The Biden administration sought to distract the Supreme Court from the overwhelming evidence of the federal government’s abuse of Americans’ speech rights during oral arguments. Marcy v. State of Missouri Monday. It sounded as if some judges were following the red flags being waved by the federal government.
“The government cannot use coercive threats to suppress speech, but it can use coercive threats to suppress speech by informing, persuading, and criticizing civilian speakers,” Brian Fletcher, a lawyer for the Biden administration, said in his opening remarks. They have the right to express their opinions.” He and several other justices asserted the government’s speech privilege, overturning the Constitution.
The government has no constitutional rights. Constitutional rights belong to the people and are binding on the government.of people’s The right to speak cannot be abridged. A government official stated the following in a public position: May It will certainly be shortened. In fact, in many cases, that is precisely what authorities have to do to limit their ability to abuse their government’s monopoly on violence to bully citizens into serfs.
It is patently un-American and unconstitutional for the government to create a “target list” of citizens to be silenced in the public square through covert pressure on communications monopolies to which the government owes monopoly power. There is no way that the federal government’s use of intermediaries to silence those who disagree with it on Internet forums, where much of the country’s political organizing and information dissemination takes place, is “protected speech.”
Bullying, not the bully’s pulpit.
What is happening is not the government expressing its views to the media or, as Justice Elena Kagan put it, “encouraging the press to suppress its own speech.”This is government bullying third party This is to suppress the speech of Americans, which the authorities do not like.
For example, the government could threaten an IRS audit or an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) investigation, or revoke the Washington Post’s license if it published an editorial by Jay Bhattacharya. It’s like doing.as norwood vs harrison It was enacted in 1973 and is clearly unconstitutional. The government cannot “induce, encourage, or encourage private individuals to accomplish anything that is constitutionally prohibited.”
But Matt Taibbi, some of the judges, and Fletcher said, “The ongoing rollout of a hugely funded content whistleblowing program designed by veterans of foreign counterterrorism operations and targeting domestic populations, Fletcher said.” “I have reframed it as a discussion of what he calls the ‘classic bully pulpit.'” I recommend it. ”
Any false excuse for censorship is already illegal
we have laws against all This harm was presented by the government and several judges as an excuse for government censorship. Acts of terrorism are illegal. Promoting terrorism is illegal as treason and incitement to violence. It is illegal for children to jump out of windows to injure themselves or commit suicide (a “hypothesis” raised by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and discussed at length during oral argument).
When someone is spreading terrorist incitement to violence on Facebook, law enforcement should go after the terrorist plotter, not Facebook. Just as it is unjust to punish the manufacturers of guns, knives, and tire irons against those who use their products to commit murder, so too is it unfair to punish the manufacturers of guns, knives, and tire irons against those who use their products to commit murder. It is unjust and unconstitutional for the government to effectively take over Facebook. If they have a problem with these evils, they should address those evils directly, rather than pressuring Facebook as if it were a proxy parliament to do things that they can’t do through Congress.
It is also foolish to think, as Jackson and Fletcher did in oral argument, that government is the only solution to all social problems. Suppose these supposed window jumping children don’t have parents? Teachers? Brother sister? neighbor? Don’t social media companies care about preventing their products from being used to promote death, and wouldn’t it be easy to explain that publicly? Apparently, our Even though society has been dealing with much bigger problems like wars, pandemics, and foreign invasions without government censorship for 250 years, Jackson couldn’t think of any solution to such problems other than government censorship. It seems so.
An audit of government by voters is exactly how our system should work
In this case, Fletcher said, “Two states and five individuals are seeking to use Title III courts to audit all executive branch communications to and about social media platforms.” described it as a “problem”. It’s called transparency, and it only becomes a problem when governments seek to evade accountability to voters for their actions.
Citizens have a fundamental right to audit what their government is doing with its public positions, institutions, and funds. How can a government be run with the consent of the governed if the people have no idea what their government is doing?
