6 Comments
User's avatar
AD21's avatar

Excellent article and summary of Murthy v. Missouri. Disappointing that RFK, Jr., was not included as a party in the appeal.

Expand full comment
Noël King's avatar

Thank you for this clear explanation; I had not been able to understand what this ruling meant by reading other articles about it, but now I think I get it. Thanks again!

Expand full comment
Gayle Wells's avatar

If censorship is allowed to continue then these are unlawful decisions equivalent to treason against the United States of America and its citizens who's rights are clearly spelled out that they are not given by the State, but innate. The courts who are not adhering to the principals laid out in The Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights will therefore have the people of this nation question their authority at all levels as they have abandoned the obligation and oath they are OBLIGATED to embody.

Expand full comment
albert venezio's avatar

Gayle Wells says it Best!

Expand full comment
Branson Edwards's avatar

I agree with Alito's dissent, but I wish you had outlined why he was outvoted by the other Supremes. Maybe you did and I missed it. Whot would be the rationale from leaving RFK out of it?

Expand full comment
Jessica Jensen's avatar

The majority rejected his intervention without comment.

Expand full comment