Last week Judge Terry A. Doughty of the Western District Court of Louisiana issued a temporary injunction enjoining numerous govt officials and agencies from communicating with social medica platforms regarding “misinformation.”
Now the backlash to the backlash has begun, including this broadside from the New York Times authored by Kate Klonic, Associate Professor of Law at Saint John’s University. Some selections follow:
The 155-page opinion, which could hinder the government’s efforts to counter false and misleading online speech about issues like election interference and vaccine safety...
Sorry, the well-known exceptions to the First Amendment (libel, child porn, etc.) do not include "false and misleading speech.” It is not the govt's job to decide what is "false and misleading." That is the whole point of free and open debate. Moreover, many of the suppressed "false and misleading statements" (i.e., those regarding the safety and efficacy of ivermectin, the weakening of the immune system by the covid vaccines, the authenticity of the Hunter Biden laptop, etc.) have been completely vindicated.
...laced with lofty references to George Orwell and quotations from Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson...
Oh no! Get the pitchforks!
After years of failed attempts by Congress to regulate major social media platforms — regulation that for nearly a decade Americans of all political stripes have said they want...
Oh really? I don't recall anyone asking me if I wanted this.
The facts in the case include episodes in which members of the Biden administration sent frenetic messages to employees of social media companies, asking them to remove doubtful claims about Covid-19 and the 2020 election.
"Frenetic?" How about foul-mouthed, bullying, and threatening?
Multiple former employees of Twitter testified in Congress that officials in the Trump administration pressured the platform to remove speech that insulted or derided Mr. Trump.
One of the most egregious examples of what-aboutism I have seen in a long time. Nobody in this case is defending censorship by the Trump administration. The whole point of free speech is that nobody's rights are safe unless everybody's are.
Of course, I realize that if you mention the name "Trump," you have relieved yourself of all burden of evidence and argument.
The future of online freedom shouldn’t be shaped by ideologically lopsided courts in far-flung federal jurisdictions or local politicians angling for the national stage.
What the Hell is she talking about? Last time I checked, Louisiana was part of the United States of America.
But she's right about one thing. It's not the job of one judge to decide the future of online freedom. That is the job of all Americans.
I am so old I can remember a time when this nation venerated to whistle-blower, the men who spoke truth to power — men like Daniel Ellsberg, Frank Serpico, Bob Woodward, and Carl Bernstein. Those days seem almost as far gone as the long-lost world of Troy.
What a comedown for the paper that once upon a time broke the stories of the Pentagon Papers and the My Lai massacre. By coming down firmly on the side of the most massive govt censorship campaign in US history, the Paper of Record has transformed itself into our own little home-grown version of Pravda.
My book The Day the Science Died: Covid Vaccines and the Power of Fear is now available on amazon.
Somewhere I read that Bob Woodward had either been working for the clowns in America or was connected to them somehow, but can't remember if I verified that or not so thanks for the reminder to research that again, and I am wondering now, based on this judge's premise, when they are going to go after Obummer's EO making it legal to lie and mislead Americans?? Waiting...