Under federal law, all communications like the one revealed in this lawsuit are public records. However, these public records are extremely difficult to obtain. The executive branch has effectively overridden the Open Records Act by unreasonably extending the release period to 636 days, forcing federal agencies to retrieve records years beyond legal deadlines. They are increasingly forcing citizens to file expensive lawsuits.
Congress passed legislation that would force automatic disclosure of all government communications with tech monopolies that have no bearing on actual classified information or “national security” designations, and which the government is illegally expanding to avoid transparency. It should be passed. No judiciary should support government secrecy in the face of foreign press pressure. Legitimate National Security Actions.
The government is so big, it’s everytime Forced
Fletcher’s argument also claimed to draw a line between government persuasion and government coercion. The size of our government and micro-harassment powers have long obliterated such boundaries, if they ever existed. Federal agencies currently have the power to try citizens in non-Article III courts, outside of the Constitution’s due process protections. Citizens can become bankrupt long before they finally appeal to an actual court. That’s why most of them just do what the agency tells them to do, even if it’s clearly illegal.
Federal agencies demand authority over nearly every aspect of people’s lives, from the puddles in people’s backyards to the temperature of the cheese served in small restaurants. If they target the backs of ordinary citizens, they will be tortured by regulators and go bankrupt.
As President Franklin Roosevelt’s “brain trust” envisioned, the government is now the “senior partner” of every corporation, giving automatic enforcement to any “demands” made by government officials. Starting Sunday, there are six ways federal agencies can take back noncompliant companies, including investigations by the EEOC, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Health and Human Services Administration and the Securities and Exchange Commission. Do you use the correct pronouns? Research. Would you hire “one too many” white men? investigation.
The TikTok bill currently moving through Congress would codify federal authority to seize social media companies accused of being foreign-owned. Immediately after acquiring Company X, Elon Musk faced regulatory reform that cost him tens of millions of dollars and more to come. He has that much money, the rest of us don’t.
There is no threat of violence in the public’s statements. On the other hand, speeches by government officials absolutely are, and always are. Government officials have powers that others do not have, and those powers are easily abused. why we have a constitution. SCOTUS needs to take this important context into account and provide constitutional protection. stronger This is because the government goes far beyond the scope of the Constitution.
The very business models of big tech companies depend on government regulators and can be destroyed or crushed in the kneecaps with the stroke of an activist president’s pen. At least this is what the president said when Facebook and Twitter didn’t get his way: Section 230 should be “immediately repealed.” This is a president who claims executive power to unilaterally rewrite laws, ignore laws, and ignore Supreme Court rulings. The president issues the order in a press release and it goes into effect months before a court challenge begins.
Constitutionally protected speech is not terrorism
If the justices buy into the administration’s niceties about “concerns about terrorism” and “once-in-a-lifetime pandemic preparedness,” they haven’t read the briefs in this case, and it’s simply because the U.S. government is trying to counter terrorism. You can see that it is a cover for turning it into a means. They attack their own people in an attempt to control the outcome of elections. This is exactly what the First Amendment was designed to check, and we Americans need the Supreme Court to understand that and act to protect us. Elections mean nothing if the government secretly prevents voters from talking to each other.
The Supreme Court may not be able to return the country to full constitutional government by eradicating the almost completely unconstitutional administrative state. But constitutional boundaries should be enforced on such institutions to the extent possible. This apparently includes a government-wide ban on outsourcing to supposedly “private” organizations actions that would be illegal for the government to take.
That includes not only coercive direction to social media companies, but also the development of social media censorship tools and organizations as a front for a rogue security state that targets peaceful citizens rather than actual terrorists. False statements are not domestic terrorism, and a clear-minded Supreme Court judge who weighs the evidence would not allow the Biden administration to weaponize anti-terrorism tools to strip law-abiding Americans of their basic human rights. There’s no way I’ll forgive you.
