Ironic Timing

I’ve been writing this blog since March 2011. I’ve written over 1400 posts. I never got censored—until last month, when my December 7 post was taken down by Blogger. It was about the House report on the response to that illness I guess I’m not supposed to talk about, even though I was referring to the findings of a government committee (and even though I had literally written freely on the issue dozens of times since 2020).

For many years I have followed up my posts here with a post on Facebook linking to it, to make it more convenient for friends to find what I’ve written.

I had a sense I’d been shadow banned a couple of times on Facebook, but no way to prove it. I don’t spend a lot of time (any) trying to get engagement, so if there’s less, I could hardly tell. Sometimes those little notices showed up, warning people about possible misinformation, with a link to some “trusted” source—which, as a result of that House report, we now know was actually a link to propagandistic misinformation. But Facebook had never given me a warning or taken down a post. Until last Friday.

I wrote about the enumerated powers in the US Constitution. I’ve written about that a number of times before. Talking about what’s in the Constitution seems pretty safe from violating “community standards.” I posted late in the evening on January 2. Facebook immediately removed it and told me I had violated community standards. They didn’t say what specifically I had done. I clicked, to see if they would tell me more, before I had taken a screenshot, which I regret. I was just so surprised. So I may have missed a clue.

I protested that I had not violated community standards and asked for a review. They said they would get back to me, and that usually takes 4 days, but could be longer. Today makes a full week. There is no word. There is no way, that I have discovered, to find out anything about the post. My account has no strikes against it and is in good standing, it appears.

I have read through the community standards. I cannot find anything that I may have violated, even inadvertently.

One thing I have noticed, just the past month or two, is a change in other accounts on Facebook that link to outside content. I first noticed it with Dinesh D’Souza, and later with various people from the Daily Wire—Matt Walsh, Michael Knowles. I’m sure there are others doing it. (Maybe everyone else got a memo that I didn’t.) They make a statement, just words on a colored background. And you have to click on comments to get a link to the linked material. I find this really annoying. You can’t even get the title of what is being linked to until you go to the comments, so you don’t know if it’s worth it. Sometimes you don’t get a full idea of what the content is about until you click through to the actual linked article, which is only worth it if you really trust the source and seek more of their content.

I see no advantage to the content provider—unless it is to avoid some obscure (unfindable) Facebook rule about linking to somewhere beyond Facebook. One would think that, when you’re on another platform, and it asks you if you want to share, and Facebook comes up as one of the buttons to make that easy, that it would mean Facebook is good with sharing such content, assuming it doesn’t violate their other community standards, many of which are reasonable to avoid theft, fraud, libel, child exploitation, and other actual crimes.

Ironically, Mark Zuckerberg announced just this week, Tuesday, January 7, that they are removing their fact checkers, and letting go of the whole censorship gig they’ve been providing for the current regime. He doesn’t sound like he’s crazy, or lying. I guess we'll see.

Mark Zuckerberg makes announcement about
changes to Facebook. Screenshot from here.

Here are the things he listed that Facebook/Meta is going to do:

1.      Remove fact checkers; replace them with Community Notes, similar to X. [I found a description of Community Notes here.]     

2.      Simplify content policies; get rid of restrictions on topics like immigration and gender that are out of touch with mainstream discourse.

3.      Change enforcement policies; no longer filter for any and all policy violations; focus on illegal and high severity violations; no action on lower severity violations until someone reports an issue.

4.      Bring back civic content; this means political content can be recommended again, because people are ready to see this content again. [I’d like to say more about this overt censorship, which he seems comfortable with doing, based on their subjective sense of what people want to see, but maybe I’ll save that for another time.]

5.      Move US-based content review to Texas, rather than in California, where bias has been an issue. [The next day there was a surprise announcement to PolitiFact that Facebook would no longer be using them; that means huge layoffs for them. I’m not particularly sad for them.]

6.      Work with President Trump to push back on pressure to censor in other countries. While the US is the most pro-free-speech nation, with the Biden administration pushing for more censorship, other countries have been emboldened. There’s hope for support from Trump.

