The Free Speech Trifecta

The free speech trifecta, therefore, covers the three areas of greatest concern for the free speech community: censorship, blacklisting and weaponization. The resulting opinions could curtail or magnify such abuses. For example, the social media case (Murthy) seemed to trouble the justices as to where to draw a line on coercion. If the court simply declines to draw such a line and rules for the government, it will likely fuel new censorship efforts by federal agencies.

Advertisement

What is disconcerting about the views expressed by Justices Kagan, Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor in two of the cases is not that they are outliers. The problem is that liberal justices long acted as the bulwark for free speech on the court. They are now viewed as the weakest link, often dismissive or hostile to free speech arguments. ...

The government loves ambiguity when it comes to speech regulation. It now may have found new voices on the left side of the court to join in the ignoble effort of combating free speech. That renewed effort to introduce “a little practical wisdom” could mean a lot less freedom for Americans.

Ed Morrissey

Matt Taibbi is practically committing seppuku over the oral arguments in Murthy v Missouri, but my partner Cam Edwards had a much sunnier takeaway from NRA v Vullo. As long as the bad omens come entirely from the progressive wing of the court -- I don't think we can accurately call it the "liberal" wing any longer -- we may see good outcomes in all three of the cases that Professor Turley highlights. 

But that rests our hopes on John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. 'Nuf said. 

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Trending on HotAir Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement