When the censors got it wrong

 Federalist:

On Monday, the censorship-industrial complex was put on trial when the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the landmark free speech case Murthy v. Missouri.

Evidence in the case revealed that in the run-up to the 2020 election, and increasingly thereafter, a raft of federal agencies both directly and via cutouts cajoled, coerced, and colluded with social media companies to censor wrongthinking Americans at a magnitude of millions of posts on matters ranging from the New York Post’s Hunter Biden laptop story to the integrity of mass mail-in balloting and the efficacy of Covid vaccines.

The Louisiana district court that originally heard the case found, and a 5th Circuit Court of Appeals panel affirmed, that these efforts — emanating from entities such as the Biden White House, FBI, and CDC to control the digital public square, interfering in our elections and skewing public policy debates — likely constituted a massive assault on the First Amendment.

The feds, the courts suggested, had effectively turned the likes of Facebook and X/Twitter into its deputized speech police, becoming state actors whose “content moderation” decisions violated constitutional restrictions on abridging speech.

The district court issued a preliminary injunction, that the appeals court narrowed and modified but upheld, to freeze the speech policing during the pendency of the case. It prohibited the Biden White House and implicated agencies from taking any actions: “formal or informal, directly or indirectly, to coerce or significantly encourage social-media companies to remove, delete, suppress, or reduce, including through altering their algorithms, posted social-media content containing protected free speech.”

So the feds brought their case to the Supreme Court. Claiming that restrictions on their ability to pressure social media companies to censor would “irreparably harm” the government, violating its right to influence the digital public square in support of the state’s national security and public health agenda, it asked the court to rule on whether the government had indeed engaged in a First Amendment violation of the highest order, and on the “terms and breadth” of the preliminary injunction.

Most disturbingly, if oral arguments were any indication, it appears the government may prevail and eviscerate our First Amendment in the process.
...

The Biden White House should not be trusted when it comes to free speech.  They are like a toddler with a loaded pistol. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Should Republicans go ahead and add Supreme Court Justices to head off Democrats

Washington Post: Some Democrats eye adding more justices to the Supreme Court to change its ideological bent The once-remote idea has gained the attention of liberals angered by the GOP push to remake the federal courts. Probably the easy way to defeat this court-packing scheme is for Trump to propose doing the same thing now.  It would lead to Democrat denunciations and claims that it would be wrong, thereby blowing up any attempt by them in the unfortunate event of Democrats winning a presidential election.
Read more

29 % of companies say they are unlikely to keep insurance after Obamacare

Conn Carroll: A new survey of 368 midsize to large companies found that 29% of them are considering terminating their active employee health care plans when Obamacare is full implemented in 2014. Only 71% of employers surveyed said they did not expect to drop their health coverage, while 20% said they did not know and 9% said they were planning to exit. The latest survey, conducted by Towers Watson, echoes an ealier survey by McKinsey & Co. finding that 30% of private-sector employers were planning to drop their employee health insurance coverage by 2014. When the Congressional Budget Office crunched Obamacare's spending numbers, they estimated that only 7% of employees currently covered by employer-sponsored plans would lose their plans. ... This means the cost of the health care fiasco will be hundreds of billions more than estimated by the CBO and Congressional Democrat. It is also clear that Obama's pledge that you could keep your health care plan if you wanted t
Read more

Bin Laden's concern about Zarqawi's remains

James Robbins: ... Bin Laden suggests that President Bush should allow Zarqawi’s body to be returned to his family in Jordan, but this is a matter that is up to the Jordanian government, which so far has not shown much interest in facilitating a homecoming. Bin Laden mocks King Abdullah II, calling him a Coalition minion, and asking “w hat scares you about Abu Musab after he’s dead? You know that his funeral, if allowed to happen, would be a huge funeral showing the extent of sympathy with the mujahedin.” A large crowd would definitely turn out, though most people would be on hand to demonstrate their anger and disgust. Last November’s hotel bombings in Amman , masterminded by Zarqawi, are still fresh in people’s memory, and mentioning them to Jordanians has the same visceral impact as memory of the 9/11 attacks does here. Jordan has adopted a zero-tolerance policy towards those who choose to mourn the country’s least favorite son, and four opposition members of parliament who paid con
Read more