The Court Opinion would have you believe that the imposition of the Government’s not so clever practice of enforcing a narrative, by way of restricting the Constitutional Protected Right to Freely Express Ones Opinion, yes, your First Amendment Right, i.e., “…abridging freedom of speech….” is, merely, a function of “standing” is the autocratic narrative of a simpleton.
“Speech, the freedom to express, is the medium through which public discourse both refines messaging and holds the messenger to account.”
If one takes the time to read the Opinion (link provided below) you’ll discover that the Court never takes the position that the Government didn’t regularly exercise its abusive impulse. It appears to me, that since the Court has self-imposed a restriction preventing it from acting as the judicial body as designed the Court, has designed a mechanism which allows the offense to continue. It is, as well, reasonable to assume that not only should we expect the abuse to continue but that it is a certainty it will expand.
“Government, singularly, should never be afforded the vacuum of unrestricted authority particularly for shaping and enforcing its own narrative….”
Now then, with the aforementioned in mind, consider this: If “standing” was to be the benchmark for upholding the fundamental core of sovereignty – The First Amendment – then the Court should have rejected the writ when first tendered. Speech, the freedom to express, is the medium through which public discourse both refines messaging and holds the messenger to account. Now that the Nation’s Highest Court has excised, from the process, the free flow of information and allows for the customization of the filter through which it flows – whether by government, its agents or the public/private medium(s) – then the critical function of the Public’s right to decern for themselves no longer exists or can it occur.
If the processes that ultimately lead one to the distinction of truth are not to be held sacred then any narrative of choice is now eligible for enforcement/imposition with no means or mechanism of tension available for its proofing. Government, singularly, should never be afforded the vacuum of unrestricted authority particularly for shaping and enforcing its own narrative; the COVID rage is just the latest example of how the smothering of truth gives way to unchecked harm/abuses and with it, the entirety of the Bill of Rights.
Yes, it is true, I possess a bias on the matter as my own work was, during the same time, manipulated and regularly subjected to editorial rancor by social media. Let’s be clear, copywritten material editorialized without my consent and with no substantive (factual) comparative review by any party. Now, as the COVID horror begins to be exposed for the furious abuse that it was and remains, it is worth noting that no single commentary proffered by me suffers from the ongoing revelations of truth, I believe it fair to say that they are, universally, being affirmed.
The following link provides ready access to the Court’s Opinion and I recommend, at the very least, a review of the Courts Opinion (offered by Justice Barrett and beginning on pdf page 6)) as well as the Dissenting Opinion (offered by Justice Alito and beginning on pdf page 35) is well worth your while. In comparison the contrasting opinions represent a marvelous opportunity for witnessing the exhausting level of effort waged at concealing the Courts grotesque level of indifference and the horrific breach of sovereign order its occurrence conceals.
SCOTUS Murthy, Surgeon General et al v Missouri et al
The Courts action, like that of the other two Branches of Government, serves to support the Public’s acceptance that this system of government has moved well past the point of salvageability.
Curtis C. Greco, Founder
