Posted on 03/18/2024 6:10:10 AM PDT by CFW
Today at 10:00 a.m. the Supreme Court hears oral argument in Murthy v. Missouri, a case on federal government officials communicating with social media companies about content moderation policies and whether it amounts to government suppression or speech censorship.
At 11:00 (or after Murthy) The Supreme Court hears oral argument in NRA v. Vullo, a case concerning the First amendment and whether a New York State regulator violated it by threatening its regulated entities with regulatory action if they do business with the NRA.
(Excerpt) Read more at c-span.org ...
Murthy v. Missouri may be a little harder due to the Biden Administration's "Nice website you have here, shame if something happened to it..." approach. But in the end there is more than enough viewpoint based censorship the both New York and the Biden Administration are going to lose.
Yes, they’ll lose.
But, as with voiding fiduciary responsibilities/contractual obligations of college graduates to lending institutions, no matter what SCOTUS rules, will the regime STOP?
There is a chance that both cases will be 7-2. I have little hope for Jackson and Sotomayor in ruling for the NRA under any circumstances, and both probably see no harm in the government trying to “limit dis-information” on social media. Of course, both Kagan and Gorsuch are wild cards so their questions will be interesting to hear. I can’t see the others ruling for the government on either case.
Oral arguments in both cases should be interesting. CSPAN will carry live audio of both arguments.
_______________________________
These two cases are extremely important for the future of our Country. If the Court does its job correctly it will condemn the back door effort of state and federal government to coerce or otherwise partner with private corporations to do what the government is otherwise prohibited from doing under the First Amendment. Our government has become so morally and ethically bankrupt that it actually believes it is fine to connive with private corporations to violate its citizens’s First Amendment rights, so lets see how they defend this illegal activity before the Supreme Court today.
If SCOTUS rules for the government in Murthy then there will be no limit on the actions government agencies can take to coerce private companies to censor or promote speech according to the government preferred narrative.
The attorney for the government is misstating the issue at the heart of the matter. It’s not that government cannot speak (as he is framing the argument). It’s that government agencies cannot threaten social media companies as to which speech can be oppressed or promoted. Few justices seem to swallowing his argument thus far.
The liberal justices were piling on the attorney for the state and the conservative justices were mostly silent. Barrett seemed to agree that government should be able to silence social media posts that disagreed with the government’s position.
Those are exactly the ones that should NOT be silenced...
Justice KBJ doubles down: “My biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways.”
That is, quite literally, the entire point of the First Amendment—of the entire Bill of Rights.
Transcripts here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcript/2023
Thanks for the transcript.
The liberal justices didn’t get any smarter or supportive of the First Amendment in the case of NRA v. Vullo.
Our founding fathers would have instigated a second war for independence if they had heard those justices today.
I fear Barrett and Gorsuch are going to side with the liberal justices in these cases.
Transcript.
The liberal justices were piling on the attorney for the state and the conservative justices were mostly silent. Barrett seemed to agree that government should be able to silence social media posts that disagreed with the government’s position.
____________________________
For a case that was simple and straight forward, the Court rushed into the weeds and left me very uneasy with all the diversions and ginned up side issues. The First Amendment is a natural right protected by the Constitution and like all other rights is not to be abided except in the rarest of circumstances. Yet, the Court seemed overly sympathetic to the government continuing to collude with private entities to abridge the First Amendment right versus the citizens right to unfettered free speech. I don’t know what to make of it all, but the arguments left me nervous and feeling like few on the Court really understand the issue and the seriousness of the matter. Let’s hope they school themselves on past government censorship atrocities before they issue their opinion.
“For a case that was simple and straight forward, the Court rushed into the weeds and left me very uneasy with all the diversions and ginned up side issues. “
—
I agree. The hypotheticals especially went down rabbit holes that had no bearing on the case before them.
Justice Sotomayor and Jackson were bad, but so was Barrett, Kagan and Gorsuch. Even Roberts wasn’t much better although he made some good points for the Plaintiffs. It worries me that the conservative justices were so silent as the liberal justices piled on, but that might be a good thing in that they heard nothing that would convinced them of the state’s position and felt no need to ask questions.
I agree. The hypotheticals especially went down rabbit holes that had no bearing on the case before them.
____________________________
All freedom loving Americans will have to pray to the God under which this Country was founded that He will instill discernment and wisdom on the Court to defend the principle God given gift of free speech. If the Court takes the side of the government versus the People, the Court will betray the founder’s, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.
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.