This is great. However, if I were the judge, I might have added some dicta that in many cases the suppressed was more accurate than the government position. This should not be dispositive but rather highlights why we have a first amendment and free speech. So that the truth can come out. So that people can persuade other people. We had a government (and a president) misleading at best or lying about the effectiveness of the vaccines as one example. Add masks. Add Hunter laptop. Add Russian interference. The truth was suppressed or quashed completely on many issues by an imperious ruling class led by the Democratic Party, Big Tech, Legacy Media, and Wall Street in many cases.
The trial judge should throw the book at them including all possible allowed sanctions to deter this activity in the future. If the government believes bad information is being spread, the answer is to counter with good information and use the bully pulpit. But they did not have good information (or policies which we find so often). So they resorted to their most totalitarian instincts and acted like the Soviets, North Koreans, or Chicoms. Kudos to Ann and her guests for fighting back (and all the people who subscribe here as well!).
Mafia stuff right here. Ayyy, we'll give you some protectionsz if ya take this stuff down, wouldn't want ya to face legal stuff that would put ya out of business. Ayyyyy
it seem odd that a cataclysmic event occurred on 911 and a few days later the gov't passed the Patriot Act and a few days later a boxcar carnival descendent came up with a new social media platform in which people handed over their personal information and the gov't finally had a way to spy on, I mean gather personal information.
It is almost as though 911 was an inside job to take care of the issue of demolishing the twin towers due to asbestos (see Wyattaustere's explanation on insta) while at the same time shocking the populace into submission and passing a law ostensibly to protect the citizenry from terrorism, a law that gave intelligence agencies the ability to spy domestically via the Face of boxcar Book.
The intelligence agencies own the social media platforms, why wouldn't they be telling them what to push and what to take down?
Failing the emergence of thousands of McVeighs and Heemayers to feed the tree of liberty with the blood of government employees and their supporters, the solution to government over reach appears to be left to Congress, who could repeal the Patriot Act and to the President, who could abolish all the three letter agencies that are under his direct purview.
I prefer the former solution, though am willing to accept the latter.
Have a nice day, everyone, I am currently getting ready to go to the gun range and pick up where I left off last weekend, vaporizing with my .223 plastic drink bottles laid on their side at 100 and 150 yards. My modest bolt action .223 is nothing in comparison to my western canadian hometown friend who has lived in Arizona for decades now, he just won his second AR platform rifle to add to his arsenal of about 5 other ones, his .45s and the shotgun taped to the underside of the coffee table, aimed at the front door to deter intruders.
You can't vote your way out of tyranny, like the tyranny of being told the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply during a medical emergency.
I miss the days when it was the looney left who was propagating this sort of deranged, patently absurd nonsense. Now it’s just as likely to come from a basement-dwelling conservative whose mom makes him breakfast every morning and makes his bed for him at the age of 45.
“President has long been concerned about the power of large social media platforms.” …
And many American citizens are concerned about the power of the presidency. Over the decades corrupt and activist federal courts and the SCOTUS have granted the executive branch powers that it arguably does not have under the Constitution because they are supporters of strong central government. An example is Clarence Thomas once ruling that unelected bureaucrats have the power to both write and interpret their own rules which essentially grants then legislative authority. Another is some federal judges upheld Obama's totally unconstitutional DACA executive order while others struck it down. Even Obama admitted he didn't have the authority to grant legal residency to illegal aliens before doing just that yet that didn't stop a few judges from siding with him.
Hi, Ann. I just noticed you've apparently banned me from commenting on your future Substack posts, and assume it is because you (or someone) misinterpreted my last comment. I was referring to the same group of people you were when I wrote that (i.e. "radicalized kids", not "minorities"). At any rate, Substack apparently doesn't value free speech as much as I thought, so I will no longer be a paid subscriber.
Stupid question could this episode apply to j6 insurrectionists? They can argue that being punished for what happened that day was their 1st amendment right since BLM did the same thing and got away??
5th circuit “ In doing so ( threatening ‘unnecessary unpleasantness’ to the potential offenders, which could easily be avoided by ‘playin ball’) the officials LIKELY violated the first amendment”. Likely but then again maybe not. An appearance of likely violating the first amendment? No, fifth circuit they DID knowingly intentionally violate the first amendment and did so regarding the laptop burial as well. These hacks are just tryin to play ball and doing their best to avoid ‘unnecessary unpleasantness’ in the face of this clear guilt.
They probably needed a confession to reach a firm conclusion as to first amendment violation, then ‘playin ball’ they would have ruled the confession inadmissible.
The White House reaction was probably something like, ‘yea so what’.
Thank you Ann and Nadine for today’s interview. Thought provoking. That is what free speech is all about….provoking thought! Quick question, a bit unrelated (or not, I am not sure if I am wandering into irrelevancy here…..) Do you have a position on cell phone picture taking of another citizen without their consent or permission…..What civil liberty/citizen protection might this fall under?……coercion, invasion of privacy, or simply “stupid”🙃 Thank you both!
Words words, words. Will anyone in any position of power be punished?
