In one of the biggest free speech cases is being argued in front of SCOTUS today, and Jonathan Turley is covering some of the oral arguments in Murthy v. Missouri
So here’s the thread:
The oral arguments in Murthy v. Missouri are about to begin on the censorship of social media by the government. It could prove one of the most important free speech cases in the history of the Court…
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) March 18, 2024
…Brian Fletcher is first up for the Biden Administration to seek defend the role of the government in working to censor social media. He is starting by trying to bar review by attacking standing to sue…
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) March 18, 2024
…Sotomayor had a great question to the government on why an injunction to prevent it from coercing companies or speakers is a material injury to the government…
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) March 18, 2024
…Fletcher insists that these are merely “bully pulpit exhortations” by President Biden and others rather than coercion. It is, in the Administration’s view, persuasive not coercive…
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) March 18, 2024
‘Bully pulpit exhortations’ is a heck of a way to describe this, and ‘persuasive’ is a straight-up lie.
…Justice Alito noted that, if any of the parties have standing, they must rule on the merits. He noted one of the parties had a Facebook account suspended at the time of the filing. Fletcher admits it is an injury, but said it was not traceable to the government…
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) March 18, 2024
…Alito then delivered a haymaker and said two lower courts found it was traceable and the Biden Administration failed to properly challenge that point. Alito has a good point that the Court ordinarily will follow the record on such findings…
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) March 18, 2024
Recommended
Ouch.
…Fletcher is really struggling here on the standard and Justice Gorsuch further nailed him down further redressability and traceability…
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) March 18, 2024
…Another Alito haymaker: “Wow I cannot imagine federal officials taking that approach to the print media. If you did that to them, what do you think the reaction would be…Would you do that the New York Times . . . “
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) March 18, 2024
They wouldn’t do this to print media.
…Alito pointed over to the print media and asked what would happen if they tried to take this approach to print media. Fletcher did not answer the question and fell back to how back the pandemic was…
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) March 18, 2024
Ah. The pandemic. There we go.
…Alito did not buy it and noted that the print media was also part of the pandemic effort. Fletcher admitted that “I had the same reaction that these messages were unusual.” He also added that they show “anger” by the government…
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) March 18, 2024
We don’t buy it, either.
…Justice Jackson just nudged Fletcher back from his concession that, if there was coercion, there might be a first amendment violation. Jackson suggested that some coercion might be allowed in “a once in a lifetime pandemic.” That question is chilling for free speech advocates
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) March 18, 2024
‘Once in a lifetime pandemic’ — until there’s a climate change emergency. Or a national security emergency.
…Justice Kagan just voiced a possible avenue to dismiss on simply finding no future harm was shown…
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) March 18, 2024
…Justice Gorsuch just raised whether the coercion is greater with a concentrated industry like social media. It makes coordination easier and Gorsuch was asking if that is a relevant concern…
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) March 18, 2024
It is a relevant concern.
Two crucial issues here:
1. Do lies have 1A protections?
2. If not, who determines what is a lie?
No matter how you answer the questions, you will be on treacherous ground. Lies are bad. Liars should be punished. Speech must be free. Nobody should be punished for words. https://t.co/8AjhPuCoZd
— Mark Noonan (@Mark_E_Noonan) March 18, 2024
Nobody. Ever.
I keep saying that the best argument for voting for Trump this November is that if Biden gets to replace the oldest two justices, Thomas and Alito, we will lose the first amendment. The second amendment, too. They will still be sitting there in the constitution, but the courts… https://t.co/ro00NTQJTK
— (((Aaron Walker))) (@AaronWorthing) March 18, 2024
This is a long post, but here it goes:
They will still be sitting there in the constitution, but the courts won’t enforce them as the founders intended. They will be reduced to a hollow shell.Look at what this Biden nominee is saying in the quoted tweet: if we have a big enough emergency, censorship is justified.
That only guarantees that future presidents will be even quicker to declare an emergency. “You can’t question this war, it’s an emergency!”
“You can’t question the effectiveness of a vaccine! We are in an emergency!”
“You can’t question our environmental policy, it’s an emergency!” “You can’t question the election! It’s an emergency!”
“You can’t question our plan to lock up every person of Chinese ancestry into camps, it’s an emergency!” Anything can theoretically be an emergency. And yes, the last example is thrown in to invoke what happened to Japanese Americans during World War II—another case of the Supreme Court granting emergency powers.
When the Supreme Court gave its stamp of approval to Japanese Internment in Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944), a different Justice Jackson, Robert Jackson, dissented, writing how an emergency exception granted by the courts inevitably expands: > The principle then lies about like a loaded weapon ready for the hand of any authority that can bring forward a plausible claim of an urgent need. Every repetition imbeds that principle more deeply in our law and thinking and expands it to new purposes. All who observe the work of courts are familiar with what Judge Cardozo described as “the tendency of a principle to expand itself to the limit of its logic.”[1] A military commander may overstep the bounds of constitutionality, and it is an incident. But if we review and approve, that passing incident becomes the doctrine of the Constitution. There it has a generative power of its own, and all that it creates will be in its own image. Nothing better illustrates this danger than does the Court’s opinion in this case.
And the current Justice Jackson wants to hand that loaded gun to Joe Biden. And leftists, if that doesn’t bother you, are you ready to hand that gun to Donald Trump if he wins in November? You guys literally say he’s a Nazi but you are setting precedents that make it easier to overthrow the Republic, just like Hitler did.
All very good points.
This is the most important SCOTUS case in my lifetime. Live tweets of arguments. If you don’t like Turley find another commentator. Your government is arguing that they suffer injury if not allowed to censor legal speech. https://t.co/EDcXJyFiVU
— Diagonal Lemma (@SoulPellet) March 18, 2024
It really is that important.
Worth a read. Usual ideological split seems to be developing here. 6-3 or 5-4.
*le sigh* https://t.co/8QUPcwRWvf
— Jonathan McPike (@JonathanMcPike) March 18, 2024
*Sigh*
This is a big case, and we’ll keep an eye on it.
***
Editor’s Note: Do you enjoy Twitchy’s conservative reporting taking on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth. Join Twitchy VIP and use the promo code SAVEAMERICA to get 50% off your VIP membership!