I guess things will be phased in. As of today, the community standards still say you can’t say anything against any kind of jab, because they want to uphold their certain beliefs (which, as I said, Facebook never actually censored me for; only Blogger, a Google platform, did that). I don't know about other topics.

I did a little research, to see if censoring linked content was a thing. Linked content is a problem. Facebook, and for that matter pretty much any platform, wants users to stay on the platform. But their practice has been to demote the content, with an algorithm, so it gets seen by fewer people. Not surprising, actually. Facebook has taken that further by sometimes adding a warning, such as, “Are you sure you want to follow this link?” as though wherever you’re going might be a threat to your computer safety. (It tends to work; many people see that and think, “I don’t want to risk it.”) But I didn’t find anything to say that they actually removed your content for having an external link in it.

Putting the link in the comments is indeed a way to “hide” the external link. And I think that will have to be what I do in the future. However, the drawback is that phone users have a harder time accessing the comments. So it’s a tradeoff: use a link and get fewer views (or in my case, get the post removed entirely), or put the link in comments and make it harder for people to view it.

If I’m wrong and my “violation” wasn’t the external link, but was content related, I don’t know how to solve that. Do they really find a discussion of the enumerated powers of the Constitution a risk to public safety? It may be that fact checkers actually do believe that.

In case you read here regularly, in late October I wrote a piece about the death throes of the "propaganda beast." I got censored after that, on two platforms that had not censored me before. So was I wrong? I don't think so. I think this is just part of the thrashing out of a cornered, dying beast.

There’s a fact checker (not used by Facebook) that I actually refer to frequently, called JustFacts. They back up what they say with data and, well, just facts. (As a result, they do appear to lean conservative.) Yesterday’s (January 9th) email included a response to the Mark Zuckerberg news, with links to 21 fact checker fails. I’ll include that portion of their email below, along with the links:

Facebook’s “Fact Checkers”

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg has announced that Facebook is “going to get rid of fact checkers” because they have “been too politically biased and have destroyed more trust than they created.”

 

For years, Just Facts has been documenting that Facebook-approved fact checkers like PolitiFact have incessantly spread falsehoods that support left-wing agendas. Here’s 21 glaring examples and the actual facts that refute them:

 

1) Covid-19 death rate

2) Market value of Mar-a-Lago

3) Biden’s role in the murder of Laken Riley

4) Income taxes paid by illegal immigrants

5) Late-term abortions

6) mRNA Covid vaccines

7) Violent crime trends

8) Effects of the federal “assault weapons” ban

9) Democrat Party’s role in the Ku Klux Klan

10) Impact of Obamacare on Medicare

11) Tax rates paid by the wealthy

12) Child hunger rates

13) Obama’s withdrawal from Iraq

14) Arming teachers

15) Pace of illegal immigration

16) Crime rates of illegal immigrants

17) Twitter misinformation

18) Antifa’s role in the Capitol Hill riot

19) Illegal voting by non-citizens

20) Live birth abortions

21) The “bipartisan” border security bill

 

 

 

Wrapping Up the Year

2024 has been quite a year.

It has become something of a tradition to end the year with an explanation of the Spherical Model, an alternative to the right/left model of ideas. The Spherical Model is three dimensional, with freedom in the northern hemisphere and tyranny in the southern hemisphere, with east and west divided into levels of interest, from very local, to state or region, to nation, and on up to world. You can find explanations at these links:

·        The basics (medium version) 

·        The website (long version) 

·        The video (short version) 

The Political, Economic, and Social Spheres of the Spherical Model

For the rest of this post, we’ll whoosh through some of what happened in this very strange year, within the political, economic, and social spheres—and the interrelationships among those spheres.

 

Early in 2024

Last winter we were looking at a lot of censorship, and things that were just wrong. Prisoners were still being held because of J6, even nonviolent “offenders.” The first three posts in January point out some of these injustices:

·        Predicting the Future: More Bad or Good at Last, January 5, 2024 

·        What We Know Now, Three Years Later, January 12, 2024 

·        Censor, Indict, Execute, January 18, 2024 

Then there’s concern over the border. Texas Governor Abbott wrote a letter calling out the Biden administration for dereliction of duty in failing to secure the southern border, and declaring Texas’s right to self-defense. The Biden administration went about thwarting Texas’s efforts, which included cutting razor wire fencing. 