This is great. However, if I were the judge, I might have added some dicta that in many cases the suppressed was more accurate than the government position. This should not be dispositive but rather highlights why we have a first amendment and free speech. So that the truth can come out. So that people can persuade other people. We had a government (and a president) misleading at best or lying about the effectiveness of the vaccines as one example. Add masks. Add Hunter laptop. Add Russian interference. The truth was suppressed or quashed completely on many issues by an imperious ruling class led by the Democratic Party, Big Tech, Legacy Media, and Wall Street in many cases.
The trial judge should throw the book at them including all possible allowed sanctions to deter this activity in the future. If the government believes bad information is being spread, the answer is to counter with good information and use the bully pulpit. But they did not have good information (or policies which we find so often). So they resorted to their most totalitarian instincts and acted like the Soviets, North Koreans, or Chicoms. Kudos to Ann and her guests for fighting back (and all the people who subscribe here as well!).
Mafia stuff right here. Ayyy, we'll give you some protectionsz if ya take this stuff down, wouldn't want ya to face legal stuff that would put ya out of business. Ayyyyy
And... we want ya to stay healthy, you know?
it seem odd that a cataclysmic event occurred on 911 and a few days later the gov't passed the Patriot Act and a few days later a boxcar carnival descendent came up with a new social media platform in which people handed over their personal information and the gov't finally had a way to spy on, I mean gather personal information.
It is almost as though 911 was an inside job to take care of the issue of demolishing the twin towers due to asbestos (see Wyattaustere's explanation on insta) while at the same time shocking the populace into submission and passing a law ostensibly to protect the citizenry from terrorism, a law that gave intelligence agencies the ability to spy domestically via the Face of boxcar Book.
The intelligence agencies own the social media platforms, why wouldn't they be telling them what to push and what to take down?
Failing the emergence of thousands of McVeighs and Heemayers to feed the tree of liberty with the blood of government employees and their supporters, the solution to government over reach appears to be left to Congress, who could repeal the Patriot Act and to the President, who could abolish all the three letter agencies that are under his direct purview.
I prefer the former solution, though am willing to accept the latter.
Have a nice day, everyone, I am currently getting ready to go to the gun range and pick up where I left off last weekend, vaporizing with my .223 plastic drink bottles laid on their side at 100 and 150 yards. My modest bolt action .223 is nothing in comparison to my western canadian hometown friend who has lived in Arizona for decades now, he just won his second AR platform rifle to add to his arsenal of about 5 other ones, his .45s and the shotgun taped to the underside of the coffee table, aimed at the front door to deter intruders.
You can't vote your way out of tyranny, like the tyranny of being told the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply during a medical emergency.
I miss the days when it was the looney left who was propagating this sort of deranged, patently absurd nonsense. Now it’s just as likely to come from a basement-dwelling conservative whose mom makes him breakfast every morning and makes his bed for him at the age of 45.
oh look, a bald dog fucker.
“President has long been concerned about the power of large social media platforms.” …
And many American citizens are concerned about the power of the presidency. Over the decades corrupt and activist federal courts and the SCOTUS have granted the executive branch powers that it arguably does not have under the Constitution because they are supporters of strong central government. An example is Clarence Thomas once ruling that unelected bureaucrats have the power to both write and interpret their own rules which essentially grants then legislative authority. Another is some federal judges upheld Obama's totally unconstitutional DACA executive order while others struck it down. Even Obama admitted he didn't have the authority to grant legal residency to illegal aliens before doing just that yet that didn't stop a few judges from siding with him.
LOVED this, and the easily understood summary by Nadine Strossen: The Golden Rule. Thank you for a great presentation!
Hi, Ann. I just noticed you've apparently banned me from commenting on your future Substack posts, and assume it is because you (or someone) misinterpreted my last comment. I was referring to the same group of people you were when I wrote that (i.e. "radicalized kids", not "minorities"). At any rate, Substack apparently doesn't value free speech as much as I thought, so I will no longer be a paid subscriber.
What about, "no shoes, no shirt, no service."
Ann, could you please get these interviews up on podcast platforms faster (Apple, Spotify, etc)?
They are usually posted up to 2 weeks later on those platforms. I like to download and listen offline but I can’t do that on Substack.
Stupid question could this episode apply to j6 insurrectionists? They can argue that being punished for what happened that day was their 1st amendment right since BLM did the same thing and got away??
Ann, you rock! Nice to finally get some good news from New Orleans! (For the uninformed, that's where the 5th Circuit is.)
5th circuit “ In doing so ( threatening ‘unnecessary unpleasantness’ to the potential offenders, which could easily be avoided by ‘playin ball’) the officials LIKELY violated the first amendment”. Likely but then again maybe not. An appearance of likely violating the first amendment? No, fifth circuit they DID knowingly intentionally violate the first amendment and did so regarding the laptop burial as well. These hacks are just tryin to play ball and doing their best to avoid ‘unnecessary unpleasantness’ in the face of this clear guilt.
They probably needed a confession to reach a firm conclusion as to first amendment violation, then ‘playin ball’ they would have ruled the confession inadmissible.
The White House reaction was probably something like, ‘yea so what’.
Thank you Ann and Nadine for today’s interview. Thought provoking. That is what free speech is all about….provoking thought! Quick question, a bit unrelated (or not, I am not sure if I am wandering into irrelevancy here…..) Do you have a position on cell phone picture taking of another citizen without their consent or permission…..What civil liberty/citizen protection might this fall under?……coercion, invasion of privacy, or simply “stupid”🙃 Thank you both!