The team at Public are celebrating the U.S. Supreme Court’s imminent ruling on the constitutionality of Government demands for social media censorship. Here’s an extract from their Substack:
For months, the mainstream news media have described the Censorship Industrial Complex as a conspiracy theory invented by the Twitter Files journalists and Republicans. The New York Times, Washington Post, PBS ‘Frontline’ and most other news outlets have published story after story claiming that there is an orchestrated effort by people who don’t care about the truth to mischaracterise the work of well-intentioned ‘misinformation researchers’.
But now, the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear and rule upon the constitutionality of the Censorship Industrial Complex as denounced by the Attorneys General of Missouri and Louisiana in their lawsuit against the Biden administration for demanding censorship by social media platforms of disfavoured views on Covid, elections and other issues.
“We look forward to vindicating the First Amendment rights of our clients, and all Americans, in the nation’s highest court,” wrote Jenin Younes, a staff attorney for the New Civil Liberties Association, on X. Younes has been working with Columbia law professor, Philip Hamburger, who Public interviewed in July. Together they represent Stanford professor Jay Bhattacharya, also interviewed by Public in July, former U.C. Irvine psychiatrist Aaron Kheriaty, Harvard professor, Martin Kulldorff, and others.
It’s not all good news. The Supreme Court also granted the Biden administration’s motion to stay the injunction until it can hear the case later this year or next. As a result, U.S. Government employees are no longer prohibited from communicating to social media companies, as they had been by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. This resulted in a dissenting opinion by Supreme Court justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorush and Clarence Thomas.
“Government censorship of private speech is antithetical to our democratic form of government,” wrote Alito, “and therefore today’s decision is highly disturbing… Despite the Government’s conspicuous failure to establish a threat of irreparable harm, the majority stays the injunction and thus allows the defendants to persist in committing the type of First Amendment violations that the lower courts identified. The majority takes this action in the face of the lower courts’ detailed findings of fact.”
We agree with Alito, et al., but are also enormously relieved that the Supreme Court will hear the case at all. Many neutral legal observers say this is one of the most important censorship cases in the Court’s history. It will be, without a doubt, the most important since the rise of the internet over the last 30 years. It will likely have implications on free speech issues for the next 30 or more.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
You can’t talk about compassion as if it is a an extension of ethical thinking or rationality. As they say, one death is a tragedy, a millions deaths a statistic. Does that mean that your compassion is a million times wrong to care more about a single person than a number. No it doesn’t it is the way we are made. I can conceive of caring more about my cat getting run over than I care about the fate of nations and I do not see this as a failing.
Dr David McGrogan is not just a terrific writer on legal matters but a very engaging and readable writer full stop.
Thank you very much.
Very interesting article. My view is that if you have broken the law then you are an ‘outlaw’ and you have given up your right to be protected by the state and the judiciary until you have served you punishment. Why no-one seems to care for the human rights of the victims to live, while the murderer gets full protection for ‘their rights’, I don’t get. You gave up ‘your rights’ when you chose to deprive someone else of theirs.
Well Captain Obvious needs to make an observation that sticks out as sheer contradiction here. In Canada, why is it that you can commit the most heinous of crimes, as described above, the death penalty is illegal yet euthanasia legal? In fact, euthanasia and assisted dying can be obtained if you’re depressed or if you’ve been unlucky enough to have incurred nasty and debilitating injuries due to a certain ”safe and effective” injection being forced on you by your psychopathic government. And it’s not just Canada, it’s the same here in the Netherlands and many other countries. Another contradiction worth mentioning is that in some U.S states the death penalty is legal but euthanasia is illegal. So these laws seem totally paradoxical to me. So somebody kills somebody in the most horrific way but they’re automatically afforded the human rights that they themselves have just deprived their victim of? WTAF?? So what is ‘ethical’ for one is deemed ‘unethical’ for the sadistic dangerous maniac? Make it make sense!
I won’t go off on one about migrants so I’ll just finish on a lighthearted note. I couldn’t resist because of the song ( this’d be a ‘hate crime’ in Clown World, Scotland );
https://twitter.com/DaveAtherton20/status/1775575164287115674
So, according to Kundera, it’s only art when it celebrates shit and otherwise, it’s just Kitsch? This certainly marks him as 20th century modernist who superciliously disregards a few thousand years of the cultural history of mankind and rather, celebrates (his own) shit instead. Or sharks in formaldehyde and stuff like that. One could argue that this also just addresses a metaphysical anxiety, namely, the metaphysical anxiety of semi-educated middle class types who do not want to be told that something more important and more elaborate than their digestive problems and sexual desires can exist on this planet.
https://frontline.news/post/un-and-bill-gates-behind-digital-public-infrastructure
Billy is planning on Digital ID within five years. Bliar is going to be busy.
