"Laws forbidding dissent do not prevent subversive activities; they merely drive them into more secret and more dangerous channels. Police states are not secure; their history is marked by successive purges, and growing concentration camps, as their governments strike out blindly in fear of violent revolt. Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear. We must, therefore, be on our guard against extremists who urge us to adopt police state measures. Such persons advocate breaking down the guarantees of the Bill of Rights in order to get at the [enemy]. They forget that if the Bill of Rights were to be broken down, all groups...would be in danger from the arbitrary power of government."--Non-Installed President Harry S. Truman
"What the Covid-19 panic has revealed, and continues to reveal, is the managerial elite has no respect for things like the rule of law, individual liberty or any of the other foundation items of consensual government. To protect democracy, they will rig the election process. To keep us free they will strip us of our rights. In the name of inclusion and diversity they will exclude anyone who disagrees. What we are seeing is that the real plague on our society is the ruling class."-- Z-Man
“Ve are flagging problematic posts for Facebook.“--SpokesFrau Gin "Vodka" Saki
"You're too stupid to tell me what to think."--Kathy Shaidle
.................
Alito's Dissent via SCOTUS Temporarily Green-Lights Biden Admin Conspiring With Big Tech Censors (thefederalist.com)--Mollie Hemingway
"JUSTICE ALITO, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS and JUSTICE GORSUCH join, dissenting from grant of application for stay.
This case concerns what two lower courts found to be a “coordinated campaign” by high-level federal officials to suppress the expression of disfavored views on important public issues.
To prevent the continuation of this campaign, these officials were enjoined from either “coercing” social media companies to engage in such censorship or “actively controlling” those companies’ decisions about the content posted on their platforms. Today, however, a majority of the Court, without undertaking a full review of the record and without any explanation, suspends the effect of that injunction until the Court completes its review of this case, an event that may not occur until late in the spring of next year.
Government censorship of private speech is antithetical to our democratic form of government, and therefore today’s decision is highly disturbing. This case began when two States, Missouri and Louisiana, and various private parties filed suit alleging that popular social media companies had either blocked their use of the companies’ platforms or had downgraded their posts on a host of controversial subjects, including “the COVID–19 lab leak theory, pandemic lockdowns, vaccine side effects, election fraud, and the Hunter Biden laptop story.
According to the plaintiffs, Federal Government officials “were the ones pulling the strings,” that is, these officials “‘coerced, threatened, and pressured the social-media platforms to censor them".
Based on extensive findings of fact that spanned 82 pages, the District Court held that the plaintiffs were likely to be able to prove their claims and were threatened with irreparable harm, and it therefore issued a preliminary injunction against a number of Executive Branch agencies and officials. On appeal, the Court of Appeals agreed with the District Court’s assessment of the evidence, which, in its words, showed the existence of “a coordinated campaign” of unprecedented “magnitude orchestrated by federal officials that jeopardized a fundamental aspect of American life.”
The Court of Appeals found that “the district court was correct in its assessment—‘unrelenting pressure’ from certain government officials likely ‘had the intended result of suppressing millions of protected free speech postings by American citizens.’ To stop this “campaign,” the injunction, as it now stands, prohibits the covered officials from doing two things.
First, they may not “coerce” social media platforms to make “content-moderation decisions.” Second, they may not “meaningfully control" social media platforms’ “content-moderation” efforts. Displeased with these restrictions, the Government filed an emergency application asking us to stay the effect of this injunction pending certiorari. Under a straightforward application of the test we use in deciding whether to grant a stay, the Government’s application should be denied. To obtain a stay pending the disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, an applicant must show, among other things, “a likelihood that irreparable harm will result from the denial of a stay.” A stay is an “extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.”
Thus, the Government in this case must make a “clear showing” of irreparable harm. And to do that, it is not enough to “simply show some ‘possibility of irreparable injury.’ A mere “‘possibility’ standard is too lenient.” Instead, the Government must prove that irreparable harm is “likely.” Here, the Government’s attempts to demonstrate irreparable harm do not come close to clearing this high bar. Instead of providing any concrete proof that “harm is imminent,” the Government offers a series of hypothetical statements that a covered official might want to make in the future and that, it thinks, might be chilled. But hypotheticals are just that—speculation that the Government “may suffer irreparable harm at some point in the future,” not concrete proof. And such speculation does not establish irreparable harm.
Moreover, it does not appear that any of the Government’s hypothetical communications would actually be prohibited by the injunction. Nor is any such example provided by the Court’s unreasoned order. The Government claims that the injunction might prevent “the President and the senior officials who serve as his proxies” from speaking to the public on matters of public concern.” (suggesting that the Fifth Circuit’s decision implicates “the use of the Office’s bully pulpit to seek to persuade Americans”). The President himself is not subject to the injunction, and in any event, the injunction does not prevent any Government official from speaking on any matter or from urging any entity or person to act in accordance with the Government’s view of responsible conduct. The injunction applies only when the Government crosses the line and begins to coerce or control others’ exercise of their free-speech rights.
Does the Government think that the First Amendment allows Executive Branch officials to engage in such conduct? Does it have plans for this to occur between now and the time when this case is decided? 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. But “[w]here an intermediate court reviews, and affirms, a trial court’s factual findings, this Court will not ‘lightly overturn’ the concurrent findings of the two lower courts.”
And the majority suspends the relief afforded below without a word of explanation. Applying our settled test for granting a stay, I would deny the Government’s application, but I would specify in the order that in the unlikely event that a concrete occurrence presents a risk of irreparable harm, the Government can apply for relief at that time, including, if necessary, by filing an emergency application here. Such an order would fully protect the ability of Executive Branch officials to speak out on matters of public concern.
At this time in the history of our country, what the Court has done, I fear, will be seen by some as giving the Government a green light to use heavy-handed tactics to skew the presentation of views on the medium that increasingly dominates the dissemination of news. That is most unfortunate."-- Justice Alito's Dissent, MURTHY v. MISSOURI .......
 |
"Ja, most unfortunate, indeed, mien Justice." |
"Congress shall make no law, nor Obama's broken-down pedophile Puppet Dictator, abridging the freedom of speech."
I quote from memory.
Awful: The Supreme Court Gives Biden the Go-Ahead to Continue Pressuring Social Media Companies to Cenor Conservatives While It Takes Its Sweet Time in Reviewing the Matter
Like Hitchcock's "Strangers", the Occupation Government and Big Tech are swapping crimes. "Criss-cross".
Big Tech does the Political Censorship that is forbidden to the Regime, and the Regime looks the other way while Big Tech engages in monopoly, commits business fraud, spies on Americans and cuddles up to dictatorships--other dictatorships, I mean.
Social Media Monopolies essentially serve as public utilities today, much like telephone and telegraph companies once did. We broke up AT&T and Ma Bell--and they never tried to censor anybody. We trust-busted Standard Oil, but not even John D. Rockefeller kept a file on everybody on the planet like these megalomaniacs do.
They claim to be neutral bulletin boards when it helps them--and a Letters to the Editor-page when that helps them. Like a Backstreet Boy, "They want it both ways." Tell me why.
And, for the record, Benito, this Corporate/State Incest is the very textbook definition of "Fascism".
Grazi, Obama.
By the authority of the believer, we bind the foul spirits of censorship and oppression over America and we loose the Spirit of the Lord in Liberty for this nation and upon the all the nations. Because of Your Great Love for us, Father God, Your Justice for the wicked and Deliverance for Your Children fills the earth. In the Powerful Name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ we pray, Amen and Amen!
No comments:
Post a Comment