Outrageous — Will we start electing Congressional representatives that will have the courage to rectify this important problem of “standing? “ I hope it will happen in my lifetime but not holding my breath 😔
They should do so by removing CJUSA Roberts from office. It was his request to his fellow judges after Federal employees unions gave him a choice between riots and destruction and obedience to the lawless insiders. He chose obedience because it gave the ruling class a free pass to take out a Constitutionally elected President and replace him with an empty suit. The current contretemps on TV seeks to replace the empty suit with an empty pants suit. Those of us who believed Cackle-A had no worse hadn't yet met Waltz.
Roberts is a bona fide traitor to this nation. Because of his compromised personal matters, he has consistently sabotaged the Constitution and kowtowed to the forces of darkness.
This is just so plainly a mistake on the part of our Supreme Court. Hoping our legislators pass a law to protect free speech diminishes what should be and is a no brainer...that we already have the most profound law of this protection: the First Amendment. So round two back to the lower courts. I'm afraid the only way through this is around it by nothing short of regime change to get rid of the 3 letter agencies that continue to break constitutional laws.
They "lost" because the court said they had no standing. The actions of the government absolutely and directly affected their ability to communicate the harms of the public health policies and the vitriol against them damaged their professional reputations, not to mention that we the public were harmed by not having alternative voices. So unless you can show me and everyone on here how they are lying, then I call bullshit on you.
Science doesn’t give a fuck about anyone’s opinion. The first amendment does not have purview over sedition and incitement. The temerity for any member of the GOP holding office to claim censorship when they are removing publications from school libraries, intentionally convoluting, government, actions, and financial dealings, lying to members of the electorate with no penalty,
Among many others, is beyond the pail.
You, ms twatwaffle, are the one with no standing here.
You sound like such a lovely human being. Sedition and incitement? Have you read this case or are you just such a democratic party loyalist that you are blind to what the Biden administration did? In fact, don't bother. I already know the answer. Do yourself a favor and stop harrassing everyone here. Take a gummie and go to bed.
Yes, I have read the case and that’s not as relevant as what the executive administration was actually doing. Not what the attorney general of Missouri or are you insinuate.
Personal attacks are not science. Show us your science. We will wait here. What the media is claiming as scientific consensus is not good science nor is it consensus. Wake up change your information sources, dig deeper and don't call names
You first. I'm not the one who made the original claims.
Obviously coming to understand how any of this work I've given you a very specific statement all you have to do is bitch 30 seconds on the search engine of your choice. You can't afford me as a research assistant
This ruling is a cowardly disgrace. It devalues and disrespects our constitution and enables the wrong doers to continue. Of course this will one day be overturned - it is so obviously the wrong ruling - but how long that will take and how much damage will be dome between now and then is anybody's guess. It is a sad day indeed when the legal bastions of the most free land on earth are so blinded, cowardly and, I must be frank, stupid they fail to defend the very thing that underpins them. Imagine a cartoon of Foolish Justices sawing off the branch of free speech whilst sitting on the side which is about to fall.
When i read about this court case judgement, i was in unbelief, just as i was when there was no review of the voting fraud at the state levels in the 2020 election. Even the Supreme Court bowed out stating “standing.” I hope the appeal brings new light on the corruption issue at the highest levels. But I won’t hold my breathe. Seeing the vitriol the dnc congressmen and women spewed at Matt Taibbi and Shellenberger does make one pretty disillusioned. Free speech is the first right, since all other rights we have depend on this linchpin and God.
Unfortunately the presidential candidates are either unelected by voters or will probably be in prison (sentencing delayed until just before the election). The powers controlling our politics has been captured by big money.
Congress no longer listens to the people and the censored narrative drives the reality that it legally reacts to. The excuses for the need for governments power (to protect people, child porn, etc.) are no longer things that government takes action on. Instead it is political opponents and whistleblowers.
I just read that RFK Jr and the Children's health defense fund can carry their case forward regarding govt censorship. Maybe this one will be successful???????
One can only offer kudos for your courage and perseverance in taking a stand for the free flow of information in regard to the horrific nonsense of SOP COVID narratives. Fighting through the Federal Court thicket is expensive and almost always favors all the bad guys--corporate and governmental gangsters whose only devotion is to power and profit.
