Below is my column on the three major free speech cases heard by the Supreme Court in the last month. The three cases (Murthy v. Missouri, National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo, and Gonzalez v. Trevino) could hold the balance for whether free speech will be protected in the coming years from increasing censorship and targeting by the government.
Here is the column:
This month, the Supreme Court reviewed a trifecta of free speech cases that has government and civil libertarians alike on edge. While each of the cases raises an insular issue, they collectively run across the waterfront of free speech controversies facing this country.
For some of us, what was most chilling from oral arguments were the sentiments voiced by justices on the left of the court, particularly Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. The court may now be reflecting the shift among liberal scholars and politicians away from freedom of speech and in favor of greater government speech regulation.
In my forthcoming book, “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” I explore the evolution of free speech in the United States, including the failure of the Supreme Court to protect free speech during periods of political unrest. Although a new revolutionary view of free speech emerged at the founding of the republic, it was quickly lost due to the regressive views of the federal courts over centuries of conflicted decisions.
We are now living through one of the most anti-free speech periods in our history. On our campuses, law professors are leading a movement to limit free speech under the pretext of combating hate speech or disinformation. A dangerous triumvirate has formed as government, corporate and academic interests have aligned to push limitations of free expression.
That triumvirate is now before the Supreme Court, which is looking at cases where government officials targeted critics, dissenting websites and revenue sources.
What was disconcerting was to hear many of those same voices from our campuses echoed this week on the court itself.
In Murthy v. Missouri, the court is considering a massive censorship system coordinated by federal agencies and social media companies. This effort was ramped up under President Joe Biden, who is arguably the most anti-free speech president since John Adams. Biden has accused companies of “killing people” by resisting demands to censor opposing views. Even though the administration was dead wrong on many pandemic-related issues, ranging from the origin of COVID-19 to the efficacy of masks, thousands were banned, throttled or blacklisted for pointing this out.
Biden’s sole nominee on the court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, has long been an enigma on the issue of free speech. That is why these oral arguments had some alarming moments. While her two liberal colleagues suggested that some communications may not be coercive as opposed to persuasive, Jackson would have none of it. She believed that coercion is perfectly fine under the right circumstances, including during periods like a pandemic or other national emergencies claimed by the government. When dangerous information is spotted on social media sites in such periods, she seemed to insist, the government should feel free to “tell them to take it down.”
The sweeping quality of Jackson’s remarks shows that the relativistic views of free speech may now have a new champion on the court.
In a second case, National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo, the court considered an effort by a New York regulator to discourage banks and insurers from working with the NRA. Maria Vullo, who ran New York’s Department of Financial Services, allegedly used her office to pressure these businesses to cut off financial support for the nation’s leading gun rights organization.
As with Murthy, the Vullo case captures one of the principal tactics used by the anti-free speech movement in attacking the advertisers and businesses of targeted individuals and groups. One such government grant resulted in a list of the 10 most dangerous sites for advertisers to avoid, a list that happened to consist of popular conservative and libertarian news sites.
The idea of a Democratic New York regulator targeting a conservative civil rights organization did not appear particularly troubling in oral argument for some of the justices. In fact, the views expressed by some of the justices were appallingly dismissive. Justice Elena Kagan asked, “if reputational risk is a real thing, and if gun companies or gun advocacy groups impose that kind of reputational risk, isn’t it a bank regulator’s job to point that out?”
In the third case, Gonzalez v. Trevino, the court was considering the arrest of Sylvia Gonzalez, a 72-year-old former councilwoman in Castle Hills, Texas. She earned the ire of the sheriff, mayor and other officials with her criticisms of their conduct. She was subsequently charged with inappropriately removing a government document (a citizen petition) that she had mistakenly put with other papers. The charges were later dropped. The case smacked of retaliation — there is no evidence that anyone else has faced such a charge in similar circumstances.
The case resonates with many who believe that the legal system is being politically weaponized in this country. Many of us are appalled by the Gonzales case. However, in this case, the support for the government seemed to come from the right of the court, including the author of a prior decision limiting such challenges, Chief Justice John Roberts.
The free speech trifecta, therefore, covers the three areas of greatest concern for the free speech community: censorship, blacklisting and weaponization. The resulting opinions could curtail or magnify such abuses. For example, the social media case (Murthy) seemed to trouble the justices as to where to draw a line on coercion. If the court simply declines to draw such a line and rules for the government, it will likely fuel new censorship efforts by federal agencies.
