If I donate, can you guarantee I won’t start receiving mail from other people requesting donations? I’ve been flooded with junk mail after making donations in the past.
Listening to Monday’s SCOTUS hearing was demoralizing. The justices who were so concerned about standing were disingenuous, the case had won staggeringly with the two lower courts, obviously they had standing! Then justice Jackson an obvious DEI appointee gave her hypothetical of teens jumping out of windows... The First Amendment is there to protect we the people from just such censorship and over reach by a too powerful government.
This court is lame and lackluster.Riddled with a combination of serious ethical problems and unimpressive appointees, not one seems to have a passion for their enormously important responsibility, or for the law and legal history. There is no Scalia or RBG , who are sorely missed.
Democrats were the party of free speech when I was growing up. I wonder if their voting base realizes they are now anti-free speech and nominate only anti-free speech Supreme Court Justices? It might also really surprise their base when they realize their party is pro big Pharma and loves the military industrial complex.
Dr Jay does have standing and the proof is here, copied from Racket News Substack by MT, excerpt: Dr. Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford University, one of the plaintiffs in Murthy, was placed on a “trends blacklist” at Twitter, but not for purveying misinformation or disinformation. He didn’t publish hate speech, issue threats, or incite. He has little interest in politics and didn’t attempt to “influence elections.” In a textbook example of why free speech is crucial to the success of democracies, Bhattacharya’s offense was conducting true research that corrected official misinformation.
Hm. At first glance, I believe your case bears a closer resemblance to Missouri v. Biden. In fact, it was part of that same government scheme, was it not? The attorneys for Missouri (Murthy) seemed to have left their passion at home. And some members of the Court apparently never studied the Constitution or our form of government. If they gut our protection from a tyrannical government, we can pretty much kiss this country goodbye. And I believe that means your case will end up on the ash heap of filings with those cases submitted by other patriots who tried to say, "You can't do that." And, you might consider your fate will rest a lot closer to that of Peter Navarro now sitting in prison because the Chief Justice could not tell the difference between a political prisoner and a U.S. citizen. After all, as Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson noted... isn't it important to protect the government from folks (like you) who speak out of turn? Don't folks who smart talk the government belong in prison? Seems her Harvard education instilled that basic value in her dense noggin. Maybe you and C.J. Hopkins can write and produce a play rather than go to court.
Well, clearly implied threats (like to 230) appear to not be enough in general. Which is incredibly upsetting. The government could have just posted and advertised their own Covid "information." But that does not mean they had the right to police doctors who disagreed. So I hope the supreme court folks were just asking questions to see if they could convince them of another point of view. It doesn't mean for sure that's the ruling. I think what you have going for you is you were an individual targeted. Along with the implied threat. But without you being an individual (like the NRA) I think you probably have no chance if they rule that way on Missouri. But I didn't know they could say it lacked standing because there were no damages. That might be really good news and would put the government on notice. I support you already and hope others will because this is a big thing.
Those oral arguments got me thinking, okay, what's the best bug-out country? Vietnam, Singapore ... maybe (now) Argentina?
If the Supremes don't consider this a violation of the First Amendment and then "Joe Biden" wins another crooked election, that's probably it for the UNITED states of America.
The wording by the judges you quote, both appellate and Supreme, is vague at best, which you are hoping works to your/our advantage. I hope so too.
"In Context" can be broadened to include so many elements that precision becomes nearly impossible.
Maybe it's me, but the phrase "crossed the line" is a colloquialism and such should be avoided in a legal argument or document and replaced with clarity for future case reference.
Did Sotomayor actually write "decisionmaking"?
I wish someone could force the defining of the term "misinformation". It's getting very old, overused, and deprived of meaning which I believe is intentional. The corruption of language itself is an insidious and proven means of injecting (no pun) doubt, confusion, and fear into the populus.
Every person and every thought must be lumped into a group and thereby acquire its assigned set of attributes for quick and easy judgment.
We can only pray the attorneys can argue effectively that which we already know.
Edit addendum: I couldn't stomach watching the arguments yesterday though I will when I can.
Free speech has a different meaning to AOC than to the rest of us. In the hearing yesterday she believed she was the only one that had free speech rights and overtalked Bobulinski to the extent that he couldn't answer the question she allegedly asked. Alex, you have our support to silence these anarchists long enough that we can tell our side of the issue. Just dropped some dollars in your defense account.
If I donate, can you guarantee I won’t start receiving mail from other people requesting donations? I’ve been flooded with junk mail after making donations in the past.
Go get em' Alex. Let's hope Kavanaugh and Kennedy aren't the spineless totalitarians they were during the covid abomination!