That said, one may suggest that, perhaps, your overall argument rests on just the sort of illusion--a Constitutional 'guarantee of free speech--that you implicitly critique in the name of your publication. From Eugene Debs and Big Bill Haywood through Daniel Ellsberg and Julian Assange, the Espionage Act has served to crush knowledge and thereby disenable informed dissent, so to speak.
The same is true of dozens of other arenas of 'sensitive policy.' One has only to consider the fate of Progressive Magazine's attempt to publish Howard Morland's “Born Secret,” about the open-source availability of data about thermonuclear weapons that nonetheless was so utterly verboten that the Feds pulped the entire issue, but for the occasional 'collector's item' and diligent college library: <https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/blog/1179.pdf>.
At no point in American history have the Federal Courts championed open communication about taboo topics--from considering Communism to questioning inoculation as the only response to airborne pathogens. They have uniformly sided with monopoly capital and militarized mayhem against even a modicum of openness about policy matters that the high and mighty have already decided.
I highly recommend a close reading of Abrams et al. versus the United States, a case <https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep250/usrep250616/usrep250616.pdf> that clearly illustrates what I'm proposing. The defendants, all Ukrainian supporters of the 1917 Russian Revolution--which in some sense started in Kiev in 1905--received twenty year sentences, commuted to deportation, because they distributed flyers that decried the U.S. invasion, along with England, France, Japan, and more, of the nascent Soviet Union.
If one contrasts this 'exemplary free speech' case--so-called because of the two Justices, Brandeis and Holmes, who dissented against the seven-judge majority--with the work, among others, of Robert McChesney, whose Rich Media/Poor Democracy <https://hickeyj.substack.com/i/140371748/communication-and-human-survivalcontinued> can serve as one foundation for what your work proposes to accomplish, one begins to weave a contextual web that can encourage dialog and action to correct 'the American way,' which altogether represents privilege, plutocracy, and oppression, all in the name of a 'democracy' that has always been more of a fantasy than a fact.
Excellent post thanks for educating us and the links. Agreed it has always been more fantasy than fact but at least we have that fantasy written down in simple words on a paper we call our constitution.
Do you think we actually have a better culture and guarantee of free speech rights now than at most times in the past. I grew up being taught that free speech and civil rights was the base is American exceptionalism and I think that mindset may have somewhat taken hold in the US, but when I look back at histories like the one you laid out, I see that isn’t true. I prefer free speech and an open society, but that may not be the way society generally functions.
SCOTUS doesn't see its mission as protecting the Constitution. It sees its mission as protecting the Establishment... specifically, the ruling class.... no matter how many laws or rules it breaks.
CJUASA Roberts should be impeached, tried and convicted for his treasonous interference in the matter of election fraud. The "lack of standing" dodge needs to be punished by removal of its author.
Dr. Bhattacharya, here is a thought experiment for you and your astute readers: What if the social media companies ARE the government? What if Twitter’s contradictory business model could be explained if we could peek inside one of Congress’s black budgets? What if the government provided the rather astounding sum of money for Facebook’s IPO while everyone was scratching their heads on the sidelines wondering about their profit model? What if Roberts, being the statutory head of the FISA court, knows the answer to these questions all too well. When Musk took over Twitter, why was James A. Baker sitting on the board of directors and “cleaning house”? Can the government censor its own speech? For example, can the State Department censor its own communications? Isn’t the dirty little secret more about the government’s violation of the fourth amendment, not the first amendment? Isn’t SCOTUS surreptitiously choosing to view social media as National Security state cutouts when necessity favors “internal” censorship, but then disingenuously viewing them as private entities when they need to avoid the contradiction of government spying in violation of the fourth amendment? Where do We the People draw the line of distinction between private and public entities, with all the rights granted to the former, and the restrictions applied to the latter?
" Voters should demand of every candidate for office, including the presidency, where they stand on the modern censorship operation and vote accordingly. "
---
We wouldn't want Trump to be in control of this censorship apparatus, right? :)
Outrageous — Will we start electing Congressional representatives that will have the courage to rectify this important problem of “standing? “ I hope it will happen in my lifetime but not holding my breath 😔
They should do so by removing CJUSA Roberts from office. It was his request to his fellow judges after Federal employees unions gave him a choice between riots and destruction and obedience to the lawless insiders. He chose obedience because it gave the ruling class a free pass to take out a Constitutionally elected President and replace him with an empty suit. The current contretemps on TV seeks to replace the empty suit with an empty pants suit. Those of us who believed Cackle-A had no worse hadn't yet met Waltz.
