US Government Repeatedly Violated First Amendment by Censoring Social Media, with Plaintiffs' Lawyer Jenin Younes; PLUS: Ukrainian War Proves a Boon for Arms Dealers; Zelensky Redefines "Pro-Russian" | SYSTEM UPDATE #146
Sep 12, 2023
auto_awesome
Plaintiffs' Lawyer Jenin Younes discusses the US government's violation of the First Amendment through social media censorship. The podcast explores government coercion, war profiteering in Ukraine, and the labeling of Pro-Russian. It delves into a significant First Amendment ruling revealing the government's systematic violation of free speech on social media platforms. The chapter also discusses instances of censorship on social media platforms and the violation of the First Amendment by the US government. The podcast concludes by discussing the ongoing conflict in Ukraine and the challenges faced by its citizens.
A federal appeals court ruled that the Biden administration violated the First Amendment by coercing big tech platforms to censor speech, highlighting the grave and invasive nature of this censorship campaign orchestrated by federal officials.
The ruling exposes the Democratic Party's support for internet censorship, as many Democratic politicians have defended and demanded more censorship from social media platforms, while conservatives advocate for the protection of free speech.
Ukrainian President Zelensky's declaration that anyone who is not with Ukraine is with Russia reinforces the tense political climate surrounding the war in Ukraine and highlights the pressure faced by Western leaders to continue supporting Ukraine financially and militarily.
Deep dives
Massive First Amendment Victory: Court Rules Government Violated Free Speech by Coercing Big Tech to Censor
A federal appeals court upheld a ruling stating that the Biden administration engaged in a massive violation of the First Amendment by coercing big tech platforms to censor speech. The court emphasized the grave and unusually invasive nature of this coordinated campaign of censorship orchestrated by federal officials. The ruling found that government agencies, including the White House, FBI, CDC, and Surgeon General, used threats and coercion to force social media platforms to censor speech. This violation of free speech postings affected millions of protected speech posts by American citizens.
Implications of the Ruling and the Democratic Party's Support for Internet Censorship
The court's ruling has significant implications as it reinforces the longstanding principle that the First Amendment not only bars the state from directly censoring speech, but also from coercing private actors to do so. This ruling exposes the Democratic Party's support for internet censorship, as many Democratic politicians have explicitly defended and even demanded more censorship from social media platforms. The New York Times' characterization of the ruling as a victory for conservatives reveals the partisan divide, with liberals favoring a censorship regime and conservatives advocating for the protection of free speech.
President Zelensky's Proclamation: You Are Either with Ukraine or with Russia
Ukrainian President Zelensky has proclaimed that anyone who is not with Ukraine is with Russia, leaving no room for middle ground. This declaration reinforces the tense political climate regarding the war in Ukraine and labels individuals who question or oppose US involvement in the conflict as 'pro-Russian.' President Zelensky's proclamation highlights the pressure faced by Western leaders, including the US, to continue supporting Ukraine financially and militarily, and the risk of losing Western support if significant progress is not made in the conflict.
First Amendment and Censorship
The podcast episode discusses the historical association of censorship with the religious right, but acknowledges that support for free speech transcends party lines. It delves into the recent trend of censoring individuals who question health authorities or raise concerns about pharmaceutical companies. The episode highlights a significant ruling by the court that deemed this kind of censorship unconstitutional, emphasizing the potential impact on future cases and the motivation for government officials to adhere to the ruling.
Examples of Censored Content
The podcast provides examples of content that was censored, including discussions questioning the effectiveness of lockdowns, the use of masks for older people, and the necessity of vaccines for those with natural immunity. It also mentions cases where individuals who suffered adverse reactions from vaccines were targeted to prevent their stories from dissuading others. The episode emphasizes the importance of free speech, even when it involves controversial or dissenting opinions.