Posted on 01/27/2022 6:42:12 AM PST by Red Badger
Warren sent an official letter, not just her personal opinion. That certainly implies using her governmental authority to suppress free speech.
I’d think it’s a form of prior restraint, since she wants Amazon to modify the search algorithm so that this book does not come up in the list of publications on the subject.
That's all part of free speech. Free speech enables lying, with the boundary being civil defamation and disclosing a small fraction of classifed material (mostly military, cryptography, and spy ID).
I get that, and too that most people are intimidated by these liars, because these liars can and do abuse their power in ways that cause physical and mental distress.
I don't believe there is any remedy at law. Sure, there may be harsh words, and breaches of "ethics" and "rules."
At any rate, might as well have fake government to go along with fake news.
She could sell some eagle feathers on the dark web to raise money.
Warren is mad she got caught.
How many other times have lefties done things like this?
“some” isn’t enough
ALL would be fine.
I haven’t read the Supreme Court Bantam Books v. Sullivan ruling, but according to the article the ruling determined it is unconstitutional for state officials to pressure a private company to suppress “objectionable” speech.
Yes, Warren (the legislator) as an individual has 1st amendment rights. However, she wrote this letter in an official capacity, as a representative of the US government. She is using the government to suppress the free speech rights of the authors.
As to the remedy, unfortunately, that’s for the court to decide.
So look who it is who are the book burners.
Someone please tell Lie-a-watha that she doesn’t get to decide what information we get.
She can kiss my lily white patriarchal ass.
Lizzy Warren is a moron using official U.S. Senate letterhead to throw her weight around. I hope the courts award the plaintiff all of Warren’s wampum, real estate holdings and investments.
One of our sons and his wife, a DIL ordered this book for me, “The Truth About Covid 19, the week before Christmas.
It arrived in time and is still available from Amazon.
Kindle
$9.99
Available instantly
Audible Audiobook
$0.00
Free with Audible trial
Available instantly
Hardcover
$14.99 - $24.95
Our DIL could not find this book in the book stores in the East Bay (Frisco).
My hardcover copy gets used daily and is on a little “To read table by my Lazy Boy.” I have it in Kindle on my Chromebook and Kindle White Pages Pad.
Neither have I. I was just riffing from the "possibly unlawful" words in the news report.
The case is on the subject of a state officially ruling a book to be obscene.
In Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58 (1963), the Supreme Court ruled that states must provide adequate procedural safeguards when establishing a mechanism to declare books obscene.
-- according to the article the ruling determined it is unconstitutional for state officials to pressure a private company to suppress "objectionable" speech. --
"Possibly unlawful," it depends on what is being suppressed.
It also depends on who is doing the suppressing, I suppose.
We know it is constitutional for Twitter to suppress POTUS, so suppression seems to be in vogue in our "free to speak" environment. as long as what you speak is not critical of a sacred cow.
-- As to the remedy, unfortunately, that's for the court to decide. --
It's also for the plaintiff to ask. This is a civil suit, so no criminal violation. I figure there is no statute that prescribes money damage amounts, if any. All up to proof and discretion.
Government and business tyrants in charge, for our own good, will lead to at least an interesting place.
All I have found so far is a syllabus ...
BANTAM BOOKS, INC. V. SULLIVAN, 372 U. S. 58 (1963)
The Rhode Island Legislature created a Commission"to educate the public concerning any book . . . or other thing containing obscene, indecent or impure language, or manifestly tending to the corruption of the youth as defined [in other sections] and to investigate and recommend the prosecution of all violations of said sections."
The Commission's practice was to notify a distributor that certain books or magazines distributed by him had been reviewed by the Commission and had been declared by a majority of its members to be objectionable for sale, distribution or display to youths under 18 years of age. Such notices requested the distributor's "cooperation," and advised him that copies of the lists of "objectionable" publications were circulated to local police departments, and that it was the Commission's duty to recommend prosecution of purveyors of obscenity. Four out-of-state publishers of books widely distributed in the State sued in a Rhode Island court for injunctive relief and a declaratory judgment that the law and the practices thereunder were unconstitutional. The court found that the effect of the Commission's notices was to intimidate distributors and retailers and that they had resulted in the suppression of the sale of the books listed. In this Court, the State Attorney General conceded that the notices listed several publications that were not obscene within this Court's definition of the term.
Held: The system of informal censorship disclosed by this record violates the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 372 U. S. 59-72.
(a) The Fourteenth Amendment requires that regulation by the States of obscenity conform to procedures that will ensure against the curtailment of constitutionally protected expression, which is often separated from obscenity only by a dim and uncertain line. Pp. 372 U. S. 65-66.
(b) Although the Rhode Island Commission is limited to informal sanctions, the record amply demonstrates that it deliberately set about to achieve the suppression of publications deemed "objectionable," and succeeded in its aim. Pp. 372 U. S. 66-67.
(c) The acts and practices of the members and Executive Secretary of the Commission were performed under color of state law, chanrobles.com-red and so constituted acts of the State within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. P. 372 U. S. 68.
(d) The Commission's practice provides no safeguards whatever against the suppression of nonobscene and constitutionally protected matter, and it is a form of regulation that creates hazards to protected freedoms markedly greater than those that attend reliance upon criminal sanctions, which may be applied only after a determination of obscenity has been made in a criminal trial hedged about with the procedural safeguards of the criminal process. Pp. 372 U. S. 68-70
(e) What Rhode Island has done, in fact, has been to subject the distribution of publications to a system of prior administrative restraints without any provision for notice and hearing before publications are listed as "objectionable" and without any provision for judicial review of the Commission's determination that such publications are "objectionable." Pp. 372 U. S. 70-72.
Reversed and cause remanded.
So this publisher admits thats its ok to censor literature if they do it but not if asked by the government?
scummy nazi
sheeeeessshhhh
Is Senator Liawatha Warren a member of the U.S. government? Yes
Does Amazon sell Senator Warren's own books? Yes
Did Senator Warren, a member of the U.S. government, direct Amazon, a contractor for the U.S. government, to stop selling a third party's book? (on official government letterhead no less) Yes
Senator Liawatha Warren committed a crime, violated the Senate's ethics rules, and also committed a tort against the book author.
I’m a firm believer in schadenfreude. You mentioned Liawatha’s books being sold by Amazon.
A search using Amazon’s own engine immediately brought up a number of casebooks and supplements covering commercial law, law of debtors and creditors, and bankruptcy.
One can only wish ....
And incitement to riot.
But overall “Freedom of the press is limited to those who own one” as the old quote goes.
All censorship is bad. The only things any governmental entity should ever be able to deal with in any manner are defamation of character, incitement to riot, or the revealing of classified information.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.