And here we have yet another conspiracy theory come to life.

What is never emphasized in this case is those that are pushing for controlling speech (on the basis of an emergency), are the very ones who got it completely wrong. They cancelled many truths and replaced with their own misinformation – at great damage to our society and country. That ALONE should be justification to end this case (in my view). Why is that never raised? Instead, we are arguing whether they can continue to do so with no regard to their track record.

Click here to display content from www.justsecurity.org

Open ““A Conspiracy Theory Goes to the Supreme Court: How Did Murthy v Missouri Get This Far?” — Just Security” directly
  • The censorship in Murthy suppressed speech that was not criminal or otherwise unlawful, and the injunction specifically excludes government action against unlawful speech.
  • The government set itself up as the nation’s arbiter of truth—as if it were competent to judge what is misinformation and what is true information. In retrospect, it turns out to have suppressed much that was true and promoted much that was false.
  • The government went after lawful speech not in an isolated instance, but repeatedly and systematically as a matter of policy, resulting in the suppression of entire narratives and lines of thought.
  • This isn’t jawboning. Rather than talk to newspapers about their own speech, the government asked the platforms to suppress third party speech. If the government were merely jawboning, it would have talked to the censored speakers, asking them to reconsider their posts. Instead, it requested the platforms to suppress the speech of others.
  • The government kept much of the censorship and its role secret, so Americans often did not even know they were censored or who did it. The covert nature of the government’s efforts bespeaks a recognition that the government was acting unlawfully.
  • The government often suppressed speech coercively.

FAQ via reason.com