Sackler immunity deal struck in opioid-related bankruptcy negotiations. Kills the settlement plan: https://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/supreme-court-rejects-multibillion-dollar-purdue-pharma-opioid-settlement-that-shielded-sackler-family/article_98a21d48-348f-11ef-ac5c-67818478216c.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter_WPSDLocal6
With regard to both comments.
I was a fed. I took an oath of office, which includes upholding and defending the Constitution. To my knowledge, there have been no SCOTUS decisions related to the oath, specifically to the failure to honor it. But there should be IMO. I whistle blew twice for subversion of a law (republican) and for actually breaking another one (democrat). They were both dealt with swiftly and I was able to remain anonymous. But that is another story.
It seems to me that the SCOTUS majority under Roberts is trying to split the baby and running scared. This seems to be a typical reaction when an election looms. Given that security services tapped congressional communications, I would not be surprised if SCOTUS weren't as well. It doesn't even take real facts to destroy, and you are correct, the sociopaths have nothing to restrain them when they have an agenda.
This is ridiculous and against the peoples rights.
https://x.com/RealJamesWoods/status/1803474277410431219?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
That was spot on. Exactly what the corrupt, evil fake Biden Administration is doing.
Like. No argument here.
I appreciate that Kheriaty isn't giving up, but SCOTUS' decision effectively gives the regime free reign to continue its censorship program.
Well, well, just in time for the 2024 election cycle!
Exactly John!
I read Dr. Kheriaty’s essay, and I admire his optimism and tenacity. We all need to exercise those two characteristics if we are to get through this Hellscape. Three more characteristics that would come in mighty handy about now are reason, discipline and selflessness.
Unsophisticated, simple-minded fellow that I am, I try to look for simple answers to problems.
One of my simple-minded ways to not allow the censorship by social media into my life, at least not directly, is that I do not use Facebook, Ticktock, X/Twitter, Truth Social, etc. Platforms such as this are the extent of my social media, and if it becomes evident that this or others are censoring content, I'll abandon them, too.
All that may sound absurd to most. If so, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I look at it like this: Collectively, We The People have the power and legal authority to make any change in this country we want to make, unless of course God opposes us. If we truly united, we could put Facebook or any company completely out of business, fairly quickly.
I became frustrated with FB a couple of years ago, and abandoned it - before all the government censorship thing started being talked about. I probably still have a FB page floating around out there but its been inactive for years.
Not long ago, after hearing how wonderful X/Twitter had become, after Elon Musk acquired it, I opened a paid account, and very quickly learned that it has what I consider to be strict censorship.
I found the censorship absurd in that people could easily disguise foul language or even violent rhetoric by simply substituting a letter here or there, or inserting a symbol or punctuation mark in a key place, and their posts remained viewable. On the other hand, when I stated something the censorship program found displeasing by spelling it out in plain English, my posts were removed and I got put in time out. I tried that masking for a time, I've done it on this platform, but to me, those are childish games and I've decided I will no longer participate. It's either a free speech platform or it isn't. My decision has inspired me to clean-up my language, a little - and that's not a bad thing.
Of course, I'm not naive enough to believe that many people would do what I'm suggesting.
After it came to light that FB colluded with the regime to censor content they disagree with, I tried to convince people close to me that the solution is to close your FB account and never go back.
Naturally, I got lots of pushback, usually along this line: "Well, I don't use FB for political stuff. I just use it to keep up with family members. It's the 'only way' I get to see family photos.", or "If I didn't have FB, I'd never know what Joanie is doing.", or "Oh, I don't pay any attention to stuff like that. I just use FB to watch my church's bible studies.". I'm sure that if this comment were read by a few million people, there would be a few million similar lame excuses.
The People have the Power, but they're too divided to use it.
Gee, I wonder if 'division' was part of the plan all along?
Excellent comment.
PS Under the name I normally use, I abandoned FB for good in 2015. Wish I'd never signed up in the first place.
Thanks.
Sorry I get so wordy. I just seem to feel the need to do that to get my points across.
I didn't find it wordy, but certainly it could make for a post on its own if you ever want to do that.
This is slightly off topic except insofar as RFK, Jr. was one of the biggest victims of the Censorship Industrial Complex and is helping lead the fight against it, including in his companion lawsuit: People may watch tonight's presidential debate in real time WITH RFK, Jr., here: https://therealdebate.com/ . It will also be webcast on X. RFK, Jr. will be answering the same questions posed to Trump and Biden. Please help spread the word!
As joint readers of CD and Unreported Truths know, Alex Berenson has a pending Supreme Court Case in which the standing issue does not apply. He has clear evidence of being specifically targeted by specific govt actors. If SCOTUS knowingly punted this case maybe it’s because Berenson’s is stronger,
But I will add that this decision seems to be part of a worrying trend that makes it seem like SCOTUS is owned by the Big Pharma-Govt complex — as it recently threw out a whole raft of cases and upheld the state of CT’s new ban on religious exemptions to medical mandates.
This madness is not going to end under Trump if he has pharma lobbyist Wiles as a senior advisor. I don’t have to love everything about Booby to see that he is the voter’s only long-shot hope against this dangerous threat to civil liberties.
Can state AGs, as representatives of We the People, have standing? We the People have been harmed by this censorship. The government has had a greater impact on the population in its spread of dis-, mal- and misinformation more than those on social media.
I believe they should have standing, particularly where a state employee is involved. The real news here is, don't use major media and sites, don't use major search engines, or if you do, double check the smaller ones where government is less likely to focus its efforts --if you want to actually get any true information.
