This is clearly a free speech violation. I know we had a lot of unknowns around COVID at the time, but when professionals in their field are being silenced, we have a serious issue on our hands. I don't agree with flat-earthers, but I don't think they should be silenced either. Even though it shows how poor our education system is.
I'm in Canada and it's worse here. What bothers me is not just the creeping authoritarianism and censorship, it's the way that so many people actually support it. Their thinking is neaderthal: well that's not nice, they shouldn't say that, and we should force them to stop it. It's that basic. I am a professor/lecturer under suspension for a LI response to a guy who was calling for the extermination of Israel. I had just watched the Hamas massacre videos, and I wasn't feeling too jocular. I said I stood with Israel and said if you stand with Hamas, you stand with Nazis and then listed the less than glorious accomplishments of Hamas—presto - Human Rights Complaint against me. I've been suspended for four months and banned, banished, threatened, and defamed, I regret nothing, but some actual anti-semite (hundreds of posts, a lover of Hamas, the Houthis, dictators, hater of all thing Western) had a human rights complaint and he has had nothing happen to him, nothing, he's on campus, they've ignored it for six weeks and in six days with me they were shaking with rage at me, I am now accused (for my post) as a violent threat, accused of assault at school (when I was at home as I was banned from school), they have shredded me. And the VP has told her staff that I will be fired even though they are doing this Orwellian (I would say Kafka, but it's just trying to be smart; I haven't read him since high school, and I know his character became a dung beetle, that's it) They have lawyers threatening me, my table is stacked with paperwork. Everyone says I will be fired, everyone. And the real anti-semite, nothing. But I don't think he should be fired, I think he's a nasty racist ass but I don't think he should be fired. Seriously, free speech isn't a thing anymore, it's not, it's off with their heads. They take themselves so seriously. I'm supposed to meet some investigator; I will tell her off the entire two hours and tell her she's an idiot; I don't care. But my question is, the uni only cares about me talking to the media; they are obsessed; I'm not concerned about them getting their panties in a bunch (oh no, shouldn't say that), and if they want to fire me, they will, and we will see what the union does. But I don't have a lawyer anymore; she got too busy, and I'm not inclined to follow their stupid NDA. I told them truthfully I was on too much morphine when I signed because of kidney stones; it's a creative excuse; do they get to silence me? I'm tired of it. The union idiots want me to show remorse, but I'm not doing it. It's not only the societal ignorance on what free speech is, but it's these pompous twits with their serious faces acting me like I've been running a child slave ring; it irks me. If they fired me, could they throw me in jail for talking? I'm not signing any NDA, and I'm not shutting up. As a nation, we don't value free speech anymore; we are a nation of idiots. https://nationalpost.com/opinion/teacher-fights-back-suspended-denouncing-hamas
What you need to understand is that law schools, like journalism schools, are training social activists, not lawyers. The law exists to bring order, predictability and civility to society. The lawyer's role is to help clients navigate the sea of laws that affect them and to advocate when necessary. Sometimes that takes challenging existing norms, but not always. The schools have lost sight of the distinction, and so it is lost on the law students.
When law schools and bar associations hold classes in "Wealth Equity" and publish articles on "Overcoming Whiteness" (really!), law graduates will naturally assume that their role is to push a progressive agenda. This agenda places the role of the state paramount, in a quest to achieve utopia. It is a logical step to see the State as having rights, and to see every case as a struggle between the rights of an individual v. the rights of the State. But of course the State must win, because it represents all the people and its goals are lofty.
Don't you just love joe's fundamental changes he is bringing to this country? biden is the example of how you change a republic democracy into an autocratic nation run by idealogues. A true insurrection.
I actually understand both Bhattacharya's dejection and the stern questioning of the Supreme Court. Bhattacharya is a responsible scientist who is NOT pushing disinformation but rather a certain set of facts to support a maverick policy idea (focused protection) aligned against the present health policy. I agree with Bhattacharya that government policy to suppress his speech is misguided. On the other hand, the public officials who are held responsible for guiding the pandemic are frustrated that they are not being given deference to manage a crisis. How can their policies work when they require vast compliance and certain scientists with minority policy views are using the Internet to torpedo them? Well it's futile of course and that's why suppressing this "irresponsible" speech is justified. Governments have been doing that for a LONG time in the field of international security and conservative justices like Kavanaugh know that. In his mind, the case is much broader and has little to do with covid science. It's about how much deference is given to the government to use various coercion tactics in ANY and ALL situations.
