“This is an absolutely massive story of foreign ops shaping our political and cultural discourse,” Dave Rubin wrote. “Will the set of influencers who fell for it look in the mirror?”
It’s ironic, of course, that the 2016 screams of “foreign influence” on the Trump campaign have now been replaced by actual evidence of foreign influence — mostly aimed against Trump.
But there’s a bigger story here.
The United States, for all its size and power, is prone to the whims of public opinion — and its communications are largely open to outsiders.
It’s hardly surprising that some of those outsiders will seek to take advantage of our nation’s freedom of expression.
For many years, and continuing today, that external influence has been manifested in foundations, grants, donations, lobbying and — hello, Biden family! — outright bribes.
If you can redirect a multitrillion-dollar government by spending a few million on campaign contributions or “consulting” contracts, that’s a pretty good deal.
But fake X accounts are even easier, and even cheaper.
It costs virtually nothing for a malign operator to set up accounts, farm engagement and accumulate enough followers to be — or at least to seem — influential.
Causes that are not actually popular can be made to look like they have genuine momentum behind them, even if that “momentum” is just a few nerds pecking keyboards in Third World countries.
And X is an ideal outlet for this scam because lazy journalists — and there are a lot of those — often rely on it for easy-peasy cut-and-paste clickbait stories. //
But Musk on Friday didn’t censor people for lying. He revealed them as liars.
Rather than repression, he chose illumination.
“Know the truth, and the truth will set you free,” as it says in the New Testament.
Or perhaps, in the words of Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, “Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.”
Musk chose transparency over “security,” and in so doing he ripped the masks off tens (hundreds?) of thousands of fake accounts that have been doing real harm to America’s political discourse — without silencing anyone.
“Our democracy cannot very well function if individual judges issue extraordinary relief to every plaintiff who clamors to object to executive action,” U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil said in her ruling on Monday. “It is not the role of a district court judge to direct the policies of the Executive Branch first and ask questions later.”
Those are the words many observers of the ongoing judicial coup have wanted to hear from a federal judge since the first wave of injunctions from tyrannical district court judges started coming down early in the Trump administration’s tenure, blocking the president elected by the American people to do what they elected him to do.
They finally came from Vyskocil, a Trump appointee serving in New York, when she dismissed a case from teachers unions attempting to get the court to “commandeer,” as she put it, $400 million in federal grants and contracts to Columbia University. The Trump administration canceled the funding because of the school’s inability to handle pro-Palestine protests and violence on its campus.
“With no apparent sense of irony, lawyers for an organization called ‘Protect Democracy’ insist that a district court judge should order the Executive Branch immediately to restore the flow of taxpayer dollars to an elite university, which funding Defendants represent is inconsistent with the priorities of the duly elected President of the United States,” Vyskocil added. //
Vyskocil dismissed the case because the unions had no standing to sue, and Columbia University is “conspicuously absent” from the case as a plaintiff. //
She then went through the litany of bizarre counts against the Trump administration from the unions that did not describe any more than a tenuous relationship to the funding cuts at best. The unions even argued that the fact that they chose to spend money to oppose potential (yes, potential, not real) action from the Trump administration meant they had standing.
An organization “cannot spend its way into standing simply by expending money to gather information and advocate against the defendant’s action,” the judge wrote, quoting the Supreme Court.
Teachers unions, and universities for that matter, apparently believe they are entitled to federal funding and that any cut is a constitutional impossibility representing some kind of free speech violation. But as Vyskocil soberly pointed out in her second appeal to the fact that elections have consequences, the cuts are often made simply because the president — and the people who elected him — have priorities that differ from those of the unions and universities.
The same arguments being used to shut down the Satanic Temple, “too disturbing,” “not appropriate,” and “offensive to children,” are the same ones that will be used one day to shut you down.
Do you believe marriage is between a man and a woman? That could be labeled disturbing.
Do you read the Bible in public? Someone might find that offensive.
You wear a crucifix, pray in a school lunchroom, or talk about creation? One day, that’ll be the excuse. “Not appropriate for children.”
We’re building the tools of censorship. And we’re handing them to people who think tolerance ends when their feelings get hurt.
Today, it’s Baphomet. Tomorrow, it’s Bethlehem.
If you’re cheering this, you're building your own cell.
