No. of Recommendations: 2
Here's what the judge wrote on the subject of free speech:
The principal function of free speech under the United States' system of government is to invite dispute; it may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Texas v. Johnson, 109 S. Ct. 2533, 2542'43 (1989). Freedom of speech and press is the indispensable condition of nearly every other form of freedom. Curtis Pub. Co. v. Butts, 87 S. Ct. 1975, 1986 (1967).
The following quotes reveal the Founding Fathers' thoughts on freedom of speech:
For if men are to be precluded from offering their sentiments on a matter, which may involve the most serious and alarming consequences, that can invite the consideration of mankind, reason is of no use to us; the freedom of speech may be taken away, and dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep, to the slaughter.
George Washington, March 15, 1783.
Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the free acts of speech.
Benjamin Franklin, Letters of Silence Dogwood.
Reason and free inquiry are the only effectual agents against error.
Thomas Jefferson.
The question does not concern whether speech is conservative, moderate, liberal, progressive, or somewhere in between. What matters is that Americans, despite their views, will not be censored or suppressed by the Government. Other than well-known exceptions to the Free Speech Clause, all political views and content are protected free speech.
'and that's what this is about. I'm astonished that this is even a debate.
It's pretty clear in the case law that government is allowed to try to persuade people. They're allowed to try to get third parties to change their behavior to favor the government's preferred policies.
Your analogies are normally very good, but this one misses the mark: in the example you give, you're outlining cases where the government is handing out MORE information in an attempt to persuade its audience. That's perfectly valid, and actually FURTHERS the public debate.
But what underlings of Biden and Trump were doing was the complete opposite in trying to SUPPRESS the national debate.
One might be tempted to excuse suppressing COVID 'disinformation' as a function of a national emergency. After all, during wartime if, say, an aircraft carrier was leaving port the government could issue a blackout order to shield the warship's movements. Fine. But that would the suppression of a know fact (the carrier leaving port) that could lead to direct harm to the United States (the enemy getting information on the ship's movements).
But that's not what happened during COVID: nobody knew much, and a lot of what the government was saying was either flat-out wrong (get the vaccine and you can't spread the disease) or so highly nuanced that what they were saying was essentially wrong (wearing a mask stops COVID transmission) that what was needed was in fact a rigorous public debate.
They didn't allow that. Glossed over here was the suppression of Hunter's laptop for blatantly political reasons. That's not acceptable no matter what the national situation is.