The justices are concerned about misinformation and disinformation? Fine. Who was the source that told us to follow the science and wear masks (even though there was no science to back it up)? Who told us the lab leak theory was a conspiracy theory (while knowing it was the true source)? Who told us the vaccine protected us from getting and transmitting COVID? (Both untrue.) Who told us the vaccines didn't cause myocarditis? (it does as well as other heart conditions.) Who mocked that ivermectin was horse paste, and hydroxychloroquine was Trump's fantasy (both proved an effective treatments in clinics all over the world)? Who funded illegal and dangerous gain-of-function research in the Wuhan lab to get around US prohibition against such research? Who has never faced a reckoning for any of this malfeasance? Perhaps the justices would like to share their thoughts on that, and let us know why they think we have lost the faith of the institutions of this country.
Also in regard to the SCOTUS social media appeal, the misunderstanding, if not misuse of "rights" is astonishing. I am speaking of the widespread assumption, by all points on the political spectrum, that a government has rights. Let me be clear: governments do not have rights. They responsibilities and obligations, but not rights. Individuals have rights. The "people," meaning the collective of individuals have rights. Governments, when seen as distinct from the people they govern, do not have rights. Why not?
Remember, the American experiment of representative democracy began during, and was the outgrowth of, the Enlightenment. One of the central concerns of the Enlightenment was natural rights, and the belief the human beings had natural rights that were sacrosanct, that governments could not trespass or violate. Nowhere that I know of did the Enlightenment affirm governmental rights. Why not? Because human beings were created in the image of the Creator. Governments were not made in the image of the Creator God. It is this distinction, and this core criterion, that led to the Founding Fathers to claim natural rights in the Declaration of Independence and to enumerate some, but not all of them, in the Bill of Rights.
The Dept. of Health and Human Services, local and state health departments, have the responsibility and obligation to educate, to persuade. And they have huge financial and infrastructure resources to do just that. That does not bestow on them a "right" to censor the unalienable right to free speech.
The problem with Justice Brown Jackson isn't only her concern about hamstringing the federal government. It is her thought process that alarms me. She proposed an analogy about an internet trend where teens are encouraged to jump out windows at increasing heights. The flaws in the analogy are twofold, and easily apparent. First, these internet dares are not political speech. They are not opinions. They are invitations to teens to be stupid.
The matter before the Court involved censoring stories about Hunter Biden's laptop, the origins of Covid, and government mandated use of masks, not teens being stupid. The matters involved were of national importance. Internet trends are not matters of national security. Secondly, the analogy concerned minors, not adults. Yes, governments do have a role in protecting minors. But again, that was not an issue in this matter. Once again we see a Supreme Court justice with very limited critical thinking abilities. We will have to live with it for the next 30 years.
Then their is Justice Kagan. Again, the analogy is so egregiously false, one wonders if it came easily to a facile mind, or did she have to work hard to find something so illogical. Justice Kagan asked, "Terrorists engage in things that come under the First Amendment. Let's say they're just recruiting people for their organizations" online, she asked." Let's break this down and shine a light on the sleight of hand. Yes, terrorists can proclaim their opinions, anti-Semitism, for example. Voicing an opinion is protected speech, no matter how despicable. Here's the sleight of hand. She transitions into recruiting people for terrorist activity. Terrorists use social media to recruit and to organize terrorist actions. That is illegal. Illegal actions are not protected speech. Incitement to riot is not protected speech. Incitement to terrorism is not protected speech.
How is it that we have two Justices who apparently have no ability to think critically, to think logically, to parse the fine differences and nuances, and to get it right? Heaven help us all.
"Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said her “biggest concern” is that the case uses the First Amendment as a means of “hamstringing the government in significant ways.” "
That's kind of the point. Did she go to Hollywood Upstairs Law School like Dr. Nick Riviera from The Simpsons went to Hollywood Upstairs Medical College?
How can Coney Barrett and Kavanaugh be swing-vote justices? I mean, WTF? I am not a lawyer, but I do know the constitution. It seems to me only a justice who favors the most broad interpretations could rule against Bhattacharya.