The Capitol Isn’t a Church
The Iowa State Capitol doesn’t belong to the governor. Or the majority. It belongs to us, all of us.
If Christians can set up a nativity scene, then other groups can set up something, too, even if it’s ridiculous, even if it’s grotesque. Even if you think it’s morally bankrupt.
That’s the price of liberty.
It’s uncomfortable. //
This Isn’t Complicated
Let them put up their damn statue.
If it bothers you, look away.
Or pray harder.
Or put up a bigger, better display of your own.
Don’t ask the state to silence them for you.
Because that’s not liberty, that’s cowardice.
And deep down, I think we know that. We just don’t want to admit the uncomfortable truth:
We’re the ones failing the test.
Not them. //
The Constitution was never about safety.
It was about risk. Risking offense. Risking speech. Risking freedom.
Everybody counts.
Or nobody does. //
Brytek
11 hours ago
There are incompatible religious organizations as well as ideologies. Not all can be reconciled enough to live in the same community. Some even go to the extent to kill those they cannot convert - and that is part of their religion, in some it is a requirement. The point is not all can be peacefully brought together, not all can live side by side. Do we, in the name of "liberty" allow the extermination of one group from another to satisfy liberty? I suggest that there are limits to liberty for it to exist at all. The generalization, for liberty to exist it must exist for all, is an axiom that sounds good but it denies reality in that many religions or ideologies do not allow freedom for those not part of their religious order or community. For this axiom to be true it must by definition violate those religious precepts, liberty for all denies liberty for some, which make the statement nonsense, which invalidates the whole.
"Today, I am announcing a new visa restriction policy that will apply to foreign nationals who are responsible for censorship of protected expression in the United States," Rubio declared. "It is unacceptable for foreign officials to issue or threaten arrest warrants on U.S. citizens or U.S. residents for social media posts on American platforms while physically present on U.S. soil."
The Secretary of State also objects to foreign officials demanding that social media platforms adopt global rules that would infringe on American rights. Rubio further expanded on these actions in a post on X.
“For too long, Americans have been fined, harassed, and even charged by foreign authorities for exercising their free speech rights,” Rubio wrote on X. "Free speech is essential to the American way of life — a birthright over which foreign governments have no authority.”
He added, "Foreigners who work to undermine the rights of Americans should not enjoy the privilege of traveling to our country.". //
“Whether in Latin America, Europe, or elsewhere, the days of passive treatment for those who work to undermine the rights of Americans are over," he said in a separate X post.
You could say that the prohibition of religious freedom for anyone would be a real knock to the health and vibrancy of the United States, but this applies to Christianity more than any other religion in the world. Without Christianity, it all falls apart. Christianity is the cornerstone from which all other religions enjoy their existence within its borders.
Historically, other religions are not so accommodating to others, especially when they become nationalistic, and that surprisingly includes Buddhism. The only other religions aside from Christianity that allow for other religions to be practiced freely are Judaism and Sikhism, but since the United States has been a Christian nation from the beginning, the freedom to practice your beliefs relies on Christian foundations.
And before someone says, "Atheism would allow it," I've already given you a few examples of atheist governments above that treat Christianity as a danger. Atheist-based states don't like it when the people hold something higher in authority than it. However, atheists also appreciate their free speech rights, and many of these rights are a thing because Christianity made it so.
Moreover, it's these Christian foundations that allow for the greatest of our God-given rights, free speech, which goes hand-in-hand with the freedom to practice religion. The freedom to voice your faith cannot be restricted, as the profession of faith requires speech. There's a reason why the left often tries to tie hate speech to Christian beliefs. //
Moreover, the entirety of our rights as citizens of the United States are the end result of Christian philosophy. No matter your belief, Christianity's moral teachings and societal influence are what keep the United States free and healthy.
If Democrats were allowed to restrict it or terminate it, the bottom would fall out of this nation. Your God-given rights would mean nothing because the people in charge wouldn't recognize any god but themselves. //
Retired Professor
6 hours ago
The first stage of this is to restrict the exercise of religion to churches and other such contained venues. That's what Obama clearly wanted to do. Street corner evangelism? Disrupts traffic and "public safety." Voluntary prayer groups in public schools? Violates the (so-called) "wall of separation." Prayer before a city council meeting? Same.
