March 18, 2024

Bully.

I'm reading "White House’s Efforts to Combat Misinformation Face Supreme Court Test/The justices must distinguish between persuading social media sites to take down posts, which is permitted, and coercing them, which violates the First Amendment."

This is Adam Liptak's piece in the NYT about the case that's up for oral argument in the Supreme Court.
[A 5th Circuit panel] said the [Biden administration] officials had become excessively entangled with the platforms or used threats to spur them to act.... [The administration argues] that the government was entitled to express its views and to try to persuade others to take action.

“A central dimension of presidential power is the use of the office’s bully pulpit to seek to persuade Americans — and American companies — to act in ways that the president believes would advance the public interest,” Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar wrote.

In response, lawyers for the states wrote that the administration had violated the First Amendment. “The bully pulpit,” they wrote, “is not a pulpit to bully.”
As we await today's argument, let's take a moment to consider what the "bully" in "bully pulpit" means. In 1909, President Theodore Roosevelt exclaimed: "I suppose my critics will call that preaching, but I have got such a bully pulpit!" First, clearly, he was using "bully" — as he often did — to mean very good or excellent. And he used the word "pulpit," because he knew he was preaching, that is, proclaiming righteous opinions in public.

Pressuring people behind the scenes is not preaching. You're not in a metaphorical pulpit. You're in the metaphorical backroom. And you're not proclaiming righteous opinions, you're exerting power, intimidating people. It's not "bully" in the sense of excellent.

The OED entry for "bully pulpit" is clear that "bully pulpit" originates with Theodore Roosevelt. It explained "his personal view of the presidency." It is — as the OED puts it — "A public office or position of authority that provides its occupant with the opportunity to speak out and be listened to on any issue." 

We're also told: "In later use sometimes understood as showing bully n.1 II.3a." That meaning of "bully" is:
Originally: a man given to or characterized by riotous, thuggish, and threatening behaviour; one who behaves in a blustering, swaggering, and aggressive manner. Now: a person who habitually seeks to harm, coerce, or intimidate those whom they perceive as vulnerable; a person who engages in bullying.
If "bully pulpit" is sometimes understood that way, it's risky to argue "A central dimension of presidential power is the use of the office’s bully pulpit...."

The riposte was predictable: "The bully pulpit is not a pulpit to bully."

I want to add that what is said behind the scenes is not from the pulpit at all. A pulpit is an elevated and conspicuous platform. One thing about social media posts is that they are out there, in public, and perfectly conspicuous. If the President (or the shadowy people behind him) want to use the"central dimension of presidential power" that is the "bully pulpit," let them step up onto a conspicuous platform and proclaim opinions they intend us to find righteous.

In this case, the opinion that was conveyed behind the scenes was that social media platforms ought to take down posts on various political topics — coronavirus vaccines, claims of election fraud, and Hunter Biden’s laptop — that people wanted to debate. If it's pulpit-worthy, express that opinion outright and clearly to all of us. Don't go behind our back and intimidate the social media giants upon whom we, the little people, depend to slightly amplify our tiny voices.

95 comments:

Humperdink said...

"Nice media business you have there. Be a real shame if my DOJ investigated it. Oh did I mention the IRS?"

Jersey Fled said...

Whether bullying or persuading the effect was to stifle political speech for purely political reasons.

The Court can’t let that stand.

Breezy said...

“If it's pulpit-worthy, express that opinion outright and clearly to all of us. Don't go behind our back and intimidate the social media giants upon whom we, the little people, depend on to slightly amplify our tiny voices.”

Amen.

It shocks me that the PTB are even arguing for the ability to censor people in this way. How can you be brought up in the US and think this is ok, so much so that you are willing to go before SCOTUS to argue it?

Dave Begley said...

Nice work, Ann.

Earnest Prole said...

Wait, we’re going to give Donald Trump’s government the power to bully social media companies into deamplifying content he doesn’t like?

Sounds insurrectiony.

rehajm said...

I want to add that what is said behind the scenes is not from the pulpit at all. A pulpit is an elevated and conspicuous platform.

