« First « Previous Comments 696 - 706 of 706 Search these comments
WASHINGTON, D.C. — With Democrats across the country embroiled in vicious infighting, antisemitism, and takeovers of college campuses, Republicans have decided to remedy their impending victory by attacking the First Amendment.
"We realized that things were going well for us, so we took corrective action immediately," said Mike Johnson, while at the bank cashing his latest check from a Ukrainian lobbyist. "We thought: 'What can we do that will immediately enrage our most loyal voters while simultaneously preventing the self-destruction of the Democrat Party?' Of course, the most obvious choice was to pass a law against free speech. Mission accomplished!"
Sources say the new antisemitism bill passed by the House will soon be struck down by federal courts, but should still do the job of necessarily injuring the Republican Party in an election year.
"This is the decisive leadership our party needs," said Congressman Crenshaw while adjusting his brand-new clown nose. "Hey check out how loud my clown nose can honk! HONK HONK!"
At publishing time, Republicans had announced next week's plans to also attack the Second Amendment.
On Thursday, the Supreme Court delivered a nine to zero decision in favor of the despised-by-democrats National Rifle Association. Even more remarkably, the decision was penned by ultra-liberal, anti-gun Justice Sotomayor, who began the decision unqualifiedly favoring the guns rights group and slapping government overreach like this:
Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors. Petitioner National Rifle Association (NRA) plausibly alleges that respondent Maria Vullo did just that. As superintendent of the New York Department of Financial Services, Vullo allegedly pressured regulated entities to help her stifle the NRA's pro-gun advocacy by threatening enforcement actions against those entities that refused to disassociate from the NRA and other gun-promotion advocacy groups.
Those allegations, if true, state a First Amendment claim.
In a case that rings distinctly familiar to we who have watched the unfolding saga of government threats against social media companies to force censorship of heterodox covid commentary, the Court admonished even implied threats by government actors against private actors, when the threats are really intended to suppress citizens’ free speech.
In this case, the New York Insurance commissioner leaned on private insurance companies like Lloyd’s of London, encouraging them to refuse to insure NRA members, and implicitly threatening that insurers could be swept into ongoing criminal investigations if they didn’t cooperate.
That’s a nice insurance company you have there; it would be a shame if anything bad happened to it.
Though the Court framed its unanimous decision as merely reiterating long-standing Supreme Court precedent, it was a clear shot across the federal government’s bow in the ongoing social media wars.
This case is a good reminder of why the Founders created the insular third branch of government. Many folks raise valid concerns about nine unelected Justices wielding power for life, but the Supreme Court does act as a last-ditch emergency brake during runaway electoral periods.
In other words, because each president has the chance to slowly change the ideological character of the Court, America is insulated from rapid shifts in the political composition of the executive and legislative branches. The Supreme Court always drags behind it a long tail of sanity from previous political periods, backstopping sudden changes in party power.
Among the 477 censored submissions was the Canberra Declaration’s lengthy report, which included whistleblower testimonies from Indigenous Australians who reported severe human rights abuses during the national COVID-19 vaccine rollout.
Almost 500 submissions to a key Senate inquiry into COVID-19 abuses have been censored by the committee overseeing the probe.
Opened in October last year, the COVID-19 Royal Commission Terms of Reference Inquiry had promised to “allow all affected stakeholders to be heard”.
However, months after the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee produced its report, 477 of the 559 submissions made by members of the public have not been made available on the committee’s official website.
The trove of hidden submissions represents 85 per cent of the volume received by the committee.
Over 30 per cent of the submissions have been concealed entirely, with even the name of the submitting organisation or individual labelled “confidential”. ...
Canberra Declaration co-founder Warwick Marsh has labelled the suppression of the documents “unprecedented”.
“I have been making submissions to parliamentary inquiries for over two decades, and in my experience, this censorship is unprecedented,” he told The Daily Declaration.
“It is an affront to all Australians that a committee tasked with probing the government abuses that took place during the Covid era would censor organisations like ours seeking to draw attention to those abuses.”
“Ironically, one of the abuses we decried was censorship itself,” Mr Marsh added. “What was in our submission that the committee wanted hidden from the public?”
« First « Previous Comments 696 - 706 of 706 Search these comments
It's coming, and it will encapsulate the Social Justice Revolution as part of American Canon, so to criticize it will be subject to censorship.