 

Primaries and Conventions

The intensity of an election year got well underway in February, with the Primary Elections here being held the first Tuesday of March. I had to campaign to maintain my precinct chair position; I’d never had a challenger before:

·        Primaries and Conventions in Texas, February 9, 2024 

·        Primary Ballot Picks, February 17, 2024 

·        Lowest Level Primary Election Campaign Debrief, March 8, 2024  

Right after the Primary Election, the convention season started, first with precinct conventions, then district (or county) conventions, and state and national levels. After three convention cycles of editing the state platform, I passed that duty along this year, and only helped a bit before and after the convention. So I was just a regular delegate at the state convention. I walk through one idea, school choice, through our district convention. (I spoke, but not very well, on this issue in the state platform education subcommittee in May.)

 

Nature: Eclipse, Derecho, and Hurricane Beryl

We had some signs and wonders this year. In April was the total eclipse, which we got to experience in Waco, in the path of totality.

The derecho went west to east, and Hurrican Beryl
went south to north, both right over us.

In May, a derecho (tornadic, straight-wind storm that traveled hundreds of miles) passed right over us. And in July, Hurricane Beryl also passed right over us; X marked the spot right over our house. But, except for being without power for 6 days in May, we were essentially unaffected, while roofs, trees, and fences were down all around us. No AC, no freezer/refrigerator can be life threatening in Texas temperatures; we had a small generator for the appliances, and I slept with an ice pack for the heat—and then left town after 5 days, for the state convention.

 

Presidential Election Season

It was a very strange presidential election season. Biden chose to run again, even though four years ago signs of dementia were already present. (Naomi Wolf wrote about this in her book, Facing the Beast, in which she talks about her ostracism for doing her job as a journalist and noticing Biden’s decline, which I wrote about in April.) In late June, Biden debated Donald Trump, and performed disastrously badly. The debate was before either national convention nomination, and was late in the evening, making it possible to speculate he was set up to fail in time to allow a substitute. Despite concessions to make things easier for Biden, he was obviously cognitively impaired.

The iconic moment of Donald Trump, after being shot in the ear,
before being ushered offstage, photo credit to Evan Vucci/AP

Two weeks later, an assassination attempt grazed President Trump’s ear, but he was miraculously spared. (A second assassination attempt was thwarted on September 15.) And a week later, July 21, despite protestations up through just the night before, Biden stepped away from the race (but not the presidency, supposedly) and endorsed Kamala Harris. She had never been anyone’s choice. But the Dems made a go of it, and tried to make their convention exciting. There was a debate, in which she did badly, but maybe not as badly as expected, because expectations were so low. Meanwhile, Trump did long-form podcasts all over the place, allowing many new demographics to see him without the filter of the lying media.

Trump won, handily, in November, allowing so many of us tyrannized ones a sigh of relief, and he immediately began announcing his plans. The world is responding as though he is already the president. Biden, when not vacationing, continues to mess around in the background, but ineffectually. He has tried yet again, illegally, to forgive school debt. He has pardoned his son Hunter, and a long list of violent felons, and commuted the sentences of all but three federal death-row inmates. And we can reasonably speculate that he is trying to start WWIII before he leaves office.

 

Prophecy and the Beasts of Revelation 13

The sea beast and the land beast of Revelation 13.
This image is part of a larger illustration comparing
the beasts in Daniel and Revelation, found here.

There have been some events we might tie to prophecy—or, if not, then simply gain understanding through metaphor—from the book of Revelation and some other Bible prophecies. This list starts with one in March 2023, and then there are these:

·        The Propaganda Beast, August 10, 2024 

·        Concerning News, September 28, 2024 

·        The Propaganda Beast Is in a Doom Loop, October 31, 2024 

One hopeful point from this last days speculation is that we might be seeing better times, at least here in the near future. There are evidences for such hopefulness—besides the Trump win, and DOGE, and some other great cabinet picks. In Argentina and El Salvador, for example, things have gotten better suddenly.  And maybe that gives us courage to try those drastic but needed changes here.

