[ May 14, 2024 ]
The legal gymnastics and perverted logic that these allegedly great legal minds are going to argue before the court is of no import, this is not a complex legal issue. The Supreme Court, by definition, is the ultimate appellate jurisdiction over questions of U.S. constitutional issues. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, the first – not the second, third or eighth – is first because it’s the foundation of our constitutional republic.
Freedom of speech is the foundation of a free society. Without it, a tyrant can wreak havoc unopposed, while his opponents are silenced.
Putting up with being offended is essential in a pluralistic society in which people differ on basic truths. If a group will not bear being offended without resorting to violence, that group will rule unopposed while everyone else lives in fear, while other groups curtail their activities to appease the violent group. This results in the violent group being able to tyrannize the others.
Inoffensive speech needs no protection. The First Amendment was developed precisely in order to protect speech that was offensive to some, in order to prevent those who had power from claiming they were offended by speech opposing them and silencing the powerless.
Story continues below advertisement
The Government, Big Tech and Free Speech, Round Two
The Supreme Court considers if government can coerce social-media platforms to censor content it doesn’t like.
By: The Editorial Board, Wall Street Journal, March18, 2023:
The Supreme Court is back on the First Amendment beat Monday when it hears cases asking whether government officials can jawbone businesses to restrict speech. It seems government needs remedial constitutional training.
In Murthy v. Missouri, states and individuals whose posts on Covid were censored sued federal officials for violating the First Amendment. Lower courts ruled for the plaintiffs based on copious evidence that government officials pressured social-media platforms to suppress their posts.
Former White House director of digital strategy Rob Flaherty and Covid adviser Andy Slavitt flagged posts for removal to social-media employees and berated them if they didn’t follow orders. Facebook is “hiding the ball” on its efforts to combat vaccine “borderline content,” Mr. Flaherty wrote in one email.
Mr. Flaherty also blamed Facebook for the Jan. 6, 2021, riot and said it would be blamed for Covid deaths if it didn’t increase censorship. “I care mostly about what actions and changes you are making to ensure you’re not making our country’s vaccine hesitancy problem worse,” Mr. Flaherty wrote.
Officials reinforced these private lashings with public threats. Former White House press secretary Jen Psaki said platforms could face “legal consequences” if they didn’t censor vaccine “misinformation.” White House officials floated antitrust action and eliminating Section 230 liability protections.
The Justice Department claims this bullying is merely government speech protected by the First Amendment. “So long as the government seeks to inform and persuade rather than to compel, its speech poses no First Amendment concern—even if government officials state their views in strong terms,” the Solicitor General writes.
But Biden officials weren’t merely out to persuade. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that Biden officials crossed the line by using threats of legal action. The appellate judges cited the Supreme Court’s Blum (1982) precedent, which held that government is responsible for actions of private parties when it provides “significant encouragement,” meaning “‘[s]omething more’ than uninvolved oversight from the government.”
The Fifth Circuit also cited Bantam Books (1963), in which a Rhode Island state-created commission asked book distributors and retailers for their “cooperation” in removing books it deemed objectionable. Police followed up with retailers to ensure they complied. The commission said it was merely exhorting booksellers.
But the Justices held that the government had violated the publishers’ speech rights. They analyzed the tone and phrasing of the commission’s exhortations as well as government’s legal authority and threat to punish distributors. Much as the Rhode Island commission’s notices were “phrased virtually as orders,” so were the Biden team’s communications with platforms.
***
The second case the Court hears Monday (NRA v. Vullo) concerns whether the First Amendment allows government officials to threaten sanctions against regulated entities that do business with a political advocacy group they don’t like. The obvious answer is no, but New York says jawboning is protected government speech.
In 2018 New York state’s then Superintendent of the Department of Financial Services, Maria Vullo, directed financial institutions she regulated to stop doing business with gun-rights groups. Her letters “encourage[d]” financial institutions to evaluate and manage the “reputational risks” of doing business with the groups.
She also threatened financial institutions with penalties for unrelated regulatory infractions, which she said they could escape if they severed ties with the National Rifle Association. Nice business you have there. Terrible if something happens to it.
Drawing on Bantam Books, a federal judge said Ms. Vullo’s threats plausibly violated the First Amendment by punishing the NRA’s advocacy. But the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that Ms. Vullo acted properly within her remit as a regulator. That ruling is a license for partisans to abuse their regulatory power to silence opponents. Texas’s medical licensing board could, say, threaten to yank licenses of doctors who donate to pro-abortion groups.
A bedrock constitutional principle holds that government can’t coerce private parties to do what government cannot do on its own. The High Court on Monday can reaffirm this emphatically.
