Home » Federal judge enjoins government and big tech partnership to censor the right

Comments

Federal judge enjoins government and big tech partnership to censor the right — 18 Comments

  1. The future of freedom of expression (although we have the First Amendment) looks nearly as dismal in our moribund republic as in Europe. Even Elon’s purchase of Twitter seems hardly to matter much, as (for now) only registered users are able to read any “tweets”, while our entire system of law (to say nothing of the process of “legal education”) has been corrupted perhaps beyond the point of repair.

  2. I took out a Twitter account last year because, pre-Elon, Twitter would only allow me to read the first three or four tweets on any account before telling me I had to register to see more. I never post anything there; I merely read.

  3. On topic, this ruling is really what is so often claimed and so often untrue — it’s a bombshell aimed at the Democrat-controlled government apparatus.

  4. Enforcement will be the key. The Dems will just ignore it, like the AZ Atty General is going to ignore the “freedom of speech” case out of CO.

  5. SHIREHOME @ 5:10: “Enforcement will be the key…” Well, yes. And what will enforcement look like? Suppose that some of the Administration’s many named defendants violate the injunction –and are caught red-handed, and Judge Doughty holds them in contempt? Will he send US Marshals to arrest them? Will they be clapped in irons and kept in custody of his court?

    To misquote Anatole France, the majesty of the law means that both the powerful and the weak may apply for injunctions, but only the latter will ever be bound by them.

  6. Rhetorical question; now that a Federal judge has ruled that the Fed’s solicitation of censorship is illegal… how likely is it that they’ll actually comply?

    Answer; as likely as Merrick Garland’s DOJ prosecuting future violations.

  7. Perhaps the biggest upside: In order to defend themselves, Defendants must acknowledge the extant of their censorship.

  8. I find it very difficult to conceive of a legitimate reason for the executive to be coordinating with media platforms to remove particular content.

    Am I wrong? Maybe there would be some leeway in wartime, as the Court has often fudged the Bill of Rights in wartime. But this isn’t wartime. Neither was COVID. And so much of the COVID “disinformation” has turned out to just be facts that are inconvenient to the government. How does the government have an intellectual leg to stand on, let alone a legal case?

    And where did Democrats get this crazy idea that their desire to fight “disinformation” trumps the 1st Amendment? Why do so many of them fervently believe it?

  9. “Enforcement will be the key. The Dems will just ignore it, like the AZ Atty General is going to ignore the “freedom of speech” case out of CO.

    Rhetorical question; now that a Federal judge has ruled that the Fed’s solicitation of censorship is illegal… how likely is it that they’ll actually comply?

    …. Judge Doughty holds them in contempt? Will he send US Marshals to arrest them? Will they be clapped in irons and kept in custody of his court?”

    That, or those, are the questions of the hour, and not at all of slight importance.

    “Enforcement” may take multiple forms, each, or any, of which I eagerly await. More importantly, I await “actual compliance with” the ruling to see what form it takes.

    And, unasked so far is the question of “how much responsibility is to be shared by the government’s willing accomplices in the media – which is “damn near all of them” – who so strongly aided and abetted the crime and who also deserve “enforcement” and “compliance with” levied against them.

    I suspect that, in the end, “enforcement” and “compliance with” will fall to the citizens’ responsibility, a quite reasonable responsibility in that under the Constitution it is the citizens who are – or, at least, should be – in control of the Republic. In what form it is delivered remains to be seen, but I have doubts as to punishment adequately matching the severity of the committed offense.

  10. Neo, shouldn’t the headline say “Federal judge enjoins government and big tech partnership *from censoring* the right?”

  11. The usual claim is that the left is about change and the right about conserving.

    In fact, I’d say that the left is about creating a utopia. And the right, at least in the US, is about maintaining the tradition of rule of law.

    Utopia requires a plan, and hence, planners who can impose their will. This can’t be a rule of law system, because the planners, who are men, have to be able to impose their will.

    The American tradition was a rule of law society with a government with limited powers, particularly on the national level. This isn’t a planned society, it is a society with fixed rules (with some method of changing the rules, but requiring a considerable level of consent). It is a free society. All this prevents the planners from implementing plans.

    All the left’s claims of rule of law, or any respect for the Constitution, is false. The Constitution (if followed) and rule of law would prevent the leftist utopia.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>