Roberts is a bona fide traitor to this nation. Because of his compromised personal matters, he has consistently sabotaged the Constitution and kowtowed to the forces of darkness.
This is just so plainly a mistake on the part of our Supreme Court. Hoping our legislators pass a law to protect free speech diminishes what should be and is a no brainer...that we already have the most profound law of this protection: the First Amendment. So round two back to the lower courts. I'm afraid the only way through this is around it by nothing short of regime change to get rid of the 3 letter agencies that continue to break constitutional laws.
I agree
That’s bullshit. This author and the plaintiff are lying to you. There’s a reason they lost.
They "lost" because the court said they had no standing. The actions of the government absolutely and directly affected their ability to communicate the harms of the public health policies and the vitriol against them damaged their professional reputations, not to mention that we the public were harmed by not having alternative voices. So unless you can show me and everyone on here how they are lying, then I call bullshit on you.
Science doesn’t give a fuck about anyone’s opinion. The first amendment does not have purview over sedition and incitement. The temerity for any member of the GOP holding office to claim censorship when they are removing publications from school libraries, intentionally convoluting, government, actions, and financial dealings, lying to members of the electorate with no penalty,
Among many others, is beyond the pail.
You, ms twatwaffle, are the one with no standing here.
You sound like such a lovely human being. Sedition and incitement? Have you read this case or are you just such a democratic party loyalist that you are blind to what the Biden administration did? In fact, don't bother. I already know the answer. Do yourself a favor and stop harrassing everyone here. Take a gummie and go to bed.
Do you have anything but nebulous gibberish and ad hominem bullshit?
I didn’t think so. I’m embarrassed, for you.
Yes, I have read the case and that’s not as relevant as what the executive administration was actually doing. Not what the attorney general of Missouri or are you insinuate.
Personal attacks are not science. Show us your science. We will wait here. What the media is claiming as scientific consensus is not good science nor is it consensus. Wake up change your information sources, dig deeper and don't call names
You first. I'm not the one who made the original claims.
Obviously coming to understand how any of this work I've given you a very specific statement all you have to do is bitch 30 seconds on the search engine of your choice. You can't afford me as a research assistant
Spot the Deflection.
The entire narrative of denial is deflection. Now you know.
Too sad for words.
This ruling is a cowardly disgrace. It devalues and disrespects our constitution and enables the wrong doers to continue. Of course this will one day be overturned - it is so obviously the wrong ruling - but how long that will take and how much damage will be dome between now and then is anybody's guess. It is a sad day indeed when the legal bastions of the most free land on earth are so blinded, cowardly and, I must be frank, stupid they fail to defend the very thing that underpins them. Imagine a cartoon of Foolish Justices sawing off the branch of free speech whilst sitting on the side which is about to fall.
None are so blind as those who will not see. They see Trump as the destroyer of their corrupt Deep State and will do ANYTHING to stop him.
This government is not our friend. Don’t expect anything from them.
So disappointing. Francis Collins can sing “Puff the Magic Dragon” to more unsuspecting naive midwits.
When i read about this court case judgement, i was in unbelief, just as i was when there was no review of the voting fraud at the state levels in the 2020 election. Even the Supreme Court bowed out stating “standing.” I hope the appeal brings new light on the corruption issue at the highest levels. But I won’t hold my breathe. Seeing the vitriol the dnc congressmen and women spewed at Matt Taibbi and Shellenberger does make one pretty disillusioned. Free speech is the first right, since all other rights we have depend on this linchpin and God.
With non-leadership like John “Compromised” Roberts, SCOTUS meanders.
Thanks for the update.
Unfortunately the presidential candidates are either unelected by voters or will probably be in prison (sentencing delayed until just before the election). The powers controlling our politics has been captured by big money.
Congress no longer listens to the people and the censored narrative drives the reality that it legally reacts to. The excuses for the need for governments power (to protect people, child porn, etc.) are no longer things that government takes action on. Instead it is political opponents and whistleblowers.
State by state is going to have to rebel against un-Constitutional government.
State by state? Do you want those? Stupid states rights jackasses aren’t you? This is a federal issue.
This makes me feel sick. We have to get Trump and Kennedy to DO something about this!
I just read that RFK Jr and the Children's health defense fund can carry their case forward regarding govt censorship. Maybe this one will be successful???????
So this is freedom? Freedom from life-changing "adverse events"? Precisely the opposite.