What is disconcerting about the views expressed by Justices Kagan, Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor in two of the cases is not that they are outliers. The problem is that liberal justices long acted as the bulwark for free speech on the court. They are now viewed as the weakest link, often dismissive or hostile to free speech arguments.
When Justice Jackson defends the right of the government to coerce speech, she follows a long legacy of speech relativists on the court, including the earlier Justice Robert Jackson. He had warned that the court needed to approach speech prosecutions with “a little practical wisdom,” so as not to “convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.”
The current Justice Jackson seemed to channel the same practicalities over principle in stressing that “you’ve got the First Amendment operating in an environment of threatening circumstances from the government’s perspective.”
The view of speech as harm or violence is all the rage on college campuses, and also in many Western countries where free speech is in a free fall. France, Canada and the United Kingdom now regularly arrest people for expressing hateful or controversial viewpoints. Those same anti-free speech arguments are now being heard in our own Congress and colleges in the U.S.
It is not clear how the court will decide these cases. One fear is that it could retreat to blurry lines that leave us all uncertain about what speech is protected. In an area that demands bright lines to prevent the chilling effect on speech, such vague outcomes could be lethal.
The government loves ambiguity when it comes to speech regulation. It now may have found new voices on the left side of the court to join in the ignoble effort of combating free speech. That renewed effort to introduce “a little practical wisdom” could mean a lot less freedom for Americans.
Jonathan Turley is the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro professor of Public Interest Law at the George Washington University Law School, where he teaches a class on the Constitution and the Supreme Court.
As dangerous as censorship, is “covert practices” related to or following censorship. If a government official feels that their oath of office grants them censorship authority – do it overtly!
Allow this government authority to be appealed and challenged overtly, as the U.S. Constitution legally requires.
For example: exceeding 20 years, some Americans have not been allowed to make a living in the occupation of their choice. Even occupations in dire need of employees.
Using covert means, the officials successfully prevent judges from providing judicial review – subverting the jurisdiction of the Judicial Branch of government.
Covert = Evil
Ketanji Brown Jackson is no longer an enigma on the subject of free speech. She firmly opposes it, and supports government censorship, and punishment of dissent.
This is a trend of the Left. People become afraid to say they don’t want biological males in women’s bathrooms or locker rooms or women’s sports, or that they disagree with castrating minors who express gender dysphoria, because dissent is harshly punished by the intolerant Left.
If you express dissent to the Democrat Party Line, you can lose your scholarship, get dismissed from sports teams, fired, deplatformed, and impoverished.
John Stuart Mills “On Liberty” should be required reading for anyone attending law school.
Or frankly anyone period.
It is available as a PDF from heterodox academia “translated” to 21st century english
https://heterodoxacademy.org/files/1-Tools-Resources/All-Minus-One-2nd-Edition-PDF-1.pdf
Liberty – and especially free speech is not optional. It is a necessity for any society that wishes to actually improve standard of living.
Restricting speech – ESPECIALLY restricting “misinformation” or bad speech undermines our ability to find truth.
“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion… Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them…he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.”
― John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
We literally saw this with Covid. The rigorous global effort to suppress dissent. resulted in bad policies. While it likely had little impact on Covid – the smallest grasp of math would tell most anyone you are NOT going to be able to put a dent int he spread of a respiratory virus with a transmission rate of 2.5-3.5 (I think Omicron has an R0 of about 30). Supressing dissent resulted in lots of bad policies that did not dent covid but cause massive harm elsewhere.
With Covid huge example where partial censorship did obvious enormous harm.
One of the reasons that I post here.
One of the reasons I specifically confront those on the far left,
it to test my own positions, values and knowledge.
I do not expect Gigi or Dennis or the plethora of left wing nuts here to be persuaded by anything I write.
But I am actually very interested in whether they can mount any effective criticism of my arguments.
While skills at logic and rasons are not uniformly distributeed – even the most logical will fall victim to rationalization and bias, if they are not constantly tested.
Someone linked a youtube video recently that posited that bias actually increases with intelligence because our ability to rationalize obviously wrong positions increases with our intelligence.
I found that video compelling though I partly disagree. I think intelligence without moral foundations amplifies rationalization.
Ultimately – contra that video and contra my Mill quote above – I find myself to be the most difficult judge of my arguments.
Ayn Rand said
“Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think that you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.”
Somehow that is encoded in my DNA – when my principles, values, arguments result in a contradiction, it is like an insatiable itch that I must scratch until I overcome it.
