One naturally wants to believe that an issue one is involved in is of world-historical importance. But as the judge himself wrote in the decision, “If the allegations made by Plaintiffs are true, the present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history.” That, my friends, is a strong claim, but as I have previously argued, an entirely accurate one.
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
Samizdata quote of the day – the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ historyPerry de Havilland (Wiltshire) · Civil liberty, Law & Regulation · North American affairs · Slogans & Quotations July 6th, 2023 |
 9 comments to Samizdata quote of the day – the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
This is a court opinion worth reading, and then hanging on to before it somehow goes away.
(Note that it will come through as a pdf document.)
@bobby, I’m not sure I have the appetite to slog through 150 pages of a legal opinion. but we have to celebrate any such opinion which opens with Voltaire’s[*] defense of free speech. I wonder if it will stand under review.
Would you mind explaining the process from here? This is a temporary injunction, but presumably it goes on to a more substantive review, and potentially up the appellate chain?
[*] yeah, I know, not Voltaire, but the substance matters more than the name.
Yes indeed.
The Federal bureaucracy have long worked with the leading corporations to destroy Freedom of Speech – at least since people “voted the wrong way” in 2016.
But this is not just the American bureaucracy and corporations – this is a long standing international agenda, called by various names, Agenda 2030, Sustainable Development goals, DEI (EDI in Britain), ESG and-so-on.
International policy can be summed up with one word – liberticide.
Good – this article was shareable. And I have shared it.
Fraser Orr: Here’s the best part out of that 150 pages:
The rest of the opinion sets out all of the factual data used to support the conclusion. It’s all chilling – each item by itself, and the sheer quantity of instances listed where the government put its finger on the scale.
What’s next? The prelim injunction basically holds that the actions of the government have been so pervasive and harmful that we can’t even wait for the conclusion of this case to make the government stop – it needs to be stopped now. But the judge can’t order this prelim without certifying that it is apparent to the judge that the Plaintiffs are going to win the case (in respect to the wrongfulness of the gov action) in the end.
This order is immediately appealable to the next level, and I understand that appeal has already been filed. The appeal will be on the “abuse of discretion” standard, meaning the appellate court would have to decide that the judge was going way beyond his power – a tough standard of review to win. The judge is granted great discretion concerning how he saw the facts of the case – appellate courts don’t usually touch factual conclusions. (He saw the evidence and heard the witnesses, and they didn’t.) They will jump in usually only if the judge made an error in his legal reasoning.
So this case itself will likely go quiet for a bit until that appeal shakes out. The injunction will stand, unless the appellate court orders it stricken. Whoever loses this appeal will also be able to take it up even further for review. Unless someone backs down, the USSC could be the ultimate judge of the injunction. If the injunction is eventually cancelled, the underlying legal case still goes on, to the same judge, where the Plaintiffs could still win even if they lost the prelim injunction phase. (“Even though it wasn’t all so dangerous as to require a preliminary injunction stopping the gov from doing what it was doing while we argue the case, the gov still shouldn’t be doing those things.”)
The bulk of the case is important, though, because it sets out, in great detail and with supporting citations and factual references, what the government did that was wrong. If someone is at all into this particular legal fight, I’d recommend reading it. Otherwise, the conclusions are enough.
Having read the opinion, I’d guess that the most profitable attack will come by arguing that government coercion is not the same thing as the government making recommendations and observations that do not carry any explicit or implicit threat should it not be followed. (Ignoring several instances set out in the opinion of just such explicit and implicit “promises”, of course.)
That’s enough, not for a good, rational, logical piece of Constitutional analysis, but for a cover piece that would give the government the benefit of the doubt. That would cancel the prelim inj, but the case would still move on.
Should we see any mention of government employees having the right to free speech in their own right, though, we’ll know the appellate court is a paid-for Democrat hack. No such right exists for government employees to simply talk, unless it is totally unconnected to their jobs. Every gov employee speaks with the power of his employer in the background.
bobby b.
Yes – the line of the international government and corporate media bureaucracy was a series of lies.
And what they called “disinformation” and censored and punished (medical doctors being driven from their posts, scientists being persecuted – and so on) was THE TRUTH.
This is true of Covid – and many other vitally important matters.
The international establishment (government and corporate) lie, they lie about vitally important matters, and they try and cover up (or discredit) the truth, by censorship, smearing and persecution.
This spreading of lies, and persecution of the truth (on many vitally important matters), is at the heart of the international agenda of “Public-Private Partnership”. “Stakeholder Capitalism”, the Corporate State.
They’re way ahead of you, bobby:
That’s probably the most horrifying and yet simultaneously glorious judgement I’ve ever read