Yes, *our* standing is obfuscated by the term 'free speech'. Nobody has a right to a (figurative) platform and a microphone, yadda, yadda. But the federal government is interfering in the freedom to *listen* to the thoughts of another, to engage our freedom of *inquiry* to correct our own misconceptions. And that right should be nearly a…
Yes, *our* standing is obfuscated by the term 'free speech'. Nobody has a right to a (figurative) platform and a microphone, yadda, yadda. But the federal government is interfering in the freedom to *listen* to the thoughts of another, to engage our freedom of *inquiry* to correct our own misconceptions. And that right should be nearly absolute. I have an immediate partial remedy that perhaps can be reached in a different case: all jawboning must occur in public view. Want, e.g., Jay Bhattacharya silenced on X/Twitter? The gov't officials should say so, in a tweet, and a required notification to Bhattacharya himself via registered mail or similar. And then they may reap the Streisand Effect. There might be extremely limited circumstances involving national security where this should not apply, and those cases should reach a judge.
Yes, *our* standing is obfuscated by the term 'free speech'. Nobody has a right to a (figurative) platform and a microphone, yadda, yadda. But the federal government is interfering in the freedom to *listen* to the thoughts of another, to engage our freedom of *inquiry* to correct our own misconceptions. And that right should be nearly absolute. I have an immediate partial remedy that perhaps can be reached in a different case: all jawboning must occur in public view. Want, e.g., Jay Bhattacharya silenced on X/Twitter? The gov't officials should say so, in a tweet, and a required notification to Bhattacharya himself via registered mail or similar. And then they may reap the Streisand Effect. There might be extremely limited circumstances involving national security where this should not apply, and those cases should reach a judge.