Regardless, the most important and certain way that we know that we are right, is the weakness of the voices in the world or in our head telling us that we are wrong. If these are silenced we are far more probe to error.
Often it is the most extreme argument that is most effective in challenging our views – because it is the most likely to cast aside assumptions that we accept as true without actually weighing.
As an example – nearly everyone in this country accepts as biblical truth that diversity is not merely net positive but so important as to be an immutable principle.
Though in fact – the vast majority of the world does not accept that. Nor have humans for the vast majority of history.
In the US pretty much the only people who will argue against diversity are the truly racist far right – that tiny portion that the left thinks is 50% of the country – ignoring the logical problem that by definition 505 of the country can not be “far right”.
Regardless that is ALMOST the only place you will hear arguments against diversity.
I have ultimately concluded that diversity is a VALUE – not a principle. i.e. it is a rule of thumb that USUALLY ends up net positive.
I keep coming back here Professor – even though I have to wade through a gazillion posts about Hunter Biden and a gazillion comments by cowards afraid to use their own name – because every once in a while now there is a post like this. That Gonzalez case is a sleeper that I had not heard of any where else. And it’s the precedent they’ll use to let Trump off of almost ever one of his own petards he’s currently hoisted with
Tomorrow SCOTUS Hears Case Based On Misinformation
A scientific paper that raised concerns about the safety of the abortion pill mifepristone was retracted by its publisher this week. The study was cited three times by a federal judge who ruled against mifepristone last spring. That case, which could limit access to mifepristone throughout the country, will soon be heard in the Supreme Court.
The now retracted study last year. Medicaid claims data to track E.R. visits by patients in the month after having an abortion. The study found a much higher rate of complications than similar studies that have examined abortion safety.
Sage, the publisher of the journal, retracted the study on Monday along with two other papers, explaining in a statement that “expert reviewers found that the studies demonstrate a lack of scientific rigor that invalidates or renders unreliable the authors’ conclusions.”
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2024/02/09/1230175305/abortion-pill-mifepristone-retraction-supreme-court
…………………………………………….
The above article, from February 9, tells us what was already widely suspected when this case first reached Federal Court last year. Critics noted then that mifepristone had a good safety record which contradicted plantiff claims. What’s more, the plaintiffs, a small group of anti-abortion doctors, could not even establish any real standing to bring the suit.
Yet incredibly this case has made it to the Supreme Court. If the court should rule, against established science, that mifepristone is ‘unsafe’, the implications could be far-reaching.
Such a ruling would not only upend what is left of abortion rights, but it would also rock the entire FDA drug approval process. Though just by hearing this case, SCOTUS actually dignifies what is essentially disinformation.
also rock the entire FDA drug approval process.
You mean the FDA that had to tuck the tail and admitt they were lying through their Teeth about Ivermectin?
The Govt you worship has been exposed as corrupt and incompetent.
The core problem is that ALL OF THIS is not governments business AT ALL.
The solution is to eliminate the FDA.
I do not know if the retracted study was good or bad science – nor would I care – except that government is relying on it.
It is wrong for Government to act based on the claims of science – Government is neither qualified nor empowered to evaluate science.
The decision to conduct studies, to publish studies to retract studies has LONG been muddled by the politics in science.
Little has changes since Galileo.
There is not a major field of science that has not had to reverse itself on a major modern area of accepted scientific dogma in the past decade.
Even Physics had to reverse itself on 4 decades of accepted science on crystals – which is unbelievably important to semiconductors.
These major reversals all share common themes.
A failure to even attempt to reproduce studies since “peer review” has become the rage.
And the incestuous problem created by peer review and the underlying political problem that fields of science become dominated by powerful scientists – individuals and groups who do not tolerate dissent.
Often the very same people who in their youth broke with the orthodoxy of their time and made important leaps, have become the impediments to subsequent generations making break throughts that reject even part of the prior insurrectionists work.
I do not know what the truth is regarding mifepristone – though I am far more inclined to beleive the retracted paper than the orthodoxy.
Without knowing anything – I would presume that any retracted paper that ran afoul of scientific political orthoxy is likely correct.
You are not required to agree with my instincts.
But if you are ranting about “establish science” – you are with near certainty WRONG.
This is also why it is NOT the business of the courts, and not the business of government.
Those on the left want a doctor and their patient to make decisions – atleast regarding abortion – without interferance from government.
I do not want a group of conservative doctors trying to use government to bar the use of mifepristone any more than I want the government encouraging its use.