One can only offer kudos for your courage and perseverance in taking a stand for the free flow of information in regard to the horrific nonsense of SOP COVID narratives. Fighting through the Federal Court thicket is expensive and almost always favors all the bad guys--corporate and governmental gangsters whose only devotion is to power and profit.
That said, one may suggest that, perhaps, your overall argument rests on just the sort of illusion--a Constitutional 'guarantee of free speech--that you implicitly critique in the name of your publication. From Eugene Debs and Big Bill Haywood through Daniel Ellsberg and Julian Assange, the Espionage Act has served to crush knowledge and thereby disenable informed dissent, so to speak.
The same is true of dozens of other arenas of 'sensitive policy.' One has only to consider the fate of Progressive Magazine's attempt to publish Howard Morland's “Born Secret,” about the open-source availability of data about thermonuclear weapons that nonetheless was so utterly verboten that the Feds pulped the entire issue, but for the occasional 'collector's item' and diligent college library: <https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/blog/1179.pdf>.
At no point in American history have the Federal Courts championed open communication about taboo topics--from considering Communism to questioning inoculation as the only response to airborne pathogens. They have uniformly sided with monopoly capital and militarized mayhem against even a modicum of openness about policy matters that the high and mighty have already decided.
I highly recommend a close reading of Abrams et al. versus the United States, a case <https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep250/usrep250616/usrep250616.pdf> that clearly illustrates what I'm proposing. The defendants, all Ukrainian supporters of the 1917 Russian Revolution--which in some sense started in Kiev in 1905--received twenty year sentences, commuted to deportation, because they distributed flyers that decried the U.S. invasion, along with England, France, Japan, and more, of the nascent Soviet Union.
If one contrasts this 'exemplary free speech' case--so-called because of the two Justices, Brandeis and Holmes, who dissented against the seven-judge majority--with the work, among others, of Robert McChesney, whose Rich Media/Poor Democracy <https://hickeyj.substack.com/i/140371748/communication-and-human-survivalcontinued> can serve as one foundation for what your work proposes to accomplish, one begins to weave a contextual web that can encourage dialog and action to correct 'the American way,' which altogether represents privilege, plutocracy, and oppression, all in the name of a 'democracy' that has always been more of a fantasy than a fact.
Excellent post thanks for educating us and the links. Agreed it has always been more fantasy than fact but at least we have that fantasy written down in simple words on a paper we call our constitution.
Do you think we actually have a better culture and guarantee of free speech rights now than at most times in the past. I grew up being taught that free speech and civil rights was the base is American exceptionalism and I think that mindset may have somewhat taken hold in the US, but when I look back at histories like the one you laid out, I see that isn’t true. I prefer free speech and an open society, but that may not be the way society generally functions.
SCOTUS doesn't see its mission as protecting the Constitution. It sees its mission as protecting the Establishment... specifically, the ruling class.... no matter how many laws or rules it breaks.
CJUASA Roberts should be impeached, tried and convicted for his treasonous interference in the matter of election fraud. The "lack of standing" dodge needs to be punished by removal of its author.
All six conservative justices should be impeached and removed. Indicted and incarcerated.
Having nothing to do with your nebulous gibberish.
That ganja must be pretty strong. Go smoke it elsewhere.
Dr. Bhattacharya, here is a thought experiment for you and your astute readers: What if the social media companies ARE the government? What if Twitter’s contradictory business model could be explained if we could peek inside one of Congress’s black budgets? What if the government provided the rather astounding sum of money for Facebook’s IPO while everyone was scratching their heads on the sidelines wondering about their profit model? What if Roberts, being the statutory head of the FISA court, knows the answer to these questions all too well. When Musk took over Twitter, why was James A. Baker sitting on the board of directors and “cleaning house”? Can the government censor its own speech? For example, can the State Department censor its own communications? Isn’t the dirty little secret more about the government’s violation of the fourth amendment, not the first amendment? Isn’t SCOTUS surreptitiously choosing to view social media as National Security state cutouts when necessity favors “internal” censorship, but then disingenuously viewing them as private entities when they need to avoid the contradiction of government spying in violation of the fourth amendment? Where do We the People draw the line of distinction between private and public entities, with all the rights granted to the former, and the restrictions applied to the latter?
" Voters should demand of every candidate for office, including the presidency, where they stand on the modern censorship operation and vote accordingly. "
---
We wouldn't want Trump to be in control of this censorship apparatus, right? :)