 

Education

I’ve written a few times this year on education, including on our local school board, which is working hard and doing well under some trying circumstances:

·        The Short Answer Is Fear, March 28, 2024 (which I mentioned above) 

·        How’s That New School Board Doing? May 11, 2024 

·        The Costs of Standing Strong, June 21, 2024 

·        Real Education Choice, August 1, 2024 

 

SCOTUS

Supreme Court illustration from Epoch Times

I wrote only once (but it was long) on the Supreme Court’s session, in early July. It wasn’t a bad year overall. That’s probably why the Biden administration threatened to pack the court—adding justices to get up to 13, for “balance.” It does not appear they have the will or ability to make good on such a threat. There was a lot about lawfare this year, but I won't list them today.

 

Understanding the Constitution and Related Philosophy

There were a few posts related to philosophy, or understanding the Constitution:

·        What Does Populism Mean? (This includes some explanation about the Spherical Model), August 30, 2024 

·        Preserving the Constitution Includes Knowing What’s In It, September 12, 2024 

·        The False Prophet of the Great and Abominable Church, October 11, 2024 

·        Get Used to Living in Zion, November 7, 2024 

 

I Got Censored

I wrote earlier this month (December 7) about the House Subcommittee Report on that illness that was going around in 2020 and beyond. I got censored. Literally, this blogging platform removed the post. It seemed safe to talk about what a House subcommittee put into an official document. But that was deemed “Misleading Content.” Oddly, I have written on this topic literally dozens of times (55 previous times, by my count), and only now, when it is clear that I was telling the truth and the media and medical experts were the ones putting out “misleading content”—only now am I censored. I reread what I wrote. I don’t see where I was either misleading or untruthful—or even careless. I cannot, therefore, “review” the content and make it align with their policy, since their policy seems to me to be both arbitrary and averse to the truth.

I have not widely advertised this blog. It gets read, but I would assume mainly by friends and their friends (and some random people from around the globe who happen upon it). Obscurity has, I thought, kept me away from censoring eyes. I am not told why this post caught their attention—and just as we are going into a new Trump era, where we have hope that censorship will be done away. I was simply told by the Blogger Team that “it was flagged for us to review,” and they have “determined that it violates our guidelines,” so they deleted it.

I do not want to lose the 1400+ posts I’ve written on this platform. With that as a priority, I will be looking for alternatives in the coming year.

 

Looking Forward

One of my current prayers is that things will be made right soon. It looks possible now, that this prayer may be granted, or at least begin to be granted, in the coming year. I expect to continue chronicling things as they unfold. The writing helps me understand what’s happening more clearly, and I hope it helps readers as well.

SCOTUS Finale

It’s that time of year, when we take a look at the just-ended Supreme Court session. I don’t really know if this session has been busier than usual. It may not be more momentous than the Dobbs ruling in 2022. But there does seem to be too much to handle. I’ll take a non-lawyer’s look at just a few. And I’ll share some of the “stack of stuff” I read or listened to.

We can’t—and shouldn’t—expect Court rulings to solve all our government issues. But it’s good when justice prevails. Although this year it’s a mixed bag, I think the country is in better shape after the 2023-2024 session than it was before.

Supreme Court building, image from Epoch Times

 

Presidential Immunity

Trump v. United States (23-939)   

This case seems to have generated the most talk this week. I agree it’s a big deal, and in general I think it’s a good ruling. This will affect possibly all of the cases against President Trump, including some of the concluded ones. For the 34 felony “convictions” on a dispute over how to classify a blackmail payment (the Stormy Daniels “hush money” case), sentencing has been postponed until September, giving the judge time to come up with a way to claim this was somehow a private action. And there is the weakness—instead of delineating more clearly a difference.

The case was never about “absolute immunity,” which could mean a president could, you know, target his political opponent, maybe with lawfare, raids on his home, or, God forbid, assassination. The president never had immunity from those things—or anything else for which he could be impeached. That is clear now.