AS those on the left say – this should be between doctors and patients. GET GOVERNMNET OUT OF IT.
Not right wing government, not left.
Free markets handle this perfectly.
If a doctor advises me to use a medicine that proves more harmful than he represents – I have a tort claim against him.
He has a defense in studies that support that drugs safety – and they journals that publish those studies can be sued if they publish studies that do not hold up under scrutiny.
One of the nice parts of the way markets work – is internal politics ultimately fails.
The ultimate standard becomes reality – not scientific politics.
If you make poor choices in a free market – YOU suffer the consequences.
If people in a posiiton of duty and trust nake bad recomendations – they suffer the consequences.
Everyone has an incentive to GET IT ACTUALLY RIGHT, rather than politically right.
Daily, the longest babbling nonsense posted on a dying website.
Daily you complain, but never challenge the facts.
There is nothing in anything that you have cited that actually says there were NOT more complications.
Getting statistics right and then understanding them correctly is quite difficult.
It is a major source of error in a significant portion of scientific papers.
One of the core problems is that scientists almost uniformly are poorly educated and unskilled at statistics,
and the statistical analysis in scientific studies is NOT done by mathematicians.
I have no idea if the Authors of this study screwed up – though the raw data should strongly hint one way or the other.
As I asked before – WERE THERE MORE COMPLICATIONS OR NOT ?
If there were not – the authors intentionally or otherwise gamed the statistics.
If there were – the hypothesis is reasonable, but it is still possible the analysis was botched.
One of the problems with probability that proper use of statistics is supposed to ferret out, is that random chance does say that unusual patterns do occur without meaning anything. Cacner clusters do occur without meaning that those located in the cluster are exposed to a carcinogen.
Regardless few scientists are capable of the statistical analysis necescary to distinguish between a random result that proves their hypothesis, and a result that proves cause and effect.
There is an ongoing effort to reproduce published scientific papers – this has gone back and started with some of the earliest “peer reviewed” rather than reproduced work starting in the 50’s.
About 1/3 of publish papers DO NOT REPRODUCE AT ALL, Another third reproduce – but without statistical significance.
Only a third of published scientific papers reproduce with statistical significance such that it is likely that the claims in the paper are true.
If anything this is getting worse, not better, The pressure to publish in academia is enormous.
If you do a study and it disproves your hypothesis – scientifically that is as valuable as one that proves it.
disproving a cause and effect relationship has as much scientific value as proving one.
But studies that do not prove something – do not get published.
So if you are a researcher (any field) looking to get published – there is a fairly reliable way to be SURE that whatever study you conduct will result in something publishable.
As an example if you are studying heart disease and you are following 5000 patients for a year – test each of them for about 100 different things. It is pretty much guaranteed that at the end of the study ONE of the 100 things you tested will have a statistically significant correlation – atleast enough to get published. The problem is that if you test 1000 different things – even if NONE of them actually have a cause and effect relation to what you are studying – nearly always ONE while RANDOMLY show a positive correlation – especailly if you are not requiring a really STRONG correlation.
Regardless, you will get publish. Should anyone try to verify the results you published – the odds are they will fail – you did not get a real correlation, all you did was bet that if you tested 100 different things you would likely get one false positive strong enough to publish.
You said doctors conducted the study, and then that experts rejected it. Neither of those claims means anything.
There is no reason today to beleive that a study that is published is meaningful and correct – almost no matter what it says.
There is also no reason to beleive that a retracted study is actually in error.
Contra your article – the ACTU*AL scientific standard is reproduciblity. That is the ONLY test of actual science.
Nothing you have cited gives us any reason to beleive either the study or those that rejected it.
Labeling someone expert – is pretty close to meaningless today.
The people who told us to shut the economy down, to mask, to use hand sanitizer, to get vaccinated, that Covid came from a wet market in china, That Trump botched covid and Biden could fix it – all of these were “experts” and all of them were wrong about these and many many other things.
If you want to know if a study is good – do NOT consult “experts” – go and try to reproduce it.
If you are too lazy to do that – have an excellent mathematician or someone else who is better at statistics than most scientists evaluate the statistics.
Elon Musk Loses ‘Free Speech’ Case
A federal judge has dismissed X owner Elon Musk’s lawsuit against a research group that documented an uptick in hate speech on the social media site, saying the organization’s reports on the platform were protected by the First Amendment.
Musk’s suit, “is so unabashedly and vociferously about one thing that there can be no mistaking that purpose,” wrote U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in his Monday ruling, “This case is about punishing the Defendants for their speech.”