Exactly. Nuff said…

…but WTF is with that sub headline? The justices must distinguish between persuading social media sites to take down posts, which is permitted, and coercing them, which violates the First Amendment

…it seems to suggest the justices must decide if violating the First Amendment is permissible. At least the left is honest on that…

The rule of Lemnity said...

A Bullish market is a good market.

Btw. When Trump used the word “bloodbath” in Ohio, that word also has an economic meaning.

Bloodbath : a mayor economic disaster.

rehajm said...

When government is coercing with threats of intervention or audits or intimidation or FBI doosh at your door, social media platforms need to retain the right to tell government to fuck off and go away without government actually acting on any of the above. At least that’s how it’s supposed to work…

Clyde said...

They didn't want to debate those subjects because they knew that they would lose those debates on the merits in the court of public opinion. When they can't win the debate, they seek to squelch opposing views, which violates the Constitution.

The rule of Lemnity said...

If there’s one thing I know about the “Twitter files” revelations is that it took Elon Musk paying over 40 billion dollars for the government’s coercive manoeuvres with the platform to come to light.

Lloyd W. Robertson said...

If the Obamacrats and Bidenistas are roughly the same people, it is pathetic that they have no confidence in their leaders' ability to debate and win. The other side are evil, I suppose, and this somehow gives them an unfair advantage. The only hope is the stab in the back stuff and lawfare, for which TR of all people would have had complete contempt. I suspect they derive a grim pleasure from acting on the belief that there is no objective reality: something they learned in school.

The rule of Lemnity said...

It would be nice if the court could decide this unanimously.

This is up there with the people’s right to vote for the president they choose.

Aggie said...

Taibbi and Kirn spent quite a bit of time on this, in their 'This Week' podcast - almost the entire segment of discussion was on this topic. They're both pretty dismayed at the greased skids this bill has been traveling on within the House, to move through the system so efficiently and with speed, and with such a low radar signature. It seems to indicate quite a bit of careful coordination.

It's a little funny how quickly and easily such massively-empowering legislation can be moved, but closing the border to 300,000+ illegal immigration trespasses is too tough to tackle, especially so when it was handled so thoroughly without the need for additional legislation by the previous administration.

And, it's disappointing as hell to see so many Republicans playing as the Washington Generals. No Republicans from Texas voted against the bill. A couple of them abstained, Whoo Hoo, brave stand. Meanwhile the Texas AG dukes it out in the SC. I'm letting my Representative know just how disgusting I view his public disgrace, supporting this bill, and will be communicating to my Senators in advance. One is already a disgrace, I know; the other will likely vote 'No'. But nevertheless, the bill is likely to continue its sprint through the system with all of the normal checks & balances gates raised. Welcome to tyranny.

wendybar said...

The biggest misinformation push is coming from the left today....falsely claiming that Trump said he was there would be a bloodbath if he loses. He never said THAT...he ACTUALLY said

“We’re going to put a 100% tariff on every single car that comes across the line, and you’re not going to be able to sell those guys if I get elected,” Trump said. “Now, if I don’t get elected, it’s going to be a bloodbath for the whole – that’s gonna be the least of it. It’s going to be a bloodbath for the country. That’ll be the least of it.”

Too bad the left can't see the truth, but when they are bombarded with lies and misinformation by this administation and his lapdog media...people like Rich get all excited that THIS time their hoax will eliminate Trump
Luckily, not everybody is as gullible

rehajm said...

What’s amazing about the lefties obsession with controlling speech is the perception that voters will believe whatever they tell them so long as there isn’t a published counterpoint. Tell them inflation isn’t a problem and they’ll believe it…so long as they don’t look at their balance balance or credit card statements…

If we measured inflation as we did in the 1970s, the recent bout of inflation would have been even higher than the worst of the 1970s! No wonder the deplorables are ungrateful for Bidenomics, is essentially the author’s point, though quantified and much more politely stated.

Another old lawyer said...

Thank you for this.

iowan2 said...

Pressuring people behind the scenes is not preaching. You're not in a metaphorical pulpit. You're in the metaphorical backroom. And you're not proclaiming righteous opinions, you're exerting power, intimidating people. It's not "bully" in the sense of excellent.

Very nice.
I always admire your writing. This paragraph is so sweet. Short, concise, informative and easy to read. The rest of your post is just adding finery to this single salient position.

rhhardin said...