Two quick thoughts: (1) the justices are jurisprudencially ideological (about the nature of the law and its role in society), but are *not* politically ideological as popular press makes them out to be; (2) bc of this, justices are "swing-votes" on different issues based on their jurisprudence and so do not "land" on a political spectrum that most folks think along.
It is shockingly sad that a Supreme Court justice doesn't understand the purpose of the first amendment to the constitution. Seems pretty clear, Congress shall make no law...
It's not shockingly sad when you consider that the latest rabid idiot installed on the Court cannot define what a woman is. It is precisely what one should expect when the Democratic Party has begun the Orwellian transformation of American society.
The problem with the NetChoice law isn't necessarily that it blocks tech platforms from moderating user content. It's that the core laws involved were specifically designed to do so based on platform daily use counts that were specifically designed to focus on the certain platforms (e.g. Facebook), but not apply to smaller platforms. To be fair, these laws should apply to all online platforms, from Facebook and X, down to these very comment sections on The Free Press. User protections for free speech intrusion, as long as that speech is on a publicly available medium, should not be based on how many users happen to be on the platform.
Additionally, since these laws block platform owners from moderating user generated content, they need to double down on liability protections for content that might cross legal lines. e.g. if I as a platform owner am unable to take down speech (e.g. a post) that might be deemed libelous, I should be exonerated from any liability from that libelous speech appearing on my platform, until I am specifically directly by a legal ruling to do so.
And to be clear about my argument that platform user counts shouldn't be a factor in applying these laws, let's consider the offline analogy that the States have been using to defend these laws. The claim is that social media has become equivalent to the "public town square", and hence, free speech protections must apply, i.e. that the owner of the public space must not infringe on the free speech rights of any and all citizens.
If we apply a platform user count test to these laws, that is equivalent to doing the same thing to a town square. It would be considered an infringement of first amendment rights if government were to restrict speech within a really small town's public square because the town's population was below a certain threshold. The same must hold for the online equivalent.
This is clearly a free speech violation. I know we had a lot of unknowns around COVID at the time, but when professionals in their field are being silenced, we have a serious issue on our hands. I don't agree with flat-earthers, but I don't think they should be silenced either. Even though it shows how poor our education system is.
I'm in Canada and it's worse here. What bothers me is not just the creeping authoritarianism and censorship, it's the way that so many people actually support it. Their thinking is neaderthal: well that's not nice, they shouldn't say that, and we should force them to stop it. It's that basic. I am a professor/lecturer under suspension for a LI response to a guy who was calling for the extermination of Israel. I had just watched the Hamas massacre videos, and I wasn't feeling too jocular. I said I stood with Israel and said if you stand with Hamas, you stand with Nazis and then listed the less than glorious accomplishments of Hamas—presto - Human Rights Complaint against me. I've been suspended for four months and banned, banished, threatened, and defamed, I regret nothing, but some actual anti-semite (hundreds of posts, a lover of Hamas, the Houthis, dictators, hater of all thing Western) had a human rights complaint and he has had nothing happen to him, nothing, he's on campus, they've ignored it for six weeks and in six days with me they were shaking with rage at me, I am now accused (for my post) as a violent threat, accused of assault at school (when I was at home as I was banned from school), they have shredded me. And the VP has told her staff that I will be fired even though they are doing this Orwellian (I would say Kafka, but it's just trying to be smart; I haven't read him since high school, and I know his character became a dung beetle, that's it) They have lawyers threatening me, my table is stacked with paperwork. Everyone says I will be fired, everyone. And the real anti-semite, nothing. But I don't think he should be fired, I think he's a nasty racist ass but I don't think he should be fired. Seriously, free speech isn't a thing anymore, it's not, it's off with their heads. They take themselves so seriously. I'm supposed to meet some investigator; I will tell her off the entire two hours and tell her she's an idiot; I don't care. But my question is, the uni only cares about me talking to the media; they are obsessed; I'm not concerned about them getting their panties in a bunch (oh no, shouldn't say that), and if they want to fire me, they will, and we will see what the union does. But I don't have a lawyer anymore; she got too busy, and I'm not inclined to follow their stupid NDA. I told them truthfully I was on too much morphine when I signed because of kidney stones; it's a creative excuse; do they get to silence me? I'm tired of it. The union idiots want me to show remorse, but I'm not doing it. It's not only the societal ignorance on what free speech is, but it's these pompous twits with their serious faces acting me like I've been running a child slave ring; it irks me. If they fired me, could they throw me in jail for talking? I'm not signing any NDA, and I'm not shutting up. As a nation, we don't value free speech anymore; we are a nation of idiots. https://nationalpost.com/opinion/teacher-fights-back-suspended-denouncing-hamas
What you need to understand is that law schools, like journalism schools, are training social activists, not lawyers. The law exists to bring order, predictability and civility to society. The lawyer's role is to help clients navigate the sea of laws that affect them and to advocate when necessary. Sometimes that takes challenging existing norms, but not always. The schools have lost sight of the distinction, and so it is lost on the law students.