Amid an advertiser boycott of X last year, Musk sued the research and advocacy organization Center for Countering Digital Hate, alleging it violated the social media site’s terms of service in gathering data for its reports.
One of the group’s findings, published in June, detailed how “racist, homophobic, neo-Nazi, antisemitic or conspiracy content” from paid users went unmoderated on the site.
Edited From:
“Judge Dismisses Elon Musk’s Suit Against Hate Speech Researchers
Today’s NPR
……………………………………..
Billionaire Elon Musk presumed to function as a ‘champion of free speech’ by trying to muzzle studies documenting hate speech on ‘X’.
According to Musk, hate speech is supported by ‘free speech’. But warning advertisers about hate speech (on ‘X’) violated data gathering agreements. In other words, Musk feels no one has the right to track hate speech on ‘X’.
^^ Has all the hallmarks of DNC talking point regurgitation.
“This case is about punishing the Defendants for their speech.”
Little fascists are all in favor of free speech as long as it’s being used to punish someone else for their allowance of free speech.
Musk lawsuit is about punishing the defendants for their speech.
That is what ALL defamation lawsuits are about.
What is True here is that the people pushing this nonsense were WRONG, and engaged in FRAUD.
And Guess what FRAUD is not protected speech. Ask Judge EnMoron.
One of your problems – and that of the courts is that you spin yourself to death.
Musk’s lawsiuit was not about preventing third parties from Warning advertisers about Hate speech.
It is about LYING to advertisers about hate speech.
Whether you like it or not the claims of these organizations have been soundly refuted.
Their results are not reproducable without gaming the system.
They are not warning anyone about ACTUAL hate speech.
BTW Musk does not care if people track hate speech on Twitter – he cares if they LIE about it.
I would further note – though not an issue in this lawsuit – there is a very serious question as to what constituttes hate speech.
I would argue that all speech advocating affirmative action is hate speech – it portrays minorities as inferior and unable to compete without artificial advantage – BTW many studies have confirmed that far more on the left are condescending to minorities, than conservatives.
Conservatives it turns out are much MORE color or gender or … blind than those on the left.
They will hire you regardless, and they will fire you if you fail to perform – regardless.
While those on the left actually presume you are inferior.
Musk did not attempt to muzzle anyone – just hold them accountable for lying so as to interfere in his business.
This is typical of the left.
You beleive Musk should be accountable for allegedly allowing hate speech on Twitter.
Shouldn’t those who Lie about that also be accountable ?
Because it is NOT disputed that they rigged the game to get their results.
John Say you are right of course that the paid DNC troll misrepresented everything, but that troll will never come back and debate with you about it. They are paid to regurgitate talking points in hit-and-run fashion. They are morally repugnant bottom feeders who clutter up this comment section with irrelevant DNC propaganda.
I guess the DNC Shills here had to put themselves on hold while the DNC Troll Farm decides how to spin the reduction in Trump’s bond. Finally, a few minutes peace until they get their new marching orders.
Those few minutes expired at 4:38 (see above).
Estovir, Trump was furious today because a firm date, April 15, has been set for the hush money case.
No court dates are EVER firm.
If you beleive this case will start in April – I have swamp land to sell you.
The discovery that Trump’s lawyers received will results in probably several motions to dissmiss – all of which will rely on the evidence and analysis conducted by Bragg’s office and by SDNY.
Merchan is not going to be able to move forward quickly on this – without violating due process rights.
BTW there is no “hush money case” – NDA’s are [perfectly legal.
This is why the discussion about Daniels testifying is stupid.
This is not about Daniels, it is not abouyt the NDA – if you try to make it about that – it will get reversed.
Even Merchan is STUCK with the fact that previous courts have already addressed the NDA in great detail.
Merchan is BOUND by their findings.
Much of what is reported on this case is garbage. Merchan should have dismissed it long ago.
There is nothing here at all.
If you want Daniels to testify – I really do not care – she has done so in the past. She is not going to perjure herself by contradicting past testimony. But she has nothing to testify to.
The fact that Bragg/Mercan are allowing her testimony – means they are already operating outside the law.
The NDA was perfectly legal. The underlying conduct was perfectly legal.
Bragg’s “theory” rests on TWO claims. The first that Trump misreported a legitimate expense as a “legal expense”.
That is both factually incorrect and legally irrlevant – a misreported expense is only a crime if it results in a tax benefit.
This would not.
