Not quite eligible for the senility files, but this is pretty darn close.
Hinderaker this afternoon praises the “reasoning” of the Fifth Circuit, in NetChoice v. Paxson.
The opinion avoids mentioning the actual text of the First Amendment, upon which it purportedly bases its finding of a right nowhere set forth there, and in fact, directly countermands it, in that Amendment. [It says “Congress shall make no law” not private businesses, or corporations “must carry” viewpoints in dissent. In fact, Saint Ron Reagan killed that idea for the broadcast networks in 1982… reversing the FCC rules on the topic (ending the must carry / equal time rules). John cheered that too. Sheesh.]
No surprise (on my part), about any of this feckless sophistry, though — Hinderaker, and these same Federalist goofs, were the ones who brought forth the “reasoning” of Citizens United twelve years ago.
There, these jokers convinced a court of last resort that corporations have almost unfettered First Amendment free speech rights, in the form of money contributions to political campaigns.
Now consider that these same chuckleheads today demonize… some of these SAME corporations, for exercising their own free speech, association and non-association rights… by deciding to exclude speech (and speakers) that hurt their market/brand. [To be clear, private actors — not states or governments.]
When this reaches the Supremes, this will all be made clear — these two, Citizens United and NetChoice (in its Fifth Circuit version) CANNOT be compatible.
I know which one the Supremes will choose. It will be the Citizens United right to accept money from companies, if one is a politician. It will NOT be to force social media platforms to carry hate speech and lawless incitements. Hilariously, the Fifth Circuit inverts the holding of an old Pennsylvania Supreme Court case, trying to make the word “self-publish” mean… must be printed for free in The New York Times, thus:
…For example, in 1788, Chief Justice McKean of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania explained that “[t]he true liberty of the press is amply secured by permitting every man to publish his opinions; but it is due to the peace and dignity of society to enquire into the motives of such publications, and to distinguish between those which are meant for use and reformation, and with an eye solely to the public good, and those which are intended merely to delude and defame.” Respublica v. Oswald, 1 U.S. (1 Dall.) 319, 325 (Pa. 1788)….
That case only allows someone (any private actor, in today’s language) to write their own blog. [To publish their own handbills, in the language of that day, and hand them out — on street corners, peaceably.] To SELF-publish. It does NOT in any fashion require that the TV networks, the Wa Po, or even Hartford Courant (or Twitter or TikTok) carry it.
Imagine the hue and cry, even five years ago, if someone had told the GOP that Texas state government was going to dictate the viewpoints a private company MUST express.
Damn.
But you keep self-publishing that Powerline blog, John — it is a very good joke. Wholly-ironic, in fact. Twitter need not give you their public square. Period.
Cheers, Johnnie!
We mentioned this case, and Justice Sotomayor’s fine dissent in late June. Even though the coach was never fired (he declined to apply to renew his year to year teaching assignment, in Washington state, choosing instead to go to Florida)… five of the Supremes, based on mis-statements by lawyers for the coach, deemed him “fired” — and ordered him “reinstated”.[And, from the Wise Latina Justice:] …Properly understood, this case is not about the limits on an individual’s ability to engage in private prayer at work. This case is about whether a school district is required to allow one of its employees to incorporate a public, communicative display of the employee’s personal religious beliefs into a school event, where that display is recognizable as part of a longstanding practice of the employee ministering religion to students as the public watched.
