I've posted this
link a dozen times, but here it is again.
Well, I wasn't sure if you were alluding to that one or another one (like, say, the NetChoice decision).
The problem is, it doesn't quite back up what you said. Your assertion was:
The Biden administration never pressured anyone to censor anything.
But the case
didn't say it "never pressured anyone to censor anything." It ultimately didn't weigh in on that question. It rather said the plaintiffs (a bunch of users and several states) lacked standing because they hadn't properly shown that
they had suffered any injury as a result of the government's actions.
This is noted in your own link:
The majority opinion, written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, found that the two Republican-led states and social media users who filed the lawsuit against dozens of executive branch officials and agencies did not have the legal right to do so, because they could not prove that government pressure had suppressed their free-speech rights.
This isn't saying there was no pressure to censor anything, just that, if there had been, the specific people involved were not injured by it.
SCOTUS Blog has a good writeup on it:
The Supreme Court on Wednesday threw out a lawsuit seeking to limit the government’s ability to communicate with social media companies about their content moderation policies. By a vote of 6-3, the court ruled that that the plaintiffs did not have a legal right, known as standing, to bring their la
www.scotusblog.com
This again notes what I said before. It also discusses how the majority opinion notes that, even if there had been censorship, there wasn't evidence there would be more in the future:
But even if Hines had shown that her injuries could be attributed to the government’s conduct, Barrett continued, even she could not show that she is likely to be harmed again in the future by that conduct. “By August 2022, when Hines joined the case,” Barrett wrote, “the officials’ communications about COVID-19 misinformation had slowed to a trickle.” And it is therefore “no more than conjecture” to project that Hines will be harmed by content moderation attributable to the federal government again, Barrett concluded. This is particularly true, Barrett added, when “the available evidence indicates that the platforms have enforced their policies against COVID-19 misinformation even as the Federal Government has wound down its own pandemic response measures.”
The decision was thus ultimately made on a bunch of technical grounds that meant the court didn't give an actual ruling on whether the Biden administration had engaged in censorship.
