NPR: says the case is about the government “talking” to social media companies, and praises the decision
Reason Magazine: calls this decision “dangerous.” Noting the decision will make challenging censorship much more difficult.
Washington Post: refers to the government coercion as mere “contacts” with social media, and praises the decision.
“Future Harm” meaning that he will be censored in the future in the same way he’s being censored at present
On similar topics and content that the government is likely to censor
Which is going to be censored by the same government agency
On a specific social media platform, and that the specific government agency censoring him is the one doing the censoring
And it is not based on the social media company’s policies, but because of the government coercion
In 2017, the courts issued a nationwide injunction to stop Trump’s policies limiting funding to cities and states that openly violated U.S. immigration law, places calling themselves ‘sanctuary cities’ for criminal immigrants.
In 2019, the courts enjoined Trump’s ban on asylum seekers who were using third party countries to come to America.
In 2020, the courts enjoined Trump’s attempt to stop transgender operations being funded by military healthcare.
That she didn’t necessarily believe that “…if there was coercion [by the government], then we automatically have a First Amendment violation.”
“So, in certain situations, you know, the government can actually require that speech be suppressed if there’s a compelling interest, right?”
“So I think — I think that part of the reason why you might be running into all of these difficulties with respect to the different factual circumstances is because you’re not focusing on the fact that there are times in which the government can, depending on the circumstances, encourage, perhaps even coerce, because they have a compelling interest in doing so. And so that’s why I keep coming back to the actual underlying First Amendment issue, which we can isolate in this case and just talk about — about coercion, but I think there — that you have to admit that there are certain circumstances in which the government can provide information, encourage the platforms to take it down, tell them to take it down. I mean, what about —what about the hypo of someone posting classified information? They say it’s my free speech right, I believe that I — you know, I got access to this information and I want to post it. Are you suggesting that the government couldn’t say to the platforms, we need to take that down?“
The post Yesterday’s SCOTUS Murthy Decision: Coney Barrett Enables Biden’s Mass Censorship Regime appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.