A Federal judge has issued a preliminary injunction (meaning the matter must still go through the courts before anything becomes final) barring the Federal government from communicating with social-media companies with a view to influencing what those companies post or allow to be posted on their sites.
Some on the Left are objecting.
Some legal scholars have been skeptical that…courts could intervene without chilling legitimate government speech about controversial matters of public interest.
Andy Kessler’s op-ed in Sunday’s Wall Street Journal centers on New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v Bruen, Kessler’s putzing around with a variety of firearms at a Nevada firing range, and his assessment of the effect of Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of an individual’s right to keep and bear any of a variety of Arms on the national firearm debate.
The importance of that debate is summarized in Kessler’s statement about having an AR-15, but which he implied was about a much broader matter:
…I still don’t understand why you would want to own one.
Progressive-Democratic Party members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and its subcommittees—Congressmen Frank Pallone (D, NJ), Jan Schakowsky (D, IL), Doris Matsui (D, CA), and Kathy Castor (D, FL)—are unhappy with the new free speech position of Sundar Pichai’s Google-owned YouTube. They categorically reject YouTube‘s statement that
open debate on political ideas, “even those that are controversial or based on disproven assumptions, is core to a functioning democratic society—especially in the midst of election season.”
They’re perfectly fine, though, with Pichai’s YouTube censoring the speech of President Joe Biden’s (D) presidential primary campaign opponent, Robert F Kennedy, Jr, and leaving Biden an unanswered and unanswerable field for his own speech.
No Labels is looking hard at running their own President/Vice President ticket for the 2024 election. The Progressive-Democratic Party is in fury over the possibility, to the extent that its Arizona arm is going to court to try to stop No Labels from registering its candidates in that State.
It [the Arizona chapter of the Progressive-Democratic Party] filed a lawsuit in state court against No Labels alleging that the signatures we collected and the petition approved by Arizona’s secretary of state should be thrown out.
Party’s rationale—and they’re absolutely serious:
Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib (D, MI) has proposed a new law that would require firearm sellers to
have a compatible gun lock available for every firearm for sale [and it] shall be unlawful for any person to offer a firearm for sale unless the person offers for sale a secure gun storage or safety device that is compatible with the firearm [and a] penalty of not more than $1,000.
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact wants to put together a coalition of States whose Electoral College votes aggregate to 270—the minimum majority required to elect the President and Vice President—and which coalition then would allocate their Electoral College votes to the national popular vote winner, instead of to the popular vote winner of the particular State.
This is a naked attempt to defeat the purpose of the Electoral College as it is constituted in our Constitution.
This is what Art II, Section 1, says about the Electoral College:
Under a just-passed and signed law in Illinois, any Constitutional-based challenge to a State law can be filed only in two counties: Cook and Sangamon. These are the counties that house the failed “city” of Chicago and the State’s government town of Springfield. The rationalization is that inconsistent court decisions about important public issues have repeatedly caused confusion. We can’t have actual court discussions and disagreements in a variety of lower courts, with the differences resolved on appeal—which usually leads to clarity at least; although it takes judges who hew to the text of the statute and of the Constitution to provide legitimate clarity. Those cross-court differences also produce, usually, better discussions of the principles at hand for the appellate courts to consider.
Washington’s Progressive-Democrat Governor Jay Inslee has signed into law yet another pathway to illegal voting. This new election law
allows people to register online to vote in the state by providing the last four digits of a Social Security Number and an electronic signature.
Never mind that those “last four” are broadly publicly available. Never mind that electronic signatures far too often don’t even remotely resemble a person’s actual signature: it’s done by clicking a link labeled with words to the effect of “by clicking this link, you’re certifying you are who you say you are and electronically signing,” or by presenting a signature field wherein you squiggle something with your finger or with your mouse.
First, it was Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden’s Attorney General Merrick Garland agreeing with a National School Boards Association letter to him labeling American parents who object to school board decisions regarding sexualizing their children’s education as domestic terrorists and his subsequent ordering an FBI investigation into our parents. The NSBA has since retracted the letter, and Garland insists he meant no such thing, but where is the evidence that he’s called off the FBI’s investigation, or that the FBI has stopped?
Riley Gaines thinks the only way left for women to protect their sports and their sports programs, to go back to being able to compete on even ground, is to boycott competitions in which a trans athlete(s) is competing, and to be joined by their coaches in the boycott.
We have to have girls who, when the whistle blows, they don’t run, they don’t swim. They stand up on the block and they don’t go[.]
…
I think this will get worse before it gets better. How many girls have to be injured playing against a male, how many girls have to lose out on scholarships and trophies and titles? How many girls have to feel violated in the locker room?