Bragg/Merchan also have the problem that
Cohen has already in court (supported by the text of the actual NDA) claimed that He was a party to the NDA – not Trump.
Not only has Cohen claimed this – but other courts – long ago FOUND this as a matter of law and fact – so Bragg/MErchan is stuck with it.
So Bragg has to prove – without any evidence whatsoever that Trump’s payments to cohen were NOT for legal fees.
When paying Cohen to get an NDA is actually a legal fee.
But even that claim – is only a misdemeanor – and one that the statute of limitations has run on.
So Bragg is also claiming that the NDA is an illegal campaign contribution – an alleged felony.
Except that the FEC has repeatedly and on this issue held otherwise. Federal law trumps state law,
and this is an area of election law with a 30 year track record – none other than … Jack Smith lost this issue against Johnathon Edwards 30 years ago.
There are so many problem with the election law claim.
The FEC has already ruled on THIS specific claim.
The SDNY has refused to prosecute this – and everything associated with why they did so will get into a motion to dismiss.
A judges decisons on matters of law – especially those that can not easily be fixed later are immediately appeal-able.
Federal case law runs against Bragg and is applicable.
Candidates are allowed to contribute as much of their own money to a campaign legally as they wish.
That means the only way this can be a crime is if Trump did NOT pay for it. In which case it would be a crime committed by Cohen not trump (which Cohen has plead guilty to).
If Trump did pay for the NDA – it is legal, and the felony goes away and this is MAYBE a misdemeanor – that is past the statute of limitations.
If Trump did not pay for the NDA – then trump’s fees are legal fees and the whole thing goes away.
You keep getting high on that hopium.
How has that worked out for you so far ?
While I doubt that MErchan can bring this to trial – Every much less in April.
Lets say that he does.
Lets say that he gets a conviction before the election – all of which is wishful thinking.
Trump will be going into the election with Democrats having convicted him of having an affair with a porn star and according tpo Braggs theory not dotting his eyes and crossing his T’s regarding paying for it.
You actually think that is going to hurt Trump ?
Courts exist to apply fundamental and statutory law as it is written—its “manifest tenor”—to assure that actions comport with law.
That is all.
The judicial branch has no constitutional basis or authority to dole out subjectivity, compassion, charity, bias, favor, or partiality.
The judicial branch and Supreme Court are the manifestation of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and they must act veritably as such.
The Supreme Court has no power or authority to modify fundamental or statutory law—to “legislate from the bench.”
The Supreme Court has no power to usurp the power of the legislative branch or to legislate in any form or to any degree.
There is no licit evolution of the freedom of speech, and there are no cases wherein the judicial branch and Supreme Court have any licit, legal, or constitutional authority or power to amend the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
The judicial branch must return flawed and feckless legislation to the legislative branch.
Freedom of speech is irrefutable and absolute under fundamental law.
Any and all coping and adaptation must occur within the courts and within the decisions of courts, not in that which was previously and properly legislated.
That one does not enjoy the 1st Amendment freedom of speech does not bear.
The fundamental law is clear: “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech,….”
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”
“…men…do…what their powers do not authorize, [and] what they forbid.”
“[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
– Alexander Hamilton
@Turley,
You wrote: “She believed that coercion is perfectly fine under the right circumstances, including during periods like a pandemic or other national emergencies claimed by the government. When dangerous information is spotted on social media sites in such periods, she seemed to insist, the government should feel free to “tell them to take it down.””
-=-
Ok, while this could be cause for concern…
Have to ask… what about in terms of national security concerns…
Suppose I post the blueprints on how to build a dirty bomb or something similar that could be build mostly with stuff you can get off of Amazon?
(Ok there’s more to it but just go with it…) Or how to build IEDs with stuff you can get from the local pharmacy and other local stores?
Wouldn’t the state have the right to censor that speech?
Now that would be an extreme… and I think Jackson was going beyond that to limit other speech.
My question is if the First Amendment does trump National Security?
-G
Gumby (damnit):
“My question is if the First Amendment does trump National Security?”
****************************************
The First Amendment, my dear petrified friend, IS national security.
Mespo,
“The First Amendment, my dear petrified friend, IS national security.”
I think that is the most brilliant comment I have read all day.
UF:
It’s why Turley lets me stay around — the occasional nugget of insight I give.
I’m reading, “The First Amendment IS national security and, therefore, as superior law, trumps and supersedes national security,” accomplishing the edification of said petrified friend.
“My question is if the First Amendment does trump National Security?”