The case is worth reading, for the details. Especially read Justice Thomas’s concurrence. He takes the extra step of pointing out that, if there is ever to be a case against a former president, at the very least it ought to be prosecuted by someone granted authority to do so. We can hope Judge Cannon, who is set to rule on whether Jack Smith can prosecute related to the Mar-a-Lago raid of documents will take note.

Here are some of the commentaries:

·       “Judicial Watch Statement on Supreme Court’s Immunity Ruling” 

Today’s commonsense Supreme Court immunity ruling is a victory for former President Trump, the U.S. Constitution, and the rule of law. The Biden administration’s political decision to try to put Trump in jail for simply being president was unsurprisingly rejected by the Supreme Court.

Make no mistake, the Supreme Court is imposing a virtually insurmountable burden on Jack Smith in his vicious pursuit of Trump over the election and document disputes. The unprecedented charges against Trump were frivolous to begin with and, after today’s decision, should be shut down completely by the Justice Department.—Tom Fitton

·       “Trump revels in political wins while Biden campaign reels from debate” Jill Colvin, Associated Press, July 3, 2024 

Trump’s run began last week during the first debate, when Biden delivered a performance so dismal that he has spent the days since fending off calls from alarmed Democrats to step aside to save the party from losses up and down the ballot.

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that former presidents have broad immunity from prosecution, limiting the indictment against Trump for his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss to Biden. It’s all but certain he won’t face trial before Election Day.

And on Tuesday, the judge in Trump’s New York criminal hush money trial postponed his sentencing to weigh the impact of the Supreme Court decision.

·       “Justices rule Trump has some immunity from prosecution” Amy Howe, SCOTUSblog, July 1, 2024    

·        “SCOTUS Didn’t Just Upend Jack Smith’s Plans for Pre-Election Trump Trial, They May Have Ended His Entire Prosecution”  Katelynn Richarson, The Daily Caller 7-3-2024       

·       “Judge delays Trump’s hush money sentencing until at least September after high court immunity ruling” Jake Offenhartz and Jennifer, Associated Press, July 2, 2024      

This next is a response to the above piece, by Ashe in America, Badlands Media Brief, Substack, which comes by email, July 3, 2024. I’ve highlighted a couple of points:

Our Take: The process is the punishment. It’s become a common saying in our current moment, explicitly calling out the weaponization of power against political opposition — by people continuously screeching about fascism.

Monday’s immunity decision was explosive, and it’s notably led to the fascists showing their true colors. Calls for Biden to unilaterally expand the Supreme Court are ubiquitous, as are demands that he channel his worst impulses and finish 45 by whatever means necessary.

MAGA has been so dehumanized in our society, that such overtly un-American demands are met with applause rather than condemnation.

It’s clear that, for the uniparty, the only way to fight Trump and MAGA’s theoretical future fascism is with actual fascism right now. Without a hint of irony. Yet, despite the hysteria, and for the first time I can remember, it seems the system is working.

The Executive, the Legislative, and the Judiciary are all in focus at their intersections, checking and balancing the execution of power against the Constitution’s guardrails.

Better, and more importantly, this is all being viewed prominently in the context of the 2024 election—the will of the People.

This is how it’s supposed to work.

The boomerangs are coming around now, and the Constitutionally prescribed processes for restoring the public will absolutely be the punishment for the enemies of liberty.

Think I’m exaggerating? Judge Merchan just vacated [postponed until September, not vacated] President Trump’s sentencing.

Never stop fighting.

We’re winning. — Ashe in America

 

·       Another response from Ashe in America, Badlands Media Brief, Substack, July 2, 2024  (response to an Axios piece), in this one about Sotomayor dissent; again I’ve highlighted a main point:

From Sotomayor, if the President “uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.”

Take a Xanax, Sonia.

Notably, the court affirmed that there is no immunity for unofficial acts. So, for example, crimes committed while running the country illegally behind the mask of a demented, geriatric puppet would not result in prosecutorial immunity for a former president.