I could go on, but this has been the tactic of the Left ever since the days of Earl Warren. We won't win that battle until Jesus comes back, but meanwhile we still have to fight. //
Platypus
3 hours ago
I recommend the book, The Normal Christian Life by Watchman Nee... a Chinese believer that was
educated in the west but also spent decades in a Chinese prison. He also wrote several other books
all of them worth reading.
Last week, The New York Times published an exposé that, in any morally serious culture, would have been met with a wave of bipartisan outrage and urgent congressional action. Instead, it was largely met with a blasé silence. The article, which detailed how Pornhub’s own internal documents reveal years of knowingly hosting—and profiting from—videos of children suffering nonconsensual acts, isn’t a revelation. It’s confirmation of the evil at work here.
We now have irrefutable evidence of what has long been plain to any honest observer: The commercial pornography industry is predatory, lawless, and deeply dependent on abuse. And yet it continues to operate in broad daylight, shielded by an outdated moral indifference and a confused understanding of free speech. //
Our freedoms require moral boundaries. The question isn’t whether we can restrict pornography. The question is whether we have the courage to do so. Though we may begin with urgent reforms to protect children and prosecute abuse, these are steps toward a larger aim: the complete dismantling of the pornography industry. //
These incremental steps are necessary because the political will to abolish pornography outright likely doesn’t yet exist. For instance, just this month, Utah senator Mike Lee introduced a measure that would redefine obscenity, paving the way for a nationwide prohibition on pornography. It’s not the first time Lee has initiated this process. He attempted it in both 2022 and 2024, but it has yet to gain traction in the Senate.
Any legal structure that normalizes pornography is ultimately incompatible with human flourishing. But every step toward being rid of it societally is a move in the right direction. There’s no First Amendment defense for rape. There’s no civil liberty that justifies monetized abuse. There’s no technological innovation that makes human degradation acceptable. //
We cannot claim to care about women while tolerating an industry that degrades them. We cannot say we value children while giving predators free rein. We cannot speak of freedom while sanctioning enslavement. //
The modern pornography industry isn’t built on free expression but on the illegal commodification of human beings. It relies on anonymity, impunity, and a legal vacuum in which abuse thrives. //
No version of this industry can be baptized, cleaned up, or redeemed. It mustn’t be tolerated, accommodated, or reformed—it must be dismantled. Our convictions, our witness, and our love for neighbor demand no less.
It’s time to ban pornography.
https://x.com/C__Herridge/status/1925901392499093569
The Biden Administration labeled Americans who opposed the COVID-19 vaccination and mask mandates as "Domestic Violent Extremists," or DVEs, according to newly declassified intelligence records obtained by Public @shellenberger @galexybrane and Catherine Herridge Reports. The designation created an 'articulable purpose' for FBI or other government agents to open an 'assessment' of individuals, which is often the first step toward a formal investigation, said a former FBI agent. //
Herridge shared some additional context regarding the reporting, noting that the declassified documents suggest that the Biden administration based its intelligence collection on political goals, thus turning the process of intelligence collection and analysis "on its head."
This is a victory not just for my constituents, but for the Constitution itself. The Supreme Court has affirmed what should NEVER have been in question — that no state legislature has the power to silence an elected official simply for speaking truthfully about issues that matter. //
In her dissent, Justice Jackson argued that intervention by SCOTUS would be premature. Wrote Jackson: "Why would any applicant who thinks the lower courts are mistaken wait for those courts’ final word on an issue if real-time error correction via our emergency docket is readily available?” //
MajorKong
6 minutes ago
Jackson may not understand "irreparable harm". The longer Libby waits for relief, the more votes she misses. Doesn't seem like a difficult concept.
Customers rejected Smartmatic for reasons unrelated to Fox. For example, the filing said, Smartmatic’s equipment was not certified.
Dr. Allan Josephson worked for nearly 15 years as chief of the University of Louisville's Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Psychology, when he made a “mistake” that would cost him—he dared to speak up about so-called transgender surgeries and the harm they inflict upon young people.
For that terrible crime, he was demoted and eventually fired.
Revenge is best served cold, however, and now the university has agreed to a tasty $1.6 million settlement in the case.
The millionaires behind TLR support reforms that prevent you from suing them, but they’re all too eager to undermine reforms that stop them from suing you. Their efforts to gut the TCPA should be no less shocking than if PETA were caught selling fur coats.
