To call this preposterous opinion political grandstanding. . . is to insult political grandstanders.
This USDC Judge decided to come in to the office on the Fourth, precisely to release what he regards as his "manifesto".
The entire opinion rests on a laughably insipid false premise: this judge pretends that a right to say something -- anything -- means the NYT (for example) "must carry" it. Preposterous. Saint Ronnie Reagan got rid of the "must carry" rules -- even in broadcast -- in about 1985.
No one's right to speak is abridged, just because I (a purely private actor, like FB or the NYT) refuse to sell you my bull-horn, or worse -- give you a free one. Damn, Doughty. All these complaining loons may drive to NYC, and go directly into Times Square, and bark madly into the night sky. That's the sole freedom they are accorded (no private party owns the sidewalk in Times Square) -- but no one says I have to host them in my private living room. See the difference? That's the pure idiocy of Judge Doughty.
So, his "opinion" will be stricken on appeal -- and never matter in any real world scenario.
But it is some great red political meat -- around the fireworks -- for the Trumpers. I link it here -- only for. . . derision. I guess the Administration should remain silent in pandemics, when idiot doctors endanger the lives of the public with false health claims(?!). This is lunacy, as a matter of policy -- and in no manner reads on the First Amendment -- properly understood:
. . .Defendants also argue that Plaintiffs are attempting to create a “deception” theory of government involvement with regards to the FBI Defendants. Plaintiffs allege the FBI told the social-media companies to watch out for Russian disinformation prior to the 2020 Presidential election and then failed to tell the companies that the Hunter Biden laptop was not Russian disinformation. The Plaintiffs further allege Dr. Fauci colluded with others to cover up the Government’s involvement in “gain of function” research at the Wuhan lab in China, which may have resulted in the creation of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Although this Court agrees there is no specified “deception” test for government action, a state may not induce private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish. Norwood, 413 U.S. at 455. It follows, then, that the government may not deceive a private party either—it is just another form of coercion. The Court has evaluated Defendants’ conduct under the “coercion” and/or “significant encouragement” theories of government action, and finds that the FBI Defendants likely exercised “significant encouragement” over social-media companies. . . .
Plaintiffs met their burden to show “significant encouragement” by the White House Defendants, the Surgeon General Defendants, the CDC Defendants, the FBI Defendants, the NIAID Defendants, the CISA Defendants, and the State Department Defendants, this Court finds the Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits that Defendants “jointly participated” in the actions of the private social-media companies as well, by insinuating themselves into the social-media companies’ private affairs and blurring the line between public and private action. . . .
However, this Court finds Plaintiffs are not likely to succeed on the merits that the “joint participation” occurred as a result of a conspiracy with the social-media companies. . . .
So -- even he admits the theory has no basis in law -- yet, astonishingly he lets them have an injunction. Tellingly, the guy cites not a shred of actually applicable federal law. But onward, grinning -- at the desperation.
नमस्ते
No comments:
Post a Comment