Listening to Monday’s SCOTUS hearing was demoralizing. The justices who were so concerned about standing were disingenuous, the case had won staggeringly with the two lower courts, obviously they had standing! Then justice Jackson an obvious DEI appointee gave her hypothetical of teens jumping out of windows... The First Amendment is there to protect we the people from just such censorship and over reach by a too powerful government.
This court is lame and lackluster.Riddled with a combination of serious ethical problems and unimpressive appointees, not one seems to have a passion for their enormously important responsibility, or for the law and legal history. There is no Scalia or RBG , who are sorely missed.
Democrats were the party of free speech when I was growing up. I wonder if their voting base realizes they are now anti-free speech and nominate only anti-free speech Supreme Court Justices? It might also really surprise their base when they realize their party is pro big Pharma and loves the military industrial complex.
Dr Jay does have standing and the proof is here, copied from Racket News Substack by MT, excerpt: Dr. Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford University, one of the plaintiffs in Murthy, was placed on a “trends blacklist” at Twitter, but not for purveying misinformation or disinformation. He didn’t publish hate speech, issue threats, or incite. He has little interest in politics and didn’t attempt to “influence elections.” In a textbook example of why free speech is crucial to the success of democracies, Bhattacharya’s offense was conducting true research that corrected official misinformation.
Hm. At first glance, I believe your case bears a closer resemblance to Missouri v. Biden. In fact, it was part of that same government scheme, was it not? The attorneys for Missouri (Murthy) seemed to have left their passion at home. And some members of the Court apparently never studied the Constitution or our form of government. If they gut our protection from a tyrannical government, we can pretty much kiss this country goodbye. And I believe that means your case will end up on the ash heap of filings with those cases submitted by other patriots who tried to say, "You can't do that." And, you might consider your fate will rest a lot closer to that of Peter Navarro now sitting in prison because the Chief Justice could not tell the difference between a political prisoner and a U.S. citizen. After all, as Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson noted... isn't it important to protect the government from folks (like you) who speak out of turn? Don't folks who smart talk the government belong in prison? Seems her Harvard education instilled that basic value in her dense noggin. Maybe you and C.J. Hopkins can write and produce a play rather than go to court.
Well, clearly implied threats (like to 230) appear to not be enough in general. Which is incredibly upsetting. The government could have just posted and advertised their own Covid "information." But that does not mean they had the right to police doctors who disagreed. So I hope the supreme court folks were just asking questions to see if they could convince them of another point of view. It doesn't mean for sure that's the ruling. I think what you have going for you is you were an individual targeted. Along with the implied threat. But without you being an individual (like the NRA) I think you probably have no chance if they rule that way on Missouri. But I didn't know they could say it lacked standing because there were no damages. That might be really good news and would put the government on notice. I support you already and hope others will because this is a big thing.
Irony- when givesendgo censors the message on your anticensorship donation.
Give them hell Alex!
I think it's a great idea to help Alex Berenson this year because of the politics this year.
Those oral arguments got me thinking, okay, what's the best bug-out country? Vietnam, Singapore ... maybe (now) Argentina?
If the Supremes don't consider this a violation of the First Amendment and then "Joe Biden" wins another crooked election, that's probably it for the UNITED states of America.
The truth is that our government is so powerful that any “persuasion” is essentially a veiled threat or must be treated as such.
The wording by the judges you quote, both appellate and Supreme, is vague at best, which you are hoping works to your/our advantage. I hope so too.
"In Context" can be broadened to include so many elements that precision becomes nearly impossible.
Maybe it's me, but the phrase "crossed the line" is a colloquialism and such should be avoided in a legal argument or document and replaced with clarity for future case reference.
Did Sotomayor actually write "decisionmaking"?
I wish someone could force the defining of the term "misinformation". It's getting very old, overused, and deprived of meaning which I believe is intentional. The corruption of language itself is an insidious and proven means of injecting (no pun) doubt, confusion, and fear into the populus.
Every person and every thought must be lumped into a group and thereby acquire its assigned set of attributes for quick and easy judgment.
We can only pray the attorneys can argue effectively that which we already know.
Edit addendum: I couldn't stomach watching the arguments yesterday though I will when I can.
Alex, thanks for the update. Free speech is at a dangerous tipping point. Donations coming.
Free speech has a different meaning to AOC than to the rest of us. In the hearing yesterday she believed she was the only one that had free speech rights and overtalked Bobulinski to the extent that he couldn't answer the question she allegedly asked. Alex, you have our support to silence these anarchists long enough that we can tell our side of the issue. Just dropped some dollars in your defense account.
Good luck Alex. I still fear you’re going to find that the swamp always protects its own.
Why is Clarence Thomas silent?