FDRs inability to walk was kept publicly quiet.

Gusty Winds said...

Is it still considered "persuasion" when the gun is loaded?

Leland said...

Use of a bully pulpit is what Trump does when he spoke of illegal aliens or faux news media. Bully is what Biden’s DoJ does when they tell social media to block a person’s speech or has a reporter turn themself in to the FBI for a non-violent misdemeanor and has them shackled like Hannibal Lecter for their arraignment in front of a federal judge.

Kevin said...

Excellent post. Bully for Althouse!

MartyH said...

My first thought and reaction is to disagree with the premise that it is legal for the government to request that social media posts be taken down. The scale,scope, and targeting all combine to prove that this is a freedom of speech issue.

Mike Petrik said...

You nailed it, Professor.

Bob B said...

Trump used the bully pulpit in the form of Twitter during his administration -- openly and notoriously. For that he was roundly criticized by the media and other leftists. He was eventually banned from Twitter (at the behest of the Biden administration?). He also used press conferences and questions from the media as bully pulpit.
In contrast, the Biden administration contends its bully pulpit is shrouded in secrecy, coupled with a campaign to protect Biden from serious interactions with the media.

mezzrow said...

Those who are most effective at twisting the definition of words to fit their long term plans to create the world they want to see will use the law to increase their power and influence.

I thought everyone knew this. Looks like many will be forced to learn this the hard way. Once again. Almost like this is human nature, eh?

Kate said...

Meanwhile, Trump lost his bully pulpit when Twitter decided to ban him.

Robert Marshall said...

From NYT's headline: The justices must distinguish between persuading social media sites to take down posts, which is permitted, and coercing them, which violates the First Amendment.

I disagree. The Government has no business suppressing a citizen's right of expression. If the Government has a view contrary to that of the citizen, it is free to express that view, as part of the marketplace of opinion. Let the market decide which views are right.

Which gets to the matter of "disinformation." The NYT uses that word as if it is really a thing. But the problem is, it's NOT a thing. It's just a pejorative for views the Government doesn't like.

"Masking doesn't work againsts respiratory viruses." That was called disinformation, and suppressed as such. Yet it now appears that this was then and always the view of most who studied the subject.

"Hunter Biden's laptop is Russian disinformation." Another classic Government lie, in which the truth is inverted by the Feds.

Everytime I hear the word "disinformation," I think "Government lie."

Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...

Wow - the corrupt left democrats in power want to stop everyone from discussing leftist corruption.

"— coronavirus vaccines, claims of election fraud, and Hunter Biden’s laptop."

Gusty Winds said...

Only a special kind of modern day American idiot uses, or buys into the term "misinformation". Especially when it comes from the biggest purveyors of "misinformation".

I prefer "bullshit".

And no. The government doesn't have the right to censor bullshit either.

Tommy Duncan said...

Whenever I see the words "in the public interest" or "to advance the greater good" I know someone wants to infringe on my rights and freedoms.

Darkisland said...

Brandon uses the presidency as a bull-y pulpit.

A pulpit from which to spread bull. (as in short for bullshit)

John Henry

Cappy said...

I wish I'd come up with the bully pulpit response.

Michael said...

Bully for you for posting.

Big Mike said...

The justices must distinguish between persuading social media sites to take down posts, which is permitted ...

Why should even that be permitted?

gilbar said...

Earnest Prole said...
Wait, we’re going to give Donald Trump’s government the power to bully social media companies into deamplifying content he doesn’t like?
Sounds insurrectiony.

THIS is the Central Problem.
It's (OBVIOUSLY!) Good to have government control, And controls over governments..
BUT! that Control is (OBVIOUSLY!) just for democrat use.
Censorship? FINE! if done by democrats..
Gerrymandering? FINE! if done by democrats..
FBI spying con citizens? FINE! if done by democrats..
CIA interference in elections? FINE! if done by democrats..
Bribes? Griff? Kickbacks? Payoffs? Hushmoney? FINE! if done by democrats..
RAPE? MURDER? FINE! if done by democrats..