Robert Gouveia breaks down the Immunity decision,
screenshot from here

 

·       “How the Supreme Court Decision on Presidential Immunity Could Impact Trump Cases” Catherine Yang, Epoch Times, July 1, 2024 

·       “Trump throws a Clarence Thomas-sized wrench into Mar-a-Lago case after Supreme Court immunity ruling” Alex Woodward, The Independent, July 5, 2024 

·       “Jack Smith in DANGER after SCOTUS Immunity Decision” Robert Gouveia law vlog, July 3, 2024  

·       “Trump Sentencing DELAYED after IMMUNITY Threatens Case" Robert Gouveia law vlog, July 3, 2024 

 

J6 Defendants Accused of Document Interference, Cases Dismissed

Fischer v. United States (23-5572)   

This one relates to the use, in hundreds of J6 cases, a law invented/legislated during the Enron era to make it a crime to ruin documentary evidence, which would prevent an investigation or prosecution—a government procedure. It was stretched beyond the point of elasticity to apply to protesters at the capitol, claiming they were disrupting a government procedure. It has never been used in this way, or for anything that isn’t destroying or hiding documents. And now the Court has made it clear that it cannot be so used.

Most J6 prisoners/defendants have multiple charges, so this ruling only sets them free if this is their only charge. Still, it is a step in the right direction in these cases, and it exposes the tenuous grounds used to prosecute peaceful protesters, which most of the defendants were.

·       “SCOTUS DISMISSES Key J6 Charge in 6-3 Decision” Robert Gouveia law vlog, June 29, 2024. 

 

Chevron Deference Removed

Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (22-451)  

This one may turn out to be the most consequential ruling of the SCOTUS 2023-2024 session. It has been looming on the horizon since the appointment of Justice Gorsuch. It severely curtails (but doesn’t yet fully eliminate) the power of the administrative state. Here are a few words from Gorsuch’s concurrence:

“Today, the Court places a tombstone on Chevron no one can miss. In doing so, the Court returns judges to interpretive rules that have guided federal courts since the Nation’s Founding.”—Justice Neil Gorsuch

 

Tom Woods’ daily newsletter, Monday, July 1, 2024, quotes Spike Cohen, giving a good overview of the case and background:

A family fishing company, Loper Bright Enterprises, was being driven out of business, because they couldn't afford the $700 per day they were being charged by the National Marine Fisheries Service to monitor their company.

The thing is, federal law doesn't authorize NMFS to charge businesses for this. They just decided to start doing it in 2013.

Why did they think they could away with just charging people without any legal authorization?

Because in 1984, in the Chevron decision, the Supreme Court decided that regulatory agencies were the "experts" in their field, and the courts should just defer to their "interpretation" of the law.

So for the past 40 years, federal agencies have been able to "interpret" laws to mean whatever they want, and the courts had to just go with it.

It was called Chevron Deference, and it put bureaucrats in charge of the country.

It's how the OHSA was able to decide that everyone who worked for a large company had to get the jab, or be fired.

No law gave them that authority, they just made it up.

It's how the ATF was able to decide a piece of plastic was a "machine gun."

It's how the NCRS was able to decide that a small puddle was a “protected wetlands."

It's how out-of-control agencies have been able to create rules out of thin air, and force you to comply, and the courts had to simply defer to them, because they were the "experts."

Imagine if your local police could just arrest you, for any reason, and no judge or jury was allowed to determine if you'd actually committed a crime or not. Just off to jail you go.

That's what Chevron Deference was.

It was not only blatantly unconstitutional; it caused immeasurable harm to everyone.

Tom Woods adds this bonus info:

Harvard's Laurence Tribe feels sorry not for Americans who have been endlessly harassed by these semi-lawless agencies, but for his legal buddies who were trained to operate in this environment: "The ones I feel sorry for are my administrative law colleagues who built their courses and careers around the intricacies of Chevron deference."

That this kind of people will have to find something else to do is a wonderful bonus, not something to deplore!

So I said to Tribe on Twitter: "I already support the decision; you don't have to keep selling it to me!"

Woods ends with this happy outlook:

Whenever something like this happens, when a wicked but seemingly irreversible feature of American life is suddenly overturned, it should lift our spirits: things we assume are forever may not be so forever after all.

 

·       “Supreme Court strikes down Chevron, curtailing power of federal agencies” Amy Howe, SCOTUSblog, June 28, 2024. 