The TCPA protects Texans across the ideological spectrum, from grassroots activists to government watchdogs to on-line reviewers. Weakening the TCPA would embolden litigious corporations, political operatives, and deep-pocketed individuals to use the courts as a cudgel against their opponents. The impact would be devastating not just for those sued, but for the fundamental principles of free speech and open debate in Texas.
It’s unfortunate that tort reform advocates now want to gut one of Texas’ most successful tort reform laws. Their disdain for expensive litigation disappears when they’re the ones filing the lawsuits. Texans should reject these disingenuous, self-serving attacks and tell their lawmakers to leave the TCPA alone, ensuring that all of us—whether pro-life advocates, journalists, or everyday citizens—can continue speaking truth to power without fear of retaliation. //
anon-ymous99
an hour ago
The reddest states have the bluest Republican legislatures. Never ceases to amaze me.
Leitmotif anon-ymous99
6 minutes ago
Actually, it's quite logical - in a perverse sense.
When Republicans dominate the political life of a given state, the grifters, hacks, and opportunists who would otherwise naturally gravitate to the Democrat party join (unfortunately!) the Republican party instead. This phenomenon, in fact, is one on main factors to consider when reflecting upon that salient question that has haunted so many of us - "Where DO, exactly, all these RINOs come from?"
America remains the freest nation on earth. Does that mean you get to keep your student visa if you use it to support terrorism? No, but to cite that as proof that Europe is more liberal on free speech is laughable. The Economist should be ashamed. //
Bootsie
3 hours ago
In Europe you have freedom to say anything you want, as long as it is what the government says you can say. Is that about right? //
anon-g9p7
3 hours ago
Diversity leads to tribalism.
The most vicious tribe wins. //
anon-aqgv anon-exgv
3 hours ago
Europe has "free speech" for Leftists only. //
TexasVeteran
3 hours ago edited
"Europeans can say almost anything they want both in theory and in practice."
That’s a bald faced lie, just ask Tommy Robinson! Even pointing out a negative fact about Islam will land you in jail.
"Europe’s universities never became hotbeds of speech-policing by one breed of culture warrior or the other."
Because there's no dissent.They all think alike— on the left!
"No detention centres await foreign students who hold the wrong views on Gaza."
Another lie, they’ll, end you to prison for supporting Israel!
For 151 years, Indians expressing their right to free speech and expression have faced the prospect of being accused of sedition: ‘showing disaffection’ towards the State under section 124A of the Indian Penal Code. Our new database counts 13,000 people charged with sedition between 2010-2021 and provides unprecedented insight into India’s use of a law discarded by most democracies. Its use has risen inexorably over the last decade, most recently against public protests, dissent, social-media posts, criticism of the government and even over cricket results.
Greg Price
@greg_price11
·
Follow
JD Vance went to the Munich Security Conference and roasted the entire continent of Europe for being petty tyrants and criminalizing freedom of speech, including a British man arrested for praying at an abortion clinic.
2:02 PM · Feb 14, 2025
It's a concerning thing that you have those kinds of actions, and he was right to call them out. If we are supposed to be standing with them because of "common values," those aren't common values and they need to understand that. //
JD Vance
@JDVance
·
Follow
This is a crazy exchange.
Does the media really think the holocaust was caused by free speech?
Michael Brendan Dougherty
@michaelbd
This is the first time I’ve heard the theory that the Holocaust wasn’t conducted with gas chambers but with free speech zones.
Embedded video
8:14 PM · Feb 16, 2025 //
The Nazis had no free speech. They locked up and killed many people who bravely spoke out against their evil actions. How does someone with that kind of a position in media not fully understand that? //
JD Vance
@JDVance
·
Follow
Insulting someone is not a crime, and criminalizing speech is going to put real strain on European-US relationships.
This is Orwellian, and everyone in Europe and the US must reject this lunacy.
End Wokeness
@EndWokeness
CBS: "Is posting an insult a crime?"
German prosectors: "Yes"
CBS: "Is it a crime to repost a lie?"
German prosecutors: "Yes"
Embedded video
12:40 PM · Feb 17, 2025
Thierry Breton @ThierryBreton
·
Welcome to Europe VP @JDVance.
With all due respect, in 🇪🇺, freedom of speech is a core value of our democracy — it is non-negotiable. Never was and never will be.