See the problem though?
If these useful controls are publicly written down.. Republicans MIGHT think THEY can use them.
Now, normally this is Not a problem, because MOST Republicans are OWNED by the democrats..
But along comes a Huey Long, or a Donald Trump..
Someone that tries to appeal to the people instead of the party. THEN the only option is the Long one

Ann Althouse said...

Sorry for writing "upon whom we... depend on" (and leaving it to fester while I went out to catch the sunrise).

Fixed.

Reminds me of McCartney in "Live and Let Die": "But if this ever changin' world/In which we live in/Makes you give in and cry..."

Big Mike said...

Which gets to the matter of "disinformation." The NYT uses that word as if it is really a thing. But the problem is, it's NOT a thing. It's just a pejorative for views the Government doesn't like.

@Robert Marshall, so in summary the relationship between “information” and “disinformation” is the same as the relationship between “flammable” and “inflammable.”

Goldenpause said...

The left seems to be incapable of imagining that government censorship could be used against them. Is it because they intend to make sure that they never lose another election?

Rocco said...

Gusty Winds said...
"Is it still considered 'persuasion' when the gun is loaded?"

Either your brains or your signature will be on that [social] contract. Luca 'The Feds' Brasi will make sure of that.

Ann Althouse said...

"Wait, we’re going to give Donald Trump’s government the power to bully social media companies into deamplifying content he doesn’t like?"

Donald Trump contributes more speech. He talks back and he does it in public, using his own words, loudly proclaimed.

Half the people get mad and talk back to him.

That puts free speech and open debate over secretive coercion.

Aggie said...

'....The justices must distinguish between persuading social media sites to take down posts, which is permitted, and coercing them, which violates the First Amendment..."

Vinnie and Guido are excited to hear that friendly persuasion is permitted, and encouraged. " 'Trilled and Delighted", says Guido, cracking his knuckles, and consulting his 'vigorish' list.

NYC JournoList said...

Matt Tiabbi wrote a takedown of this article on Substack last evening. He called it “absurd”. I think he meant mendacious.

gspencer said...

Persuasion or force?

Hmmmm? The Democrat dilemma.

"Lets go with our default setting. Force all the way"

gspencer said...

Here's your typical, mindless Democrat voter,

https://media.townhall.com/cdn/hodl/ha/images/2024/76/6e0dee8e-a162-4262-a91d-e7c36c55d3e1-650x0.jpeg

NYC JournoList said...

And, it goes without question. Althouse’s post is bully!

Larry J said...

Matt Taibbi of Twitter Files fame has his own article about that NYT article. It seems relevant.

https://www.racket.news/p/on-todays-absurd-new-york-times-hit?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1042&post_id=142693402&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=false&r=9bg2k&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

In advance of oral arguments tomorrow in the Supreme Court for Murthy v. Missouri, formerly Missouri v. Biden, the New York Times and authors Jim Rutenberg and Steven Lee Myers wrote a craven and dishonest piece called, “How Trump’s Allies Are Winning the War Over Disinformation.”

Sebastian said...

"Don't go behind our back and intimidate"

Yes, that's very nice, but then again, we're dealing with progs here. So "going behind our back" and intimidation is part of their MO. Except when they spout their usual MSM propaganda, get in our faces, practice lawfare, etc. etc. Give them credit: they fight on all fronts. Temporarily shutting off their social media control, without any personal pain for any of the manipulators, won't stop them.

J Severs said...

Strong post, nicely said, Professor.

wendybar said...

Exactly Ann @ 8:19 am

planetgeo said...

This is absurdly simple. The government is perfectly free to express its views in any open forum. What it's not free to do is to suppress the views of those who disagree with its views, whether by direct or indirect coercive means. The Twitter files clearly showed evidence of coercive means used to engage surrogate private parties to suppress views and silence individuals that disagreed with government views.

baghdadbob said...

Ann, brilliant analysis like this is why I return to this blog a few times a week.

Goldenpause said...
"The left seems to be incapable of imagining that government censorship could be used against them. Is it because they intend to make sure that they never lose another election?"

Yes, that's their dream , but failing that, they know that those who comprise the permanent Federal bureaucracy vote at least 80% Democrat (probably much higher). So, regardless of which party temporarily controls the three branches of government, the entrenched layers below will prevail. Just examine how the bureaucracy undermined Trump throughout his Presidency.

iowan2 said...