The Liberal Progressive mindset is to “rehabilitate” criminals. They think punishment is a dirty word. They even get squeamish using the word “criminal”. There is also this idea that the blame for the criminal’s behaviour should go to society at large. His mother may have been a drug addict, or his father may have left when he was three. He may have lived in poverty, been uneducated etc etc etc. So in other words the person is committing crimes and it is everyone else’s fault except his. ——This kind of world view comes under what the Liberal Progressive calls “Social Justice”. ——I say there is only one true justice—“Equal Justice” FOR ALL.
That’s not a particularly “liberal progessive” mindset as this was already the guiding principle behind the German institution called Zuchthaus or the English equivalent house of correction which were both supposed to better people via forced, practical education. The same goes for the idea that people generally don’t become criminals because they’re evil but because circumstances outside of their control forced them to. That was already well-established theory in the 19th century. Christianity may also have played a role here because of its basic tenets than man is inherently sinful, that all dealings among humans should be guided by love and that God is the judge of man and not man.
It may well have been policy in places in years gone by, but that is the current mindset, of the left, who I refer to as Liberal Progressives, who don’t see the criminal as someone who should be kept away from the law abiding public and should be returned back into society as soon as possible. Previous Societies may well have had the view that punishment is not the purpose of incarceration. That is not my view. I prefer the tough love or as that old Victorian saying used to point out “Spare the rod and spoil the child”. ——–From what I can see the softly softly leftists social engineering approach is failing.
Historically, the purpose of incarceration was indeed not punishment but to better people whose lifestlye was considered socially unacceptable by forcibly educating them in the proper ways. That was mostly put them under military-style discipline and force them to do useful work, preferably, physically taxing useful work. That’s consistent with the “Spare the rod and spoil the child” statement: The purpose of the rod is not to harm the child for the sake of doing so but to help with teaching it.
That’s still the goal so-called “liberal progessives” claim to have. They just claim that this can and should be accomplished solely by talking to people (whether or not this is actually being done I don’t know).
Why then is Julian Assange not able to avoid extradition to the US? Why is the ‘torture’ of dragging out the legal process, along with his incarceration in Belmore, allowed to continue? Our government’s treatment of him is pure hypocrisy and double standards.
Tangentially related, another cracker from Ann Coulter: Does The New York Times Actually Care About Mass Shootings? – Ann Coulter
Interesting read. But it sort-of misses the point. Poor and relatively uneducated black people killing other poor and relatively uneducated black people is not a topic for the Times. They’re always doing that and the solution is to ensure they cannot buy guns. Or knifes. Or wooden laths. Or anything else which could conceivably be used to hurt other people. And as evil white conservatives won’t allow us (the Times people) to outlaw all this, it’s clearly their fault.
The kind of mass shooting the Times is interested in isn’t unavoidable Bad weather again!
events like this but societal breakdown stories, ie, mass shooting which are, according to the world view of the Times, not supposed to happen. Namely “privileged, educated white guy”, assumed to be privileged because he’s white, committing extended suicide by taking it out on his tormentors (more or less well-defined). As virtuous society is perfectly perfect, this must not happen. Hence, evil forces are to blame like “whiteness”, “far rightness”, “toxic masculinity” etc etc, basically anything which enables the Times to conclude that the Times society is perfectly perfect despite glaring evidence of the contrary. Like a neverending trickle of (relatively) young white men driven mad by it who then commit mass homicides culminating in suicide.
That’s obviously a hypocrtitical and rather shallow worldview but such aren’t unheard of among humans.
Yes those are all good points.
It’s the typical Liberal naivety, if one smiles enough at murderers et al they’ll stop doing it. It’s also a luxury belief system, as the author points out, as generally speaking the “elite” are not the ones likely to face the result of their “benevolence”.
Another example is today’s news:
Fury as judges are handed a soft sentence checklist: ‘Bad education, drug addiction and growing up poor’ should all now be considered ‘mitigating’ factors when handing down punishment to criminals | Daily Mail Online
This “checklist” been issued by the Unelected Sentencing Council, of which only one is an experienced British police officer, a Chief Constable. Even though he is labelled a “non-judicial member”, that label is strangely missing from the Global Majority Heritage female ex-probation officer member who also, inexplicably, works for several other countries simultaneously on “diversity issues”.
All the other members are in the legal profession, whose main career goal worldwide seems to be thwarting the police at every turn, blocking justice for victims, and lavishing affection upon criminals.
Defence lawyers are a disreputable breed. One has to have a very weak moral compass and a strong stomach to be a defence lawyer.
The sentence I enjoyed most in this article informed us that the demonic Ng’s equally demonic accomplice committed suicide by taking cyanide. I call that an excellent result and the subhuman Ng should have been offered the same method of ridding the world of his abhorrent self.
Failing that, he should have been executed as quickly as possible to prevent any chance of escape. (remember that Ted Bundy escaped from custody and murdered at least two more women).
WHY anyone of sound mind should concern themselves for a minute with the ‘rights’ of torturer/killers who may look human, but clearly are not, is beyond all understanding. Defence lawyers have a very low moral threshold it seems.
Whether Ng was a immigrant or not is irrelevant.