·       “Supreme Court overturns Chevron decision, curtailing federal agencies' power in major shift” Melissa Quinn, CBS News, June 28, 2024. 

·        Burning Bright on Badlands Media Brief, Substack, responds to the above CBS piece on this ruling, noting that it ends a really bad week for the bad guys. They had that terrible debate on Thursday. That same day they learned, from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) v. Jarkesy decision, that defendants accused of fraud by the SEC have a right to a jury trial—gasp! Just as guaranteed in the Constitution! How can that be? And then the week ends with the Chevron Deference ruling. Here’s the CBS News comment from the piece by Melissa Quinn, followed by Burning Bright’s response:

"The Supreme Court on Friday overturned a landmark 40-year-old decision that gave federal agencies broad regulatory power, upending their authority to issue regulations unless Congress has spoken clearly."

Essentially, while the Collective Mind was sleeping, we were absolutely kicking a— on the Actual layers of the Info War, with the administrative state getting neutered to close out the week.—Burning Bright

Supreme Court illustration from Epoch Times

 

Censorship Allowed

Murthy v. Missouri 

This is a ruling we feel bad about, and may seriously regret down the road. It is a bit of a kicking-the can-down-the-road type of ruling. It concerns censorship by tech companies—which are getting the benefits of being common carriers, but are additionally treated as private companies that can decide what speech can show up on their platforms. There is some sympathy for such platforms, which feel like they are held accountable (but are not actually) for hate speech or bullying, or libel—in other words speech that could be handled through other legal means between the speaker and the victim. These tech companies broadly stretched that sympathy into full-on censorship. They continue to censor—sometimes without the speaker knowing they’re being censored, and almost always without knowing why. This was most apparent during COVID; you still see their stupid messages show up beneath posts that even tangentially oppose the elites' narrative. There’s a recent ad for a Hillsdale College online course about the Great Reset, in which they detail public statements and information about the WEF; Facebook deems it necessary to warn us that Hillsdale is lying to us about a secret conspiracy theory. Ridiculous!

The case is about government censorship, but it fails to recognize the pressure on (or tacit agreement with) private companies to carry out the censorship for them.

Tech companies used censorship to great effect during the 2020 election. During litigation they have been slightly less hesitant to outright censor. This ruling gives them carte blanche to knock out whatever speech they don’t like during this year’s election. 

·      “No Remedy for Censorship: The Perils of Murthy” Philip Hamburger, Real Clear Politics, July 2, 2024. 

Murthy is probably the worst speech decision in American history. In the face of the most sweeping censorship in American history, the decision fails to recognize either the realities of the censorship or the constitutional barriers to it. In practical terms, the decision invites continuing federal censorship on social media platforms. It thereby nearly guarantees that yet another election cycle will be compromised by government censorship and condemns a hitherto free society to the specter of mental servitude. 

·       “Supreme Court Punts on Florida and Texas Social Media Laws, Sends Cases Back to Lower Courts” Matthew Vadum, Epoch Times, July 1, 2024.  

·       “Rigged AGAIN? Biden's Censorship ALLOWED in 2024 after SCOTUS Ruling” Robert Gouveia law vlog, June 27, 2024.  

·       “Missouri v. Biden - SCOTUS Plays Pontius Pilate: NO STANDING on 1st Amendment Violations?” Viva Frei law vlog, June 26, 2024. 

 

Viva Frei (left) and Robert Barnes walk through multiple cases and other news,
screenshot from here. Note: there's a disinformation warning attached by YouTube,
which will continue to be allowed because of the failure in the Missouri ruling.

Extras

Here are a few extras that either cover multiple cases, or cases beyond what I’ve covered here: 

·       “Ep. 217: Biden Debate Debacle; SCOTUS Jan. 6;SCOTUS Chevron; Trump AND MORE!” Viva Frei & Robert Barnes, June 30, 2024.  

·       “Key Takeaways from Supreme Court Rulings That Curb Executive Power” Sam Dorman, Epoch Times, June 28, 2024.  

·       “Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to Power of Federal Agency to Set Workplace Rules” Tom Ozimek, Epoch Times, July 3, 2024.