: The justices must distinguish between persuading social media sites to take down posts, which is permitted

NO. No it is not permitted.

Please site the Constitution that empowers the Federal Govt to screen for content

We MUST go back the Constitutional Basics.

The Constitution Created the Federal Government, with limited, enumerated, POWERS

There is NO FEDERAL POWER to monitor and advise what content makes it into the public sphere.

Rusty said...

Now you know who the true fascist are. Censorship only leads to more censorship. Freedom of speech is an inherent right too valuable to be left to politicians and their friends. The ice is getting thin.

Dogma and Pony Show said...

"But if this ever changin' world/In which we live in/Makes you give in and cry..."

I suspect that McCartney originally sang it as "But if this ever changin' world/In which we're livin' . . .," but then accidently sang it the other way and decided to keep "live in" to give the lyric a more playful vibe. The Beatles sometimes left their mistakes in on purpose, such as when George sang "I've known the secret for THE week or two" (on "Do You Want to Know a Secret"). Or John's singing "It's got a BLACK beat, you can't lose it" on Berry's "Rock and Roll Music."

Dude1394 said...

Isn’t it amazing. As soon as Matt Tabibbi testified, he was then investigated by the irs. Visited by Luca Brasi.

Dude1394 said...

“Blogger Lem the artificially intelligent said...
If there’s one thing I know about the “Twitter files” revelations is that it took Elon Musk paying over 40 billion dollars for the government’s coercive manoeuvres with the platform to come to light”

That is why I find it disheartening how belligerent republicans are towards musk. It’s like they cannot forgive him for building electric vehicles. He should get the ACTUAL Nobel peace prize and we should all sign up and support X.

Yancey Ward said...

Well done, Althouse- one might even say, "Bully!!!"

cassandra lite said...

How much of the government’s argument, which NYT seems to support, would contradict arguments made in NYT v. Sullivan?

Iman said...

“Shut up!”, they said.

RCOCEAN II said...

Yeah, the FBI and DHS have to the right to "Make their views known". Oh, ok. yeah, just a little chit chat behind the scenes with their buds at twitter and Facebook. The social media guys would call up to shoot the breeze and maybe say "Hey, what about Rcocean, is he spreading disinformation ? and then the FBI guy would say "oh, just off the top of my head, I'd say yes. And how about those Dodgers? Lets talk about that."

Its not like the DHS/WHite House/FBI/NSA were provding lists of people, usually, MAGA, republicans and conservatives, and demanding they be banned for spreading "disinformation". Oh no, it didn't happen that way. It was just idle chit-chat. Making their "views known". Y'know like the Althouse commentators.

Offtopic: Why isn't "disinformation" just labeled as "lies"? I hate it when some dumbfuck just takes a word and then "dis" or "Un" to it. We have plenty of words in English. We don't need some vague make up word that can mean anything. Disinformation is Disuseful and Ungood.

Iman said...

Wooly Bully!

Quayle said...

Listening to the oral arguments. Nobody - neither advocates nor justices - seem to understand the massive shift in power between the information sources and the information disseminators that the internet and social media has caused. SCOTUS cases and rulings from pre-internet are near irrelevant, because the news reporters/disseminators now have near zero power, and the government (as an information creator) have near monopoly on power in that they can freeze the reporters out from being the first to report. Or put differently, because the government (as an information creator) now has near total dominance in the relationship with news media and networks, the standard of what is coercive in that relationship needs to be strongly weighed against the government.

MadisonMan said...

There is bitter irony in the Democrats all complaining that Trump will be a dictator when it's very clear that the people pulling Biden's strings are doing their level best to become dictators.

Old and slow said...

Blogger Dude1394 said...

"That is why I find it disheartening how belligerent republicans are towards musk."

Where on earth do you find these Elon Musk hating conservatives? I've always thought that electric cars were a silly gimmick brilliantly exploited by Musk to get rich and also drive technology needed for planetary exploration, but since his acquisition of Twitter/X I've heard nothing but positive things about the guy by conservatives.

Iman said...