Proof? Even fake news are allowed (sadly, sometimes echoed by top US officials) :
EU/DSA has never canceled… Show more
6:02 PM · Feb 14, 2025. //
Visegrád 24 @visegrad24
·
Former European Commissioner Thierry Breton says the EU has mechanisms to nullify a potential election victory of the AfD:
”We did it in Romania and we will obviously do it in Germany if necessary”
11:32 PM · Jan 10, 2025
"In other words, as the President asserts, ‘[t]he Russia Collusion Hoax was dead, at least until Defendants [as members of the Pulitzer Prize board] attempted to resurrect it’ by conspiring to publish a defamatory statement falsely implying that the President colluded with the Russians."
In their motion to dismiss, the Board had asserted that their statement defending the awards was purely opinion and not actionable. Artau, however, points out that they injected claims of fact.
"The board members vouched for the truth of reporting that had been debunked by all credible sources charged with investigating the false claim that the President colluded with the Russians to win the 2016 presidential election," he wrote.
Artau states that President Trump met the burden of establishing jurisdiction for the trial court and can therefore "proceed with his asserted claims that the non-resident defendants acted with actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth." //
Trump's lawsuit countered that assertion, noting explicitly how the Washington Post had “retracted statements from several articles from 2017 relating to the Steele Dossier and other alleged connections between the Trump campaign and Russia.”
Indeed, the Post quietly edited two major articles that relied on the discredited Steele dossier and added editor’s notes to at least 14 other reports.
Although much of the buzz around ‘Wicked’ has focused on ‘queering,’ it is the concepts of propaganda and tyranny that drive the film. //
Not everything is hunky-dory in Oz. Here, animals are persecuted for their differences and put in cages to prevent them from learning to speak. Elphaba has a strong sense of justice to speak for the voiceless and decides to visit the one and only Wizard of Oz to fix the problem.
To her dismay, the Wizard (played brilliantly by Jeff Goldblum) is a fraud. Elphaba is invited to his castle to create flying monkeys that will be perfect “spies in the sky.” Scheming together with Morrible, the Wizard tells Elphaba that dissent will not be tolerated.
“When I first got here,” says the Wizard, “there was discord. There was discontent. And back where I come from, everybody knows that the best way to bring folks together is to give them a real good enemy.”
“We’re doing this to keep people safe,” Morrible says, in turn. We’ve heard that one before. Many things have been done “for the security of the state,” and they are never good.
Although slightly bumbling (in a very Jeff Goldblum way), the Wizard is nevertheless manipulative. Goldblum’s Wizard oscillates between a P.T. Barnum figure and a dictator with Morrible at his side. It is Morrible who is responsible for spreading lies about Elphaba. It is Morrible who names her the Wicked Witch and says she must be destroyed. Morrible effectively begins the propaganda campaign against Elphaba, exploiting her physical differences with the intent of crushing her free will.
The people of Oz accept it because they’ve already been living in a society that has kept them artificially happy, as long as they don’t ask questions. They are living in an illusion, in Plato’s cave, and the shadows are their reality. They are weak and would rather blame an external factor for their problems rather than take responsibility for their actions (or lack thereof). In other words, they have made themselves into slaves and require a dictator to exist.
Propaganda is a powerful tool, and we have seen this phenomenon throughout many totalitarian systems, even in soft, shape-shifting totalitarian impulses in the United States. In some ways, the ideological lie becomes worse in nations that fundamentally and foundationally resist tyranny. But it is precisely this contrast between freedom and small acts of tyranny that are insidious. People can be “asleep” through many different means, but it always includes a refusal to see the truth because then one must act. In “Wicked,” Glinda opts for an existential blindfold. The alleged goodness she embodies is nothing more than an affectation.
“Wicked” is not an excellent film. At times, it meanders and is sensory overload by virtue of being a musical. But in the final moments of the film, the larger idea is revealed: What is reality? Do we possess free will to choose truth over a lie?
In the final song, “Defying Gravity,” Elphaba sings that if she’s “flying solo,” then “at least, [she’s] flying free.” Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn has identified “the simplest, the most accessible key to our liberation” as “a personal nonparticipation in lies!” Elphaba could have chosen to be part of the Wizard’s machine, but that means she would be living by lies.