When law schools and bar associations hold classes in "Wealth Equity" and publish articles on "Overcoming Whiteness" (really!), law graduates will naturally assume that their role is to push a progressive agenda. This agenda places the role of the state paramount, in a quest to achieve utopia. It is a logical step to see the State as having rights, and to see every case as a struggle between the rights of an individual v. the rights of the State. But of course the State must win, because it represents all the people and its goals are lofty.
Very sad.
Don't you just love joe's fundamental changes he is bringing to this country? biden is the example of how you change a republic democracy into an autocratic nation run by idealogues. A true insurrection.
I actually understand both Bhattacharya's dejection and the stern questioning of the Supreme Court. Bhattacharya is a responsible scientist who is NOT pushing disinformation but rather a certain set of facts to support a maverick policy idea (focused protection) aligned against the present health policy. I agree with Bhattacharya that government policy to suppress his speech is misguided. On the other hand, the public officials who are held responsible for guiding the pandemic are frustrated that they are not being given deference to manage a crisis. How can their policies work when they require vast compliance and certain scientists with minority policy views are using the Internet to torpedo them? Well it's futile of course and that's why suppressing this "irresponsible" speech is justified. Governments have been doing that for a LONG time in the field of international security and conservative justices like Kavanaugh know that. In his mind, the case is much broader and has little to do with covid science. It's about how much deference is given to the government to use various coercion tactics in ANY and ALL situations.
The justices are concerned about misinformation and disinformation? Fine. Who was the source that told us to follow the science and wear masks (even though there was no science to back it up)? Who told us the lab leak theory was a conspiracy theory (while knowing it was the true source)? Who told us the vaccine protected us from getting and transmitting COVID? (Both untrue.) Who told us the vaccines didn't cause myocarditis? (it does as well as other heart conditions.) Who mocked that ivermectin was horse paste, and hydroxychloroquine was Trump's fantasy (both proved an effective treatments in clinics all over the world)? Who funded illegal and dangerous gain-of-function research in the Wuhan lab to get around US prohibition against such research? Who has never faced a reckoning for any of this malfeasance? Perhaps the justices would like to share their thoughts on that, and let us know why they think we have lost the faith of the institutions of this country.
The right SchoolHouse Rock video could teach Justice Jackson everything she needs to know about the constitution.
Also in regard to the SCOTUS social media appeal, the misunderstanding, if not misuse of "rights" is astonishing. I am speaking of the widespread assumption, by all points on the political spectrum, that a government has rights. Let me be clear: governments do not have rights. They responsibilities and obligations, but not rights. Individuals have rights. The "people," meaning the collective of individuals have rights. Governments, when seen as distinct from the people they govern, do not have rights. Why not?
Remember, the American experiment of representative democracy began during, and was the outgrowth of, the Enlightenment. One of the central concerns of the Enlightenment was natural rights, and the belief the human beings had natural rights that were sacrosanct, that governments could not trespass or violate. Nowhere that I know of did the Enlightenment affirm governmental rights. Why not? Because human beings were created in the image of the Creator. Governments were not made in the image of the Creator God. It is this distinction, and this core criterion, that led to the Founding Fathers to claim natural rights in the Declaration of Independence and to enumerate some, but not all of them, in the Bill of Rights.
The Dept. of Health and Human Services, local and state health departments, have the responsibility and obligation to educate, to persuade. And they have huge financial and infrastructure resources to do just that. That does not bestow on them a "right" to censor the unalienable right to free speech.
So we're finding out that the moron who couldn't define "woman" doesn't know the purpose of the First Amendment and we're fucking surprised?
