The hash up of Missouri v. Biden censorship case.

For the record, there is NO time governmental pressure to censor can be considered anything but a 1st Amendment violation, outside of national security... which COVID and related arguably was not.

Even then, censorship must be limited to removal of security information, not modification to propose a favorable government view.

Administration's efforts to cancel/silence those with opposing points of view, directly or indirectly, are an obvious 1st Amendment; therefore, civil rights, violation.

Many reading this have felt the whip of government censorship. I personally have been banned for 30 days more than once for merely publishing pictures from Hunter Biden's laptop that had been in the public domain for months, allegedly for hacking/sharing "private information."

That is an outright lie, to be sure, in that the pictures had not BEEN "private" and were, in fact, related to criminal activity.

Others attempting to present contrary points of view regarding COVID, effects, casualty rates, medical information, vaccinations and so forth, were summarily "executed" in the sense that they were banned on twitter and Facebook for varying lengths of time to include permanently because they committed the CARDINAL sin of disagreeing with the government's take on any number of issues and actions related to COVID.

Ultimately, I believe the SC will rule against Biden et al, simply because the plan language of the 1st Amendment forbids this kind of activity, directly or indirectly.

In this instance, the only possible out would be that the Administration, per se', is not "Congress," and therefore can feel free to do whatever they might like regarding the elements of the 1A.

Leftists, for their part, see censorship of any opposing perspective not only as a right, but as a duty:

"Again, the Fifth Circuit’s more recent decision, which is known as Murthy v. Missouri, would devastate a Democratic administration’s ability to ask media companies to voluntarily remove content."

We all know there was nothing "voluntary" about these 1st Amendment abridgements. The threats of action against those companies who refused to comply are well known and completely ignored by the rabid left who only want freedom of THEIR speech, no matter how hate-filled, while they do all they can to silence those with a different view. Those who presented/emailed lists of those they demanded be silenced carried a badge and a gun.

Those were not asks. They were orders. And even if they WERE "asked," government had zero right to make such a request... and even leftists damned well know it.

Missouri v. Biden and the crossroads of politics, censorship and free speech 

FILE – A person uses a smartphone in Chicago, Sept. 16, 2017. Most Democrats and Republicans agree that the federal government should better regulate the biggest technology companies, particularly social media platforms. But there is very little consensus on how it should be done. (AP Photo, File)