Amy Says Freedom of Speech Ain't Nothin' To Worry About

Yesterday, America all but died. If you don’t realize that you’re living in a dream world, afraid to wake up and face the truth. June 26, 2024 marks the point where the ruling class, America’s supposedly best and brightest, chose social status over truth as Amy Coney Barrett wrote an opinion justifying the squelching of free speech by anyone but the government. It was a wretched disaster of an opinion as Amy twisted and turned like a Chubby Checker cover band leader.

It appears, yet again, she is doing the dirty work of John Roberts, who will be remembered as a feckless Chief Justice more interested in protecting his reputation in the swamp than anything else. You’ll recall he’s the fellow who felt compelled to say, in the face of all evidence to the contrary, that there are no Democrat or Republican judges. That convenient observation ignored the fact Democrat justices on his court never seem to break ranks on big cases, although he frequently breaks up the Republican ranks to join them.

Source: https://pixabay.com/users/wynpnt-868761/

Still, Amy has to take responsibility for what she has written, and that may be summed up in one short cowardly paragraph from the opinion:

We begin—and end—with standing. At this stage, neither the individual nor the state plaintiffs have established standing to seek an injunction against any defendant. We therefore lack jurisdiction to reach the merits of the dispute.

Oh, yes, standing; the excuse judges always use to avoid making decisions that might damage their social status. Recall Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who also voted with Barrett, Roberts and the three Democrats acting in unison, used that excuse repeatedly with 2020 election cases. He used it to refuse to consider lawsuits before election dates on the theory there was no one damaged. Afterward, he said it was too late because the election was over and done. Such is the nature of the Republican Supreme Court’s fear of offending the establishment.

Three Justices did get it correct and Justice Alito authored the dissent. Here is some of what he said:

This case involves what the District Court termed “a far-reaching and widespread censorship campaign” conducted by high-ranking federal officials against Americans who expressed certain disfavored views about COVID–19 on social media.

Victims of the campaign perceived by the lower courts brought this action to ensure that the Government did not continue to coerce social media platforms to suppress speech.

Among these victims were two States, whose public health officials were hampered in their ability to share their expertise with state residents; distinguished professors of medicine at Stanford and Harvard; a professor of psychiatry at the University of California, Irvine School of Medicine; the owner and operator of a news website; and Jill Hines, the director of a consumer and human rights advocacy organization. All these victims simply wanted to speak out on a question of the utmost public importance…

…Facebook’s responses to the officials’ persistent inquiries, criticisms, and threats show that the platform perceived the statements as something more than mere recommendations. Time and time again, Facebook responded to an angry White House with a promise to do better in the future.

In March, Facebook attempted to assuage the White House by acknowledging “[w]e obviously have work to do to gain your trust.”

In April, Facebook promised to “more clearly respon[d] to [White House] questions.”

In May, Facebook “committed to addressing the defensive work around misinformation that you’ve called on us to address.”

In July, Facebook reached out to the Surgeon General after “the President’s remarks about us” and emphasized its efforts “to better understand the scope of what the White House expects from us on misinformation going forward.”

And of course, as we have seen, Facebook repeatedly changed its policies to better address the White House’s concerns.

The Government’s primary response is that Facebook occasionally declined to take its suggestions. The implication is that Facebook must have chosen to undertake all of its anti-misinformation efforts entirely of its own accord.

That is bad logic, and in any event, the record shows otherwise. It is true that Facebook voluntarily undertook some anti-misinformation efforts and that it declined to make some requested policy changes. But the interactions recounted above unmistakably show that the White House was insistent that Facebook should do more than it was doing on its own, and Facebook repeatedly yielded—even if it did not always give the White House everything it wanted.

Internal Facebook emails paint a clear picture of subservience. The platform quickly realized that its “handling of misinformation” was “importan[t]” to the White House, so it looked for ways “to be viewed as a trusted, transparent partner” and “avoid . . . public spat[s].”

After the White House blamed Facebook for aiding an insurrection, the platform realized that it was at a “crossroads . . . with the White House.”

“Given what is at stake here,” one Facebook employee proposed reevaluating the company’s “internal methods” to “see what further steps we may/may not be able to take.”

This reevaluation led to one of Facebook’s policy changes.

Facebook again took stock of its relationship with the White House after the President’s accusation that it was “killing people.” Internally, Facebook saw little merit in many of the White House’s critiques. One employee labeled the White House’s understanding of misinformation “completely unclear” and speculated that “it’s convenient for them to blame us” “when the vaccination campaign isn’t going as hoped.”

Nonetheless, Facebook figured that its “current course” of “in effect explaining ourselves more fully, but not shifting on where we draw the lines,” is “a recipe for protracted and increasing acrimony with the [White House].”“Given the bigger fish we have to fry with the Administration,” such as the EU-U.S. dispute over “data flows,” that did not “seem like a great place” for Facebook-White House relations “to be.”

So the platform was motivated to “explore some moves that we can make to show that we are trying to be responsive.” That brainstorming resulted in the August 2021 rule changes.

In sum, the officials wielded potent authority. Their communications with Facebook were virtual demands. And Facebook’s quavering responses to those demands show that it felt a strong need to yield.

For these reasons, I would hold that Hines is likely to prevail on her claim that the White House coerced Facebook into censoring her speech.

For months, high-ranking Government officials placed unrelenting pressure on Facebook to suppress Americans’ free speech. Because the Court unjustifiably refuses to address this serious threat to the First Amendment, I respectfully dissent.

Alito, Gorsuch and Thomas get it. They understand Amy did nothing but talk in circles to create the illusion of law and a reasoned decision, as she made John Robert’s pitch to preserve his social status. They also grasp the fact that if a state doesn’t have standing to challenge the decisions of a Federal government the states created in their own interests, then no one has any meaningful protection from our Constitution and it's a worthless piece of paper.

That's why yesterday's decision was such a disaster. Joe Biden and any future President can order Facebook and others to squelch any speech they don’t like, and they'll be doing ever more of it. And, if we don't have free speech, we don't have a nation.

#Barrett #FreeSpeech #Roberts #Kavanaugh #SupremeCourt #Alito #Thomas #Gorsuch #Constituition