The Truth Must be Told
Your contribution supports independent journalism
Please take a moment to consider this. Now, more than ever, people are reading Geller Report for news they won't get anywhere else. But advertising revenues have all but disappeared. Google Adsense is the online advertising monopoly and they have banned us. Social media giants like Facebook and Twitter have blocked and shadow-banned our accounts. But we won't put up a paywall. Because never has the free world needed independent journalism more.
Everyone who reads our reporting knows the Geller Report covers the news the media won't. We cannot do our ground-breaking report without your support. We must continue to report on the global jihad and the left's war on freedom. Our readers’ contributions make that possible.
Geller Report's independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our work is critical in the fight for freedom and because it is your fight, too.
Please contribute here.
or
Make a monthly commitment to support The Geller Report – choose the option that suits you best.
Quick note: We cannot do this without your support. Fact. Our work is made possible by you and only you. We receive no grants, government handouts, or major funding.Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here.
Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here— it’s free and it’s essential NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America's survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.
Follow Pamela Geller on Gettr. I am there. click here.
Follow Pamela Geller on Trump's social media platform, Truth Social. It's open and free.
Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.
Join The Conversation. Leave a Comment.
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spammy or unhelpful, click the - symbol under the comment to let us know. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.
If you would like to join the conversation, but don't have an account, you can sign up for one right here.
If you are having problems leaving a comment, it's likely because you are using an ad blocker, something that break ads, of course, but also breaks the comments section of our site. If you are using an ad blocker, and would like to share your thoughts, please disable your ad blocker. We look forward to seeing your comments below.
19 Comments
1 month ago
What do they need to rule on? It is a guaranteed freedom and is protected by the Constitution of the US. The only thing they have to rule on, is the atrocities, that have been committed against law abiding citizens, who have been incarcerated because they chose to utilize their Constitutional Freedom of speech by attending the protest on January 6, spoke out on Sandy Hook, Supporters of Trump. People who do not believe in using pronouns, and anyone who speaks out against the evil, vile, corrupt government examples are Alex Jones, Owen Shoyer. Trump and many others.
1 month ago
Reply to
Snowedin
They should rule on a precise definition of misinformation, malinformation and disinformation regarding issues that are not purely objective or observable.
1 month ago
Reply to
Snowedin
Truth to all of that. While the left scaremongers Trump as a dictator, the fact is that our civil rights have never been more abused than in the last four years.
1 month ago
OVER ARE DEAD BODIES, YOU CORRUPTED PIECES OF SCUM!!!!!!
1 month ago
The supreme court is at fault for even considering these cases in the first place.
1 month ago
Reply to
Lady of the Lake
I have problems trusting most of them especially all the dem appointees – they have too much power. If one takes a hard look at them it becomes scary to trust the fate of the nation with most of them like the dumb latina soto, roberts who broke Irish law to adopt 2 kids, kagan – obama’s girl, pedo lover katanji brown, amy phony barrett, flip flop kavanaugh. I liked what President Jackson said: “John Marshall has rendered his decision now let him enforce it” He basically roasted the court and showed everyone why they are the weakest branch of the U.S. Federal Government. The Supreme Court cannot enforce their rules outside of a court room.
1 month ago
I’m getting sick and tired of MF’ers thinking they can tell me what to say or think.
Eat Sh!t!
D
1 month ago
My Mom was CIA…she used 2 say…if U can’t say something Nice!—don’t say anything at all!
1 month ago
Reply to
garry pollack
Sometimes certain situations mandate we say something “not so nice”..!! Just sayin’…!!!
1 month ago
Reply to
garry pollack
It is mandatory in a free society that we say something about things that are wrong and or things with which we disagree. Your mother is exactly what the problem is, someone who self censors to avoid confrontation. Your mother is the reason that White Americans have allowed themselves to accept DEI and not make an issue over the fact that they are being discriminated against.
I HAVE NO RESPECT FOR AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS AFRAID TO SPEAK WHAT THEY BELIEVE TO BE TRUE. YOUR MOTHER AND PEOPLE LIKE HER ARE THE VERY REASON THAT SOCIETY SELF CENSORS.
D
1 month ago
There is no freedom of speech if you can’t counteract or criticize the narrative of the government and that of private companies regardless of “good intentions.” No one can claim sole ownership of facts.
1 month ago
While still being free enough.. let me state: OBAMA, BIDEN, and all the Politburo Arab-backed, anti-Isreal USA traitors SUCK!!!
1 month ago
Free Speech is PROTECTED by the United States Constitution..!! Period…! The Supreme Court cannot override that document..!! Period..!!
1 month ago
FORNICATE Joey (The Chin) Bidino and the rest of The Democrat Communist Criminal Terrorist Organization of America.
God Bless America
God Bless Israel.