What does that mean ?
Does the first amendment make the espionage act unconstitutional ? No.
At the same time – does national security prohibit publishing lawfully obtained information harmful to national security in violation of the first amendment? NO.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States
For a comment section hosted by someone who CLAIMS to be a free-speech absolutist, Turley sure allows a LOT of censorship in his garbage comment section, such as refusing to post any comment with a link to a Sharyl Attkisson article. The Professor continues to reveal himself as a fraud on a daily basis.
The Constitution is restrictive of government. The only way to change the Constitution is through a Constitutional Amendment or Constitutional Convention. It can not be change by legislative action via the Supreme Court.
https://a57.foxnews.com/static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2024/03/1920/1080/Cartoon-032124.jpg?ve=1&tl=1
Jonathan: I’ll get to your column but first—It’s Monday morning and DJT still hasn’t come up with the $464 million for the bond. He has the end of the day to do that. Some speculate he might be trying to sell his 70 million shares in his new SPAC /Truth Social company that just went public. The share price dropped almost 14% on Friday and you know that if DJT tries to dump his shares to pay for the bond the share price will fall like an anchor and small MAGA investors will be left holding the bag. DJT doesn’t care. He’s desperate!
In the meantime over the weekend DJT was complaining about Fox’s coverage of his looming financial crunch: “Don’t like the way Fox news is reporting the Letitia James Election Interference Scam. They don’t want to discuss how ridiculous the Corrupt Judge’s fine of 450 million dollars is…it should be ZERO”.
Eric Trump was also on Maria Bartiromo’s Fox show Sunday complaining he can’t get money to help his dad with the bond: “Every single person when I came to them saying can I get a half-billion dollar bond…Maria, they were laughing. They were laughing”. Poor, Eric, just a few years ago lenders were dying to give him money. Now they only laugh at him.
And while Joe Biden is campaigning around the country what was DJT doing this weekend? No surprise. He was playing golf at his Trump Int. in West Palm Beach. On Sunday night he bragged on Truth Social: “THE CLUB CHAMPIONSHIP TROPHY & THE SENIOR CLUB CHAMPIONSHIP TROPHY..I WON BOTH!”. No surprise. He has won both trophies–what? Two or three years running? Does DJT also cheat at golf? Just ask Tiger Woods! Joe Biden once again mocked DJT for his trophies: “Congratulations, Donald. Quite the accomplishment”.
My comment would not be complete without mentioning there is a new nickname for DJT after he referred to himself as “Honest Don”. Now on “X” they are calling him “Don Poorleone”. Fitting!
You posted too soon. Court reduced the bond to 175M.
Sorry to ruin your day
Someone needs to check in on Dennis.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
And the stock has rallied on the news.
So off topic Denise.
Give Turley time to write up the court’s decision.
Dennis McIntyre, my understanding is that Trump cannot sell his shares in Truth Social for 3 years.
I doubt that … Lockout periods are much shorter than that.
He would have to file a notice though since he holds a significant share (> 5%) and it would have to be a planned or program sale… for the most part.
It is not impossible for him to sell.
But it is likely quite complicated and can not happen quickly.
Further a large sale would tank the stock.
But he likely can use the stock as collateral. Though he might have to put up ALOT of stock as the value is volatile.
The good news is that stock is very close to money as far as being collateral.
it is liquid and trivially transferable.
The bad news is that its value is volatile.
In a few months they’ll be referring to him as Mr President, Fitting!
So get to the column and leave out your nonsense.
It is monday night – all your gloating and greed has proven unfounded.
Judge EnMoron has been slapped for bad math and several other serious problems.
Trump has 10 more days to come up with 1/3 of EnMoron’s amount – because EnMoron failed 3rd grade math.
Further EnMoron’s order removing Trump and his family from control of their own business has been vacated.
There are likely many reasons that the apeals court did this – the law is probably a major one, Basic math another. \
But I would bet that the consequences to NY of this were high on the list – and will remain high through this apeal.
I doubt that NY appealate courts are going to “do the right thing” and dismiss this garbage as they should
But I predict that they will slowly whittle away at the James case until there is little left.
NY will not likely get biden slapped by the markets – If The Carroll and James awards are reduced to next to nothing.
And left wing nuts will still declare victory – if they get a few bucks from Trump.
Premature ejaculation
Just came across this quote in the How America Became Stupid youtube video:
““The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. …We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. …In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons…who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.”
― Edward Bernays, Propaganda
Here is a good video about media, government, propaganda, etc.