My concern is more for the general public who get their news from places like Google and Facebook and are less inclined to search elsewhere.
Mine, too. But what can you do? I am making contributions to certain groups that fight for our Bill of Rights, voting, and other freedoms and rights. All I can do beyond that is try to share good information. Certainly my 🤡representative🤡 who supports the WHO treaty and worries about "misinformation" doesn't listen, but he won't get my vote. But I'm sure he knows that.
Just my opinion here: While they could not prove they were injured by the government, they could have proven that they were injured by the big tech companies. Instead they decided to leap frog over those companies. Think of this this way: Mr. A hires Mr. B to rob your house. Mr. B robs your house and takes your property. You want your property back. You have no definitive proof of Mr. A’s involvement (unable to procure secret phone calls, no viable witnesses, or comparable ‘evidence’ according to what the Kheriaty case claims). Do you go after the shadowy Mr. A for your things? Or the very physical Mr. B? If, instead of playing leapfrog to ‘get’ the government, Kheriaty had sued Facebook, etc, where there was actual evidence of Facebook’s involvement, perhaps the case would have been successful, and big tech companies would have been forced to remove censorship.
I just finished reading the dissent. What the majority of the court found (and ignored) is horrifying and their finding a shock to the conscience. I haven't read the analysis from the doctor, yet, but highly recommend reading the dissent.
Whether Trump wins and is allowed to assume office, or not, hardly matters. His appointment of Barrett is a perfect example. Who would have thought?
And unfortunately Trump is a puppet of the Jewish Fifth Column.
Nevertheless, we should certainly vote for him and support him. But separating ourselves from the idiotic and/or evil 45% who love Biden, the Deep State, the warmongering Military-Industrial-Financial Complex, et al, will be our only salvation.
Madame, I realize you are probably using 'salvation' in a figurative sense, and I am not trying to be argumentative, but how would you imagine that we could separate ourselves from 45% of the population. That's about 150 million people, and we're commingled with them; they're our neighbors.
In fantasies I've imagined that "Well, we could just give 'em California, Oregon and Washington, New York and New England, and throw in Hawaii for good measure. Then build walls in strategic places - kinda like 'Escape From New York', and we're good" I've also imagined Civil War II, where we exterminate all of 'em, and they of course exterminate most of us in the process.
If we examine a more "practical" (tongue in cheek) approach of say, ostracizing them, and they us, how's that gonna work? I think that's about where we're at, now. (?)
It is important to expose evil and lies. But instead of using metaphors for their names it’s past time to hone in on those who lurk behind the mask. That is how you expose them and make them hide their pitiful faces back under the rocks they came from. There are those that hide themselves among the sheep that are really ravenous wolves so never let your guard down and never let them hide in plain sight. They hide in your churches and other public forums where patriotic Americans gather. Expose them also.
Very good. I think you hitting a lot of the right names. That’s refreshing. It’s good to keep a little heat under their feet 🔥
Hi Willie! I apologize for being dense but I'm not sure I grasp exactly what you're driving at with "metaphors for their names", and "those who lurk behind the mask". Can you be any more specific about who should be exposed? Are you speaking in generalities about "bad people" in our midst that we might know at a local level, or are your referring to specific people like Soros, Hillary, Bath House Barry, Schumer, McConnell, Raskin, Schiff, Pelosi, Biden, Blinken, Garland, Giggles Harris, Panetta, Nadler, and on and on and on and on...and the almost countless other deep staters and criminals in the regime? The Federal Reserve, CIA, NSA, FBI, ATF, and more all loaded with people the public has never heard of who are traitors. And of course other than Soros, I've not even left the country. There are all those despicable people in the EU, WHO, UN, WEF, NATO, and on and on and...
Now that’s what I call “ A government of the people and by the people”. I know this for sure, If they betray the people again we won’t be so willing to let that go.
Here here
Standing is one of those malleable legal doctrines that judges use to avoid judging. It's clear the Supreme Court doesn't like States challenging the Feds, regardless of the merits of the case, as seen in Texas v Pennsylvania on the fraudulent 2020 election. No standing there either. To assert as the Murthy Court did, that Government-directed censorship doesn't harm the entire society, makes the functioning of justice not only blind, but willfully ignorant. More here: https://peterdanielmiller.substack.com/p/a-coincidence-of-two-decisions
Justice Alito Dissent Says Majority "Shirks" Duty in Free Speech Case
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/justice-alito-dissent-says-majority-shirks-duty-free-speech-case
SCOTUS is using twisted logic to delay the inevitable and protect the majority of US citizens from the stark reality that their government (Executive branch) overtly violated the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech. It’s a “softball” approach to an obviously egregious violation. To decide expeditiously and only 4 months before the election would be a shock to most Americans who pay moderate to little or no attention to these issues. But technicalities be dammed! SCOTUS is exemplifying what is wrong with our government: it takes much too long to make decisions and the complexity of those decisions is beyond the understanding of the average citizen. Shame on them! Citizens need to demand that Congress enact legislation that requires simple and quick decisions by all federal courts. Congress, too, needs to reign in (decrease) the size and reach of the Executive Branch and return most of its functions to the states. Congress also needs to humble itself to part-time work (6 months max) and term limits (6 years House; 6 years Senate).
Excellent. What can we the people do?
Seems to me that ANY American citizen should have standing in a case like this.
Thank you, John.
Pusillanimous SCOTUS under Roberts leadership.
I opine it was more than likely he who outed Alito on the Roe v. Wade redo then covered it up by investing in an investigation by the Courts own internal security. Not that the FBI would have helped much either.
From the beach....
🌞🇧🇷🌴🏖️🌊