TSOT088: High Court Acquiesces to Censorship by a Presidential Administration During Election Season
Jun 29, 11:01 AM
All they had to do was follow the normal rules that enjoining potentially illegal action until there's time for the actual adjudication is an important part of our jurisprudence.
But instead they found a way to not comment on the constitutionality but allow the behavior in the meantime.
Even in the face of admitted facts that say that the Bought-den administration conspired with social media companies in order to censor opposing views, and that censorship in line with that coordination DID ACTUALLY OCCUR, they deny the idea that there was enough connection to even enjoin in the meantime.
That's not their job. Their job on an appeal is to give major deference to the factual interpretation of the lower court that said an injunction was proper, pending the actual case coming to pass.
Listen to why it made no sense. And also not just me telling you that but the dissenting opinion.
How and why the Supreme Court would not back up the most important free speech case in decades if not centuries is a mystery. And certainly suspicious.
00:00 Overview / Intro
2:26 Aside on odd doctrine that acts as though plaintiffs are the only ones affected even when it is clear that even hundreds of thousands to millions of citizens were subject to the alleged violation.
3:11 Explanation begins in earnest.
5:49 District Court conclusion: Likely to succeed in merits. Massive censorship attempt.
6:32 Majority's excuse to look the other way. Somehow censored Americans don't have "standing".
7:42 - - - Majority opinion quote
11:50 - - - Clear misapplication of a judicial doctrine - Merely allowing a reasonable injunction based on a specific allegation of unconstitutional action is NOT "general legal oversight of another branch."
Not in any land where the emperor actually does wear clothes.
Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs.
13:26 Alito dissent (for he and two other actual sane Justices)
- - - The stifled speech fell clearly within the categories of speech considered most important to protect.
16:08 - - - A point I've told you a million times. Government does not get to censor merely by having somebody else do it on their behalf.
- - - Justice notes that this ruling will define an attractive model for those who would suppress speech.
- - - "Dangerous". "Blatantly Unconstitutional".
- - - Concluded that traceability between attempt and actual censorship was proven.
18:57 - - - Previous censorship does not mean you can't prove causation now.
- - - - "Court refuses to address a serious threat to the First Amendment"*
19:29 Plaintiff Dr. Jay Bhattacharya reaction (Note, I was not sure during the episode, but Dr Bhattacharya is indeed an American)
20:10 - - - -AN ASIDE FOR THE REPUBLICANS - this does NOT stop the argument of impeachability. In fact, the admitted record actually STRENGTHENS it. If the Republicans could pull their heads out of their collective asses for more than .25 seconds at a time.
- - - Versus Pentagon Papers. . .
21:44 - - - - An Asice - Heartbreaking circumstance, even embarrassing, as a system that legal immigrants no doubt CHERISH as a beautiful example has instead been left undefended by our highest Court.
24:32 DeSantis Reaction. Just use a sophisticated plan with subtlety, and you're good to censor whoever you want.
25:00 Summary and Wrap-up
*It's not a "threat"! It HAPPENED! It has DAMAGED the First Amendment, in that the precedent has been set, and is now not challenged, that it can be broken by the highest single office in the land!!! That's not a "threat"... It is a current attack!!!!
=========================================
Thanks for listening! Please feel free to email me at tysonharley1776@duck.com with requests for appearances, thoughts, feedback, questions, observations, or show ideas! Please like my episodes and follow my show if that is what feels right to you!
But instead they found a way to not comment on the constitutionality but allow the behavior in the meantime.
Even in the face of admitted facts that say that the Bought-den administration conspired with social media companies in order to censor opposing views, and that censorship in line with that coordination DID ACTUALLY OCCUR, they deny the idea that there was enough connection to even enjoin in the meantime.
That's not their job. Their job on an appeal is to give major deference to the factual interpretation of the lower court that said an injunction was proper, pending the actual case coming to pass.
Listen to why it made no sense. And also not just me telling you that but the dissenting opinion.
How and why the Supreme Court would not back up the most important free speech case in decades if not centuries is a mystery. And certainly suspicious.
00:00 Overview / Intro
2:26 Aside on odd doctrine that acts as though plaintiffs are the only ones affected even when it is clear that even hundreds of thousands to millions of citizens were subject to the alleged violation.
3:11 Explanation begins in earnest.
5:49 District Court conclusion: Likely to succeed in merits. Massive censorship attempt.
6:32 Majority's excuse to look the other way. Somehow censored Americans don't have "standing".
7:42 - - - Majority opinion quote
11:50 - - - Clear misapplication of a judicial doctrine - Merely allowing a reasonable injunction based on a specific allegation of unconstitutional action is NOT "general legal oversight of another branch."
Not in any land where the emperor actually does wear clothes.
Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs.
13:26 Alito dissent (for he and two other actual sane Justices)
- - - The stifled speech fell clearly within the categories of speech considered most important to protect.
16:08 - - - A point I've told you a million times. Government does not get to censor merely by having somebody else do it on their behalf.
- - - Justice notes that this ruling will define an attractive model for those who would suppress speech.
- - - "Dangerous". "Blatantly Unconstitutional".
- - - Concluded that traceability between attempt and actual censorship was proven.
18:57 - - - Previous censorship does not mean you can't prove causation now.
- - - - "Court refuses to address a serious threat to the First Amendment"*
19:29 Plaintiff Dr. Jay Bhattacharya reaction (Note, I was not sure during the episode, but Dr Bhattacharya is indeed an American)
20:10 - - - -AN ASIDE FOR THE REPUBLICANS - this does NOT stop the argument of impeachability. In fact, the admitted record actually STRENGTHENS it. If the Republicans could pull their heads out of their collective asses for more than .25 seconds at a time.
- - - Versus Pentagon Papers. . .
21:44 - - - - An Asice - Heartbreaking circumstance, even embarrassing, as a system that legal immigrants no doubt CHERISH as a beautiful example has instead been left undefended by our highest Court.
24:32 DeSantis Reaction. Just use a sophisticated plan with subtlety, and you're good to censor whoever you want.
25:00 Summary and Wrap-up
*It's not a "threat"! It HAPPENED! It has DAMAGED the First Amendment, in that the precedent has been set, and is now not challenged, that it can be broken by the highest single office in the land!!! That's not a "threat"... It is a current attack!!!!
=========================================
Thanks for listening! Please feel free to email me at tysonharley1776@duck.com with requests for appearances, thoughts, feedback, questions, observations, or show ideas! Please like my episodes and follow my show if that is what feels right to you!