When I was in high school, our sociology teacher, Mr. Leonard, who was an amazing person and teacher, taught us one day about why the KKK has the right to have parades with police protection. It should be noted that Mr. Leonard was a Democrat teaching in a rural town in Illinois, in the 80’s, where most of the student body tended to lean instinctively right. While many assumptions are made about racism then and now, my classmates and I were shocked that the KKK should enjoy police protection and we disagreed. Mr. Leonard explained that once you start deciding who has the right to free speech and who doesn’t, free speech is dead. At the time, I continued to disagree with him. I believed that an exception could and should be made for such a vile group, and that the KKK should not enjoy the same free speech protections as other groups. That was exactly 40 years ago. Now, I understand what Mr. Leonard was saying.
When I was a child, I spake as a child, etc. Either all speech is free or all speech is a privilege and thus, restricted. You can’t have it both ways. Of course, my freedom only goes as far as the end of your nose, as my mother taught me. You can burn your own flag. You can’t burn mine. You can’t deface public property because public property is my property. You can’t obstruct traffic because you steal my money and time.
It reminds me of the line from The Kite Runner: “There is only one sin, only one, and that is theft. Every other sin is a variation of theft.”
America was founded on the belief that we are all born with certain inalienable rights, which we can envision as a physical bag of tools. To limit free speech is theft. It shouldn’t be that hard to understand. At the time the Bill of Rights was written, America was undergoing an ongoing smallpox epidemic. As bad as Covid may have been, smallpox was objectively worse. And yet our Founding Fathers didn’t add an asterix saying “except in the case of a pandemic” to anything.
FREE PETER NAVARRO!!
Freedom and Self Reliance
vs.
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”
__________________________________________________________________________
The rights, freedoms, privileges, and immunities of the Constitution and Bill of Rights
vs.
The “dictatorship of the proletariat.”
________________________________________
KNOW THE ENEMY
“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”
– Sun Tzu, The Art of War
____________________________
The communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs, AINOs) in America are the anti- and unconstitutional, direct, and mortal enemies of the American thesis of Freedom and Self-Reliance, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, actual Americans, and America.
James Carville says the Democrat party has too many preachy women in it & he quit teaching at LSU because he got student complaints about what he said. Compares Biden’s poll numbers to seeing your grandma naked. This is a great read, phenomenal quotes: https://t.co/eyLHvnLOAg
— Clay Travis (@ClayTravis) March 23, 2024
That is right!
When James Carville is too much for leftists, that is saying something!
@Upstate
It really is. He is absolutely insufferable, always has been (he would be one I would point to when I say some of us have always thought dems were aristocratic jerks) – for him to be fed up – sheesh. Now that is something. Like I said the other day, I’m sure the other dems absolutely cringe when AOC opens her mouth on the floor, but she is convenient, and members of the DNC generally obey rather than lead. Spineless cowards. I honestly do not know what version of the democratic party folks like the Professor thought they were a part of, as this is really nothing new, at least in DC. 🤷🏻♂️
Ugh!
He and Stephanopulos are disgusting remnants of the Clinton Era.
And George ‘dated’ his sister too.
While that sounds bad… its mostly harmless.
He graduated high school in ’78.
His sister was a few years younger and when she was a senior she wanted to go to her prom but didn’t have a date.
So he, being a mama’s boy came home from school, and took her to her prom.
Not sure if that photo from the Prom made it into the year book.
I remember watching a video of him talking tough on the phone as one of Clinton’s aides. It was funny to watch… especially if you knew the guy.
I’m viewing all of what’s been happening for 6 years probably longer as some uncontrollable kid who got hold of a balloon. He’s fascinated and exhilarated by how large he’s been able blow air into the balloon until it bursts in face after which he’s in tears from the shock and sting of the explosion. Is the constitution, bill of rights and freedom in general being stuffed into a balloon by some uncontrollable kids and what’s going to happen when the balloon bursts, who’s going to be in shock and tears from the explosion?
Prisoners of Conscience used to be a thing with repressive dictatorships such as the USSR, China, today’s Iran. Now it seems to be all the rage with the Academic Left (from political correctness to microaggressions), and from there has infected the Democratic Party and the fawning mandarins running its Kafkaesque Deep State.
The views of the three liberal chicks on the court are to be expected. What continues to be disconcerting are the views of the other woman on the court, Justice Roberts. We all know by now that he can be expected to do the wrong thing. Gotta maintain that social standing among the DC elite.