Joey told Jilly
About a thing he saw
Had orange hair
And a non-stop jaw
Wooly bully
Wooly bully

RCOCEAN II said...

Bully is a great word. Square is another one. In the case of square, there a deliberate attempt after 1920 to make what was a positive word into a negative one. And it worked. People now think of "square" as someone who's boring and old-fashioned. You want to be "Hip" modern and "with it".

Althouse was a Hippie, so that was just a continuation of Hip. Or maybe Hipster. Pauline Kael who was born in 1920 or so, was always using the word "hip" in her movie reviews. In her mind, she was "Hip" - groovin' to the new movies like Bonnie and Clyde or Last Tango in Paris, while all the "squares" like Bosley Crowther or John Simon looked on with dismay. Sadly, she kept using the word "Hip" to apply to herself, even when she 60 and very "unhip".

robother said...

What implicit threat? It's not as if the US government is going to shut down a whole platform. Oh, wait....

n.n said...

The Constitution is a social compact for the People and our [unPlanned] Posterity, designed to secure human rights, civil rights, and mitigate authoritarian progress.

Cut to China with DEI, practical and actual slavery, environmental arbitrage, State-regulated public forums, single/central/monopolistic economic solutions, invasion of Tibet through immigration reform, etc.

It seems that America still has some competing interests. Some.

Anthony said...

I vaguely recall some arguments being made that even "persuading social media sites to take down posts" is inherently coercive because it's the government that's doing the asking. There's always an implied threat.

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

Don't worry Wendybar I'm sure Freder will be along to condemn the blizzard of lies from the media this weekend. He's hot on the trail of internet liars. Damn set agin 'em as I recall.

Just you wait.

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

Everytime I hear the word "disinformation," I think "Government lie."

As well you should Robert. We're with you. The word was literally invented by the KGB: Dezinformatsiya, and has always been a tool of evil governments, of evil intent by government actors.

Too bad our current apparatus has taken so much from the old Soviet model.

Hassayamper said...

That is why I find it disheartening how belligerent republicans are towards musk. It’s like they cannot forgive him for building electric vehicles. He should get the ACTUAL Nobel peace prize and we should all sign up and support X.

The number of Republicans in this category is falling precipitously, and the number of leftists who hate his guts has spiralled upwards.

I got back on X recently to try out the new free-speech regime, but it is the same old time-sink it always was, and I need to ration my use of it carefully. I was very heartened to see how much aggressive pushback the left-wing loudmouths are getting on that site now. It's not quite the right-wing mirror image of Reddit, but no one is holding back their opinions these days for fear of being banned by the purple-hair crowd.

Breezy said...

The justices’ hypotheticals were broadly about govt needing to intercede when lives are in imminent danger, as though that was the issue here. Imminent danger of course needs to be addressed in social media. The problem is the govt gets to decide what’s dangerous or not, and loops in countervailing ideas to their ideologies or agendas in that bucket.

Plus, Sotomayor is not impressive.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

May I say, Althouse, that this is a most valuable and excellent post? Thanks.

Mary Beth said...

It's laughable (in a sad, disappointed way) that this administration is saying it wants to remove "disinformation" from social media when the person who is posting under Biden's X account keeps sharing videos of Trump that are misleading - saying he wants to cut Social Security, when he was talking about cutting spending, not benefits or the bloodbath video, and implying Trump is calling for violence.

X always wants to show me the Biden tweets when I sort by "for you". It makes me wonder if Biden/the White House/his campaign is paying for that kind of exposure. If so, it's a waste of money, every tweet gets ratioed with people calling him a liar.

Earnest Prole said...

Donald Trump contributes more speech. He talks back and he does it in public, using his own words, loudly proclaimed. Half the people get mad and talk back to him. That puts free speech and open debate over secretive coercion.

The word insurrectiony was insufficiently ironic?

Gilbar at 8:15 AM caught my meaning. The state intends to use its bullying power in secret against Trump, thereby exacerbating a slow-motion constitutional crisis. The Trump cure continues to be exponentially more dangerous than the Trump disease.

Paddy O said...

The difference between a pulpit and an inquisition in religious (and political) influence is how one uses the word 'bully'.

tim in vermont said...

