The US Supreme Court has dismissed a high-profile case alleging that the Biden administration unlawfully pressured social media companies to remove content and ban users based on their political views. The 6-3 ruling, handed down on June 26, 2024, has left many questioning the future of free speech in America and the extent of federal influence over digital platforms.

The case, which was brought forth by Republican attorneys general from Louisiana and Missouri, along with five individual social media users, claimed that U.S. government officials had overstepped their authority by coercing social media platforms to moderate content. Among the plaintiffs were respected academics Dr. Martin Kulldorff of Harvard and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford, as well as Jim Hoft, owner of The Gateway Pundit.

The Supreme Court’s decision to dismiss the case was based on a lack of standing for the plaintiffs, rather than on the merits of the arguments presented. This technicality has left many observers frustrated, as it echoes the fate of numerous election fraud cases that were similarly dismissed without full consideration of their evidence.

The original ruling by U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty in Louisiana had been seen as a landmark decision in the fight for free speech. Judge Doughty’s injunction, issued in July 2023, had barred a wide range of government officials and agencies from communicating with social media companies in ways that could be construed as pressuring them to suppress free speech.

In his 155-page ruling, Judge Doughty did not mince words, stating, “If the allegations made by plaintiffs are true, the present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history.” He went on to describe the government’s actions as creating “an almost dystopian scenario” reminiscent of George Orwell’s “Ministry of Truth.”

The case brought to light numerous instances of what appeared to be direct pressure from government officials on social media platforms. Communications revealed during the proceedings included urgent demands for content removal and account suspensions, often accompanied by thinly veiled threats. One such message read, “Cannot stress the degree to which this needs to be resolved immediately. Please remove this account immediately.”

Another concerning exchange showcased the forceful nature of these interactions: “Are you guys f***ing serious? I want an answer on what happened here and I want it today.” Such language, coming from government officials, raises serious questions about the boundaries between government oversight and outright coercion.

The scope of the alleged censorship was broad, covering topics from COVID-19 to the 2020 presidential election. Dr. Bhattacharya and Dr. Kulldorff, co-authors of the Great Barrington Declaration which criticized lockdown policies, claim they were censored for statements questioning the universal vaccination approach, the efficacy of masks, and asserting the strength of natural immunity compared to vaccine-induced immunity.

Perhaps most alarmingly, the case also touched upon the suppression of reporting about Hunter Biden’s laptop in the lead-up to the 2020 election. This aspect of the case highlights the potential for government influence to sway public opinion during critical political moments.

The dismissal of this case by the Supreme Court has left many Texans deeply concerned. As advocates for state sovereignty and individual liberty, the Texas Nationalist Movement views this decision as a troubling development in the ongoing struggle to protect free speech and limit federal overreach.

The Court’s refusal to address the merits of the case leaves unanswered questions about the extent to which the federal government can influence private companies to restrict speech. This ambiguity could have far-reaching consequences for how information is shared and controlled in our increasingly digital world.

For Texans, who have long valued independence and free expression, this ruling serves as a stark reminder of the challenges faced in preserving these fundamental rights within the current federal system. The Texas Nationalist Movement has consistently argued that a smaller, more localized government is better equipped to protect individual liberties and respond to the needs and values of its citizens.

This case also underscores the importance of developing alternative platforms and communication channels that are less susceptible to federal influence. As the line between government and big tech becomes increasingly blurred, the need for truly independent media and social networking options becomes more pressing.

Moreover, the Supreme Court’s decision highlights the limitations of seeking redress through the federal court system. When cases of this magnitude can be dismissed on technicalities, it raises questions about the effectiveness of the checks and balances designed to protect citizens from government overreach.

As we move forward, it is crucial for Texans to remain vigilant in defending their right to free speech. This includes not only fighting against overt censorship but also being aware of more subtle forms of manipulation and control.

The Texas Nationalist Movement calls on all Texans to engage in open dialogue about the implications of this ruling and to consider how best to safeguard our fundamental rights. Whether through legislative action, grassroots organizing, or the development of new technologies, it is clear that protecting free speech will require ongoing effort and innovation.

It’s precisely situations like this Supreme Court dismissal that highlight the foresight of the Texas Nationalist Movement in launching TNM Social, our own internal communications and organizing system exclusively for TEXIT supporters. This platform provides a secure space for advocates of Texas independence to communicate, organize, and share ideas without fear of federal interference or corporate censorship.

While the Supreme Court’s dismissal of this case is a setback for those fighting against government overreach in the digital sphere, it is by no means the end of the battle. As Texans, we must continue to stand firm in our commitment to individual liberty and free expression, recognizing that these principles are essential to the preservation of a free society.