Mark Zuckerberg told Joe Rogan that Facebook pushed back on the Biden regime’s censorship demands. The Facebook Files say otherwise. //
Zuckerberg purported in his JRE [Joe Rogan Experience] appearance that Facebook resisted Biden administration bids like these. Instead, the Big Tech company’s censors fulfilled Flaherty’s dreams that it would “play ball” by “demoting” posts casting doubts on the Covid-19 jab. Covid content that couldn’t be easily or justifiably removed under Facebook’s terms and conditions would be “contained” and sent to the company’s third-party “fact-checkers” for further false impugnment.
Zuckerberg wants the millions of people who tuned into his conversation with Rogan to believe that Facebook was a heroic middle-man who told off the government when it tried to throttle dissenters. In reality, Facebook was a willing accomplice in the Democrat-fueled war on free speech. No amount of Zuckerberg’s revisionist retelling can erase the evidence that Facebook eagerly participated in the Biden administration’s scheme to silence its political enemies, dissenters, and publications like The Federalist.
Following Mark Zuckerberg’s putative mea culpa for having made Meta complicit in the largest censorship regime in American history, and his vow to restore free expression on his platforms, the CEO made perhaps his most consequential statement of all in an interview with Joe Rogan.
There, after describing the pressure campaign the Biden administration waged against his company to suppress disfavored speech, primarily regarding Covid-19, Zuckerberg told Rogan: “I don’t think that the pushing for social media companies to censor stuff was legal.”
The Meta CEO’s silence as this very issue was being litigated all the way up to the Supreme Court was as deafening then as it is maddening now. But in making this assertion, he has inadvertently highlighted one of the Roberts Court’s gravest derelictions of duty — one that emphasizes the necessity of vigorous executive and legislative actions in defense of our rights, actions like those promised by the Trump administration and some in Congress.
The dereliction of duty came in the Supreme Court’s punting of the case of Murthy v. Missouri, previously known as Missouri v. Biden.
Plaintiffs in the case obtained and marshaled voluminous evidence demonstrating that senior Biden White House officials and federal agencies coerced, cajoled, and colluded directly and indirectly with social media companies to purge disfavored news and views en masse on matters ranging from the Hunter Biden laptop story to election integrity and Covid-19. The defendants did so on ostensible grounds of combatting dangerous “mis-, dis-, and mal-information.” In deputizing non-governmental actors as its speech police, the plaintiffs argued, the feds engaged in a conspiracy to violate the First Amendment by proxy.
The case, alongside congressional investigations and reportage including the “Twitter Files,” helped expose the size, scope, and nature of the censorship-industrial complex. //
The defendants appealed. But Judge Doughty’s counterparts on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals largely upheld his ruling.
So the feds took their argument to the Supreme Court. There, shockingly, as I observed while attending oral arguments, far too many of the justices showed they held a perversely narrow view of the First Amendment, and they gave substantial deference to the feds that had so imperiled it. Some also seemed remarkably ignorant of the expansive factual record supporting the plaintiffs’ claims.
Last summer, the high court dismissed the plaintiffs’ concerns and Americans’ free speech rights on a technicality. In a 6-3 ruling, the Supremes held that the plaintiffs lacked standing to seek injunctive relief, refusing to rule on the merits of the case.
Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, rebuked the court for straining to create “new” and “heightened” standards to find that the plaintiffs lacked standing and warned that the court’s refusal to rule on the merits of the case could result in dire consequences.
“[W]e are obligated to tackle the free speech issue that the case presents,” Alito asserted. “The Court, however, shirks that duty and thus permits the successful campaign of coercion in this case to stand as an attractive model for future officials who want to control what the people say, hear, and think.”
The dissent concluded that what transpired in Murthy “was blatantly unconstitutional, and the country may come to regret the Court’s failure to say so.”
By not ruling that the censorship-industrial complex’s acts were unconstitutional — by avoiding the question entirely — the Supremes signaled that it was open season on free speech in America. //
The courts simply cannot be seen as a reliable backstop for protecting our First Amendment rights against the censorship-industrial complex.
What’s more, if Republicans allow the fed-led censorship regime to persist, there will be no deterrent to Democrat efforts to create analogous regimes going forward, targeting rights beyond those enshrined in the First Amendment.
Zuckerberg’s admission of a pressure campaign lays bare the truth: the government colluded with Big Tech to violate Americans’ First Amendment right and the Supreme Court squandered an opportunity to right a wrong.