SCOTUS opinion makes the case for print media resurgence

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.

MURTHY v. MISSOURI

ALITO, J., dissenting

Page 5

“First, social media have become a leading source of news for many Americans,³ and with the decline of other media, their importance may grow.

Second, internet platforms, although rich and powerful, are at the same time far more vulnerable to Government pressure than other news sources. If a President dislikes a particular newspaper, he (fortunately) lacks the ability to put the paper out of business. But for Facebook and many other social media platforms, the situation is fundamentally different. They are critically dependent on the protection provided by §230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, 47 U. S. C. §230, which shields them from civil liability for content they spread.”

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 free speech. Offering relatively cheap and simplified ability to post material has created a spoiled generation of writers. University communications programs excel in educating students to express their opinions, and not necessarily based on sound research, let alone common sense. However, the more creators produce content that falls within internet moguls’ guidelines, they are rewarded with preferential treatment on search engines, leaving truthtellers to scramble for visibility.

Where conservatives were able to make their voices heard when the web was in its infancy, as Google and pals gobbled up influence, it has become a battle to keep those websites monetized or avoid being shut down. CanadaFreePress itself has come under attack more than once, most recently by “human sharks” spreading rumors the publication is on the precipice of extinction.

Promoting causes that threaten the free world, censorship continues with Facebook taking down the United With Israel page after pro-Palestinian groups purposely misreported the organization for violating policy.

July 1, 2024 will see Stephen K. Bannon report to prison to serve an unjustified sentence for refusing to submit to an improperly constituted Congressional committee

Facebook has been at this for quite awhile, banning even small voices, including closing access to my account and page two years ago. And in 2018, Twitter locked me out of my account 13 times, stealing 3/4s of followers, which numbers the platform now called “X” will not allow to grow even by a single follower. Due to the strangulation, “Twitmo” was instituted as part of the account handle the same year.

What Justice Alito addressed is the fact that online censorship will persist, shuttering websites that post opinions tech oligarchs will not tolerate to be expressed.

After watching the debate between Donald J. Trump and Joe Biden, it was clear how the legacy media has been playing the part of promoters of a leftist regime. They have long since abdicated the role the founding fathers gave the Press of watchdogs of government to become government lapdogs.

Couching questions to entrap the republican candidate into denying climate change and the January 6 insurrection narratives, the CNN moderators demonstrated their lack of integrity, which the First Amendment was installed to inform the public, not steer it with contrived “facts.”

July 1, 2024 will see Stephen K. Bannon report to prison to serve an unjustified sentence for refusing to submit to an improperly constituted Congressional committee subpoena in an attempt to censor the truth.

Pay attention to history because it does repeat itself

The DOJ bringing charges is lawfare via administrative tyranny that the opinion, reversing Chevron, delivered by SCOTUS dismantles. The ruling will heavily impact the extra-legal authority of administrative agencies, but the private sector tech industry may continue its censoring policies, affecting free speech disseminated via the internet.

The American Revolution had writers like Thomas Paine pointing out how the Colonies were oppressed by the king. In Britain, the Crown held printing publications criticizing its authority to be an act of rebellion, and presses operating without royal license were forbidden. Still, it was difficult to close down the presses and silence writers, whereas the modern internet makes deplatforming and demonetizing effortless.

Journalism schools have yet to recognize the necessity to find a work-around for the ubiquitous internet to reach and represent the public in a manner that respects the Constitution. It’s inherent on training programs to teach more than the importance of expressing opinion, whether conservative or progressive. A new generation press corps must learn every aspect of reporting properly investigated facts, including teaching business skills and, as the need arises, how to reboot printing presses that have been lying dormant while writers and reporters have submitted to internet autocrats.

A Free Press needs to know how to operate in the analog world in order to sidestep encumbrances of the digital gulag for which it unwittingly signed up.

Pay attention to history because it does repeat itself.