Jeezus H Wallbanging Christ this is priceless...
The problem with Justice Brown Jackson isn't only her concern about hamstringing the federal government. It is her thought process that alarms me. She proposed an analogy about an internet trend where teens are encouraged to jump out windows at increasing heights. The flaws in the analogy are twofold, and easily apparent. First, these internet dares are not political speech. They are not opinions. They are invitations to teens to be stupid.
The matter before the Court involved censoring stories about Hunter Biden's laptop, the origins of Covid, and government mandated use of masks, not teens being stupid. The matters involved were of national importance. Internet trends are not matters of national security. Secondly, the analogy concerned minors, not adults. Yes, governments do have a role in protecting minors. But again, that was not an issue in this matter. Once again we see a Supreme Court justice with very limited critical thinking abilities. We will have to live with it for the next 30 years.
Then their is Justice Kagan. Again, the analogy is so egregiously false, one wonders if it came easily to a facile mind, or did she have to work hard to find something so illogical. Justice Kagan asked, "Terrorists engage in things that come under the First Amendment. Let's say they're just recruiting people for their organizations" online, she asked." Let's break this down and shine a light on the sleight of hand. Yes, terrorists can proclaim their opinions, anti-Semitism, for example. Voicing an opinion is protected speech, no matter how despicable. Here's the sleight of hand. She transitions into recruiting people for terrorist activity. Terrorists use social media to recruit and to organize terrorist actions. That is illegal. Illegal actions are not protected speech. Incitement to riot is not protected speech. Incitement to terrorism is not protected speech.
How is it that we have two Justices who apparently have no ability to think critically, to think logically, to parse the fine differences and nuances, and to get it right? Heaven help us all.
"Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said her “biggest concern” is that the case uses the First Amendment as a means of “hamstringing the government in significant ways.” "
That's kind of the point. Did she go to Hollywood Upstairs Law School like Dr. Nick Riviera from The Simpsons went to Hollywood Upstairs Medical College?
How can Coney Barrett and Kavanaugh be swing-vote justices? I mean, WTF? I am not a lawyer, but I do know the constitution. It seems to me only a justice who favors the most broad interpretations could rule against Bhattacharya.
Lawyer here. First Amendment one, as well.
Two quick thoughts: (1) the justices are jurisprudencially ideological (about the nature of the law and its role in society), but are *not* politically ideological as popular press makes them out to be; (2) bc of this, justices are "swing-votes" on different issues based on their jurisprudence and so do not "land" on a political spectrum that most folks think along.
Thank you.
Yeah, I was wondering about that too.
Same.
It is shockingly sad that a Supreme Court justice doesn't understand the purpose of the first amendment to the constitution. Seems pretty clear, Congress shall make no law...
It's not shockingly sad when you consider that the latest rabid idiot installed on the Court cannot define what a woman is. It is precisely what one should expect when the Democratic Party has begun the Orwellian transformation of American society.
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
Anyone who votes Democrat is voting for this.
The problem with the NetChoice law isn't necessarily that it blocks tech platforms from moderating user content. It's that the core laws involved were specifically designed to do so based on platform daily use counts that were specifically designed to focus on the certain platforms (e.g. Facebook), but not apply to smaller platforms. To be fair, these laws should apply to all online platforms, from Facebook and X, down to these very comment sections on The Free Press. User protections for free speech intrusion, as long as that speech is on a publicly available medium, should not be based on how many users happen to be on the platform.
Additionally, since these laws block platform owners from moderating user generated content, they need to double down on liability protections for content that might cross legal lines. e.g. if I as a platform owner am unable to take down speech (e.g. a post) that might be deemed libelous, I should be exonerated from any liability from that libelous speech appearing on my platform, until I am specifically directly by a legal ruling to do so.
And to be clear about my argument that platform user counts shouldn't be a factor in applying these laws, let's consider the offline analogy that the States have been using to defend these laws. The claim is that social media has become equivalent to the "public town square", and hence, free speech protections must apply, i.e. that the owner of the public space must not infringe on the free speech rights of any and all citizens.
If we apply a platform user count test to these laws, that is equivalent to doing the same thing to a town square. It would be considered an infringement of first amendment rights if government were to restrict speech within a really small town's public square because the town's population was below a certain threshold. The same must hold for the online equivalent.