(FamilyConservationPAC.com) – In the past few days, conservatives have achieved several major victories.

These wins include Biden’s disastrous debate, the end of Chevron’s deference, the halt to homeless people setting up camps everywhere, Trump’s success in obtaining immunity for his official presidential activities on J6, and even the reversal of numerous J6 convictions.

It’s been an amazing few weeks for conservatives.

However, the public may never know because of the Supreme Court’s majority decision in Moody v. NetChoice LLC.

Texas and Florida regulations that required Big Tech to stop filtering the feeds of its conservative users were overturned by the Supreme Court, stating:

“A State may not interfere with private actors’ speech to advance its own vision of ideological balance. States (and their citizens) are of course right to want an expressive realm in which the public has access to a wide range of views.

But the way the First Amendment achieves that goal is by preventing the government from ’tilt[ing] public debate in a preferred direction,’ Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 564 U. S. 552, 578 – 579, not by licensing the government to stop private actors from speaking as they wish and preferring some views over others.

A State cannot prohibit speech to rebalance the speech market. That unadorned interest is not ‘unrelated to the suppression of free expression.’ And Texas may not pursue it consistent with the First Amendment.”

In other words, according to the Supreme Court, censorship is protected by the Big Tech companies “editorial” First Amendment rights, though the court also ruled last year that they are still immune from any responsibility for harm caused by their editorial positions according to Section 230.

It’s a sad day for America, as the Supreme Court has just ruled that the government can collude with Big Tech companies to censor free speech.

The First Amendment is now dead in the United States. pic.twitter.com/bvLWjfGwcw

— Tulsi Gabbard 🌺 (@TulsiGabbard) June 27, 2024

However, the court also decided last year that Section 230 exempts them from liability for any harm resulting from their editorial stances.

Indeed, they are free to restrict and repress as much as they like, so long as the government doesn’t take direct credit for it.

Of course, they also decided that Big Tech could be told what to restrict by the government.

Should Big Tech have the right to restrict political viewpoints?

Copyright 2024. FamilyConservationPAC.com

Family Conservation PAC is the fastest-growing political action committee in America.

We represent millions of patriotic conservatives who believe in the U.S. Constitution and the principles, values, and traditions that set America apart. We don’t work for any particular interest group or political party.

Our commitment is to the American people, dedicated to conserving traditional family values.

That’s why I humbly ask for your help: Will you step up and chip in just a few bucks in the next hour to help us counter the Left-wing’s narrative that American family values no longer matter?

WE NEED YOU IN THE FIGHT. GIVE A GIFT TODAY.