The Supreme Court’s decision not to hear a government censorship case is causing controversy online. SCOTUS ruled 6-3 in Murthy v. Missouri, declining to hear a lawsuit aimed at limiting the government's ability to communicate with social media companies about content moderation.

The majority decision asserted the plaintiffs lacked standing, as they couldn't show a concrete link between their claimed restrictions and government actions. The case involved claims the Biden administration's 2021 efforts to censor COVID-19 vaccine information infringed on free speech.

Americans React to the SCOTUS Decision

Many Americans express feelings of betrayal and disappointment, viewing this ruling as a failure to protect First Amendment rights. Voters believe free speech extends to online spaces, as it does in person. There are online expressions of anger and determination to legally challenge any perceived infringement.

Some voters voice concerns that SCOTUS is endorsing government overreach and censorship. They fear it will set a dangerous precedent for future government control over private entities and free speech.

However, others argue the Supreme Court's decision was less about endorsing censorship and more about the intrinsic legal standing of the plaintiffs. They view the ruling as an indication that the case was weak, rather than the Court's approval of government involvement in social media regulation.

People fear the potential future ramifications for free speech both online and offline. There are assertions this ruling may embolden the government to increasingly suppress opposition via surreptitious means. Many people say they hope other, more solid legal cases can be brought to SCOTUS which will address big tech and the government’s increasing encroachment on civil liberties.

Partisan Reactions to the Decision

Conservatives and proponents of free speech are disappointed, arguing the decision undermines the fight against government overreach and censorship. This group largely views social media platforms as essential public forums where free expression should be protected. They fear the government’s influence on these platforms is a dangerous lever of control over discourse and information. They believe in the strong likelihood of partisan regimes stifling dissenting opinions.

Some libertarian leaning voters, while also critical of the decision, focus more on the implications for private enterprise and autonomy. They argue social media companies should operate free of governmental pressures and be allowed to moderate content according to their policies and independent of any state influence. This perspective centers on the belief that private businesses should not be coerced by the state, maintaining that such intervention violates key principles of a free market.

Liberals and moderates tend to support the Supreme Court’s decision, arguing the government’s involvement with social media platforms is often necessary to mitigate the spread of misinformation and harmful content. They view it as especially important during critical times like elections or public health crises.

For most Democrats, the primary concern is preventing what they deem as misinformation, which they believe can undermine democratic processes and foment social discord. They trust government oversight will safeguard the public interest and ensure social media does not become a breeding ground for radicalism.

Debates About SCOTUS Corruption

The decision also intensified ongoing political and ideological struggles, particularly from liberals, about a biased Supreme Court. There are many references to Trump's influence on the Court via his nominations. This rhetoric from Democrats fuels debates about the lasting impacts of SCOTUS appointments.

However, amid Democrat lamentations of a biased or corrupt court, conservative commenters say this ruling debunks the idea that Supreme Court Justices are in Trump’s pocket. Many argue that, if the court was biased, they would not have declined this censorship case.

SCOTUS recently had two major rulings on gun rights in America:

• On June 14 they overturned the Trump-era bump stock ban
• On June 21 upheld a law barring domestic abusers from gun ownership

In the wake of these two decisions, MIG Reports observed American reactions which align with divisions on constitutional interpretations and social policies.

Bump Stocks

The Supreme Court's ruling to strike down the 2017 bump stock ban elicits celebrations among gun rights advocates. They view this decision as a victory for the Second Amendment. These advocates argue reversing the ban is necessary and a justified check on bureaucratic overreach. They view it as a reaffirmation of constitutional gun rights.

Voters who support the ruling emphasize the importance of procedural correctness and the role of elected officials in making laws, not unelected bureaucrats. These responses are generally characterized by a sentiment of triumph and confidence in the judiciary's support for gun rights.

Conversely, opponents of the ruling voice concern over public safety. They lament the potential increase in gun violence and mass shootings. They criticize the Court's decision as dangerously misaligned with public safety and common sense. The sentiment here is one of frustration and fear, emphasizing a belief that SCOTUS is taking a dangerously far-right stance prioritizing gun rights over community safety.

Domestic Abusers and Gun Ownership

The ruling upholding a federal law banning those with domestic violence restraining orders from gun ownership is less contentious. Reactions have been largely supportive across a broader spectrum.

Advocacy groups for domestic violence survivors and public safety applaud the decision as a monumental step toward protecting vulnerable populations from potential harm. These responses are imbued with relief and validation, recognizing the Court’s acknowledgment of limits to the Second Amendment.

However, there are some staunch Second Amendment proponents who view this ruling as an excessive restriction on gun rights. Some argue the law infringes upon the rights of those who may have been unfairly treated in the justice system or who are subject to potentially capricious restraining orders. Although these dissenting views exist, they tend to be less prominent compared to the widespread approval.

Sentiment Trends

Overall, Americans feel these two rulings underscore a polarized landscape concerning gun rights and public safety. Progressives typically see upholding domestic abuser gun restrictions as a necessary balance to the Second Amendment. They see it as ensuring societal safety and protecting human lives. Meanwhile, overturning the bump stock ban is a more contentious flashpoint for debates about individual rights versus regulatory measures.