"That is why I find it disheartening how belligerent republicans are towards musk."

You do know that they think of politics as "us against them" and for them "us" includes Democrat and Republican politicians and their donors and cronies, except for outsiders like Musk, Trump and Palin, and "them" includes everybody else.

MadTownGuy said...

From the post:

"If the President (or the shadowy people behind him) want to use the"central dimension of presidential power" that is the "bully pulpit," let them step up onto a conspicuous platform and proclaim opinions they intend us to find righteous."

Joe Biden has done so, on X, and has been roundly fisked:
Donald Trump has shown us who he is, time and time again.

tim in vermont said...

"My biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways.” - KJB

MadTownGuy said...

I hear the lyrics this way:

"When you were young and your heart was an open book
You used to say live and let live
(You know you did, you know you did, you know you did)
But if this ever changing world in which we're living
Makes you give in and cry

Say live and let die...
"

The lyrics websites go 50/50 on whether it's 'we live in' or 'we're livin'/living.'

Original Mike said...

"My biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways.” - KJB

Wow. Thanks for bringing that to light.

mikee said...

The administration of Joe Biden infringing on speech with extra steps, using nongovernment cutouts to hide their actions, is still infringing on speech by the administration of Joe Biden. This is an impeachable action. That most of the rest of the federal government supports this BS is apalling.

effinayright said...

RCOCEAN II said...

Offtopic: Why isn't "disinformation" just labeled as "lies"? I hate it when some dumbfuck just takes a word and then "dis" or "Un" to it. We have plenty of words in English. We don't need some vague make up word that can mean anything. Disinformation is Disuseful and Ungood.
********************

Please distinguish "disinformation" from just being wrong, on the merits, IOW just making a weak or bad argument.

When a lawyer argues a case before the Supremes, and then loses that case, does that mean the Court thought he was "disinforming" and therefore lying?

When a politician or a private citizen makes an argument the state doesn't like, does that mean the state can squelch it as "disinformation"?

----You know, like the government did with the Great Barrington Declaration???

"Lying" at the very least requires KNOWING you are not telling the truth. In any case the government has no authority to censor any argument made in public, short of one advocating immediate violence.

Gospace said...

When the government is asking, it's coercing. Period. End of discussion. Even if it's sugar coated with strawberries on top, and whipped cream

Narayanan said...

why permit government to persuade to take down post? why not just advise government to post own post refuting the other?

how and why did you guys go so wrong ?

effinayright said...

tim in vermont said...
"My biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways.” - KJB
********
confused by the KJB, I thought it might have been something said by that notorious DITZ, Karine Jean-Pierre. KJP.

But no, it's much much worse.

That statement, made during oral argument, came from Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson --KBJ

Imagine, a Supreme Court justice who does not know WHY the colonies, fearful of a tyrannical government, demanded the First Amendment as a condition for Constitutional ratification!!!

We are well and truly fucked.

walter said...

Social media wants to do it anyway. But getting an encouraging nudge from your regulator eases the mind.

effinayright said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ralph L said...

If the Court rules against the government, how will it be enforced? The Rubicon has been crossed.

Makes you give in and cry..."

I thought that was "give it a try" and wondered WTF? I misheard a lot of that song. Paul did too much booze and drugs.

Iman said...

“I thought that was "give it a try" and wondered WTF? I misheard a lot of that song. Paul did too much booze and drugs.”

Hey! Nuttin from nuttin, but who’s the confused one here?

Lucien said...

When it comes to persuasion vs. coercion “you can get more with a kind word and a gun than with a kind word alone” (but try sourcing the quote) and the guvmint has lots of guns.

The Vault Dweller said...

It would seem odd for the court to hold in one instance that it is fine for the Government to meet with social media companies in private and demand they silence certain people or messages, while in the other instance hold that a Government official can't block a person from contacting or interacting with them on social media.

Bunkypotatohead said...

When the Biden regime asks the WaPo and NYT not to publish something, those two roll over and show their bellies, like good boys.
So the same was expected from Zuckabug and Dorsey...no threat needed.

john mosby said...

Bully for you, chilly for me, gotta get a raincheck on pain.

- Bowie

JSM