The Supreme Court had multiple opportunities during the last term to end the censorship of conservatives by social media. It chose a different path. Now, Democrats are free to double down on the Biden-Harris administration’s massive censorship enterprise. There is every indication they intend to do so.  The bedrock of American democracy, the First Amendment, prohibits Congress from making laws “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” The prohibition also applies to executive actions and state governments. Until recently, there was bipartisan agreement on the centrality of free speech to American liberties. Today, nearly a third of Americans believe free speech rights go too far. When Donald Trump was elected president, Democrats in Congress threatened social media platforms with antitrust actions and repeal of the libel protections in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act if they failed to rein in conservative speech. When Joe Biden took office, the federal government institutionalized a censorship enterprise that coerced and collaborated with social media platforms to censor, suppress, and demonetize disfavored views. The New York Times acknowledges the Left has long sought to limit “unfettered speech.” Former President Barak Obama told a Stanford University conference that government controls must be imposed to stop so-called disinformation. Vice President Kamala Harris announced a White House task force to block disinformation involving women’s issues. Democrat vice presidential candidate Tim Walz told MSNBC, “There’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech.” In fact, both are generally protected by the First Amendment. The Democrat platform sees controlling disinformation as a priority. By contrast, in July, the Republicans adopted a platform that states: “We will ban the Federal Government from colluding with anyone to censor Lawful Speech, defund institutions engaged in censorship, and hold accountable all bureaucrats involved with illegal censoring. We will protect Free Speech online.” In Murthy v. Missouri, health care professionals, Missouri, and Louisiana sued to block the Biden-Harris censorship regime. During discovery, officials testified that they knowingly sought to end-run the prohibitions on government interference in free speech by working with and through third parties, including Stanford, nonprofit associations, and social media companies. After reviewing extensive discovery, U.S. District Court Judge Terry Doughty found that the Biden-Harris administration had engaged in “a broad pressure campaign designed to coerce social media companies into suppressing speakers, viewpoints, and content disfavored by the government” and issued an injunction to stop it. A unanimous panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the findings but tailored the injunction to eliminate ambiguities and exclude some agencies. Florida and Texas then passed laws to make it more difficult for social media platforms to ban political speech. The 11th Circuit struck down Florida’s law, finding that it impermissibly limited editorial discretion, while the 5th Circuit upheld Texas’ law, concluding that content moderation activities are not speech. Last term, the Supreme Court weighed in on both cases. In Murthy v. Missouri, a 6-3 court overruled the 5th Circuit, holding that the plaintiffs lacked standing because they failed to demonstrate that their speech was specifically censored by specified actions of identified government officials. The majority found that the platforms had independent incentives to censor content, “often” exercised their own judgment, and likely would have censored the same content without government coercion or encouragement. In Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, the court unanimously decided that the Florida and Texas appeals courts had inadequately analyzed the First Amendment. It sent the cases back for reconsideration, though warning the 5th Circuit that content moderation usually involves editorial decisions protected by the First Amendment. The court’s use of the Left’s preferred euphemism, “content moderation,” in these decisions, rather than “censor” or “suppress,” is troubling. And, while the court is properly wary of states intruding in the editorial choices made by social media platforms, it expressed no similar concern about the federal government. Murthy was inconsistent with NetChoice, precedent, and the evidentiary record. In Peterson v. City of Greenville (1963), the court held that when the government strongly involves itself in a private party’s conduct, it cannot claim the conduct occurred as a result of private choice, even if the private party would have acted independently. In Norwood v. Harrison (1973), Chief Justice Warren Burger explained that the government “may not induce, encourage, or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish.” In Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co. (1974) and Blum v. Yaretsky (1982), the court developed guidelines for when government becomes responsible for private actions by coercing or “significantly encouraging” those actions. In his concurring opinion in Biden v. Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia Univ. (2021), Justice Clarence Thomas summarized: “The government cannot accomplish through threats of adverse government action what the Constitution prohibits it from doing directly.” Since the court’s ruling in Murthy, the Biden-Harris administration has ramped up its censorship enterprise. A July report from the Justice Department recycles the same justification of malign foreign influence it used in defending Murthy to again authorize DOJ collaboration with social media platforms to suppress disfavored postings. Last week, referring to Elon Musk’s interview with Trump on X, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre channeled former press secretary Jen Psaki, asserting that social media companies have a “responsibility” to stop disinformation and misinformation. Though the court’s rulings leave an opportunity for future plaintiffs to more carefully link coercion to specific instances of censorship, unless Republicans win in November, government-encouraged censorship of conservatives will only get worse. This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire The post This Election Is a Referendum on Free Speech appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Nobody's Buying Cow Farts in These Parts

Infamous race-baiter and MSNBC weekend host Al Sharpton lashed out at Republicans and Congressman James Comer (R-KY) during Monday’s Morning Joe, because the latter expressed concern that Democratic vice presidential nominee Governor Tim Walz (MN) was elected by and promoted anti-capitalist special interests, including China. According to Sharpton, the GOP ideals Comer was promoting were somehow racist and “as outdated as bell bottom pants.” What triggered Sharpton’s outburst was this soundbite of Comer speaking on Fox Business Network: Minnesota is not your normal state where Tim Walz is governor. Who the –great people in Minnesota. But you also have, you know, a huge population of residents in Minnesota that have come from other countries and have various different ideologies that don't really respect capitalism. And we're concerned about that because we have the strongest economy in the world, but we cannot have more government. We cannot operate like China does where the government plays the major role in every business. The government has to have ownership in every business, and the government dictates every facet of our lives. That won't work in the United States. “And this is what Tim Walz appears to believe, and we know he's taken students to China and tried to teach them that China is doing things the right way,” Comer recalled.     Morning Joe fill-in co-host Katty Kay, who’s a staunch liberal from the U.K., scoffed, “It's ‘not a normal state.’ They have people from other countries, god forbid, who don't believe in capitalism.” Sharpton began by going off on Comer and Republicans with his usual evidence-free cries of racism and suggested the American ideas championed by Republicans were “outdated”: I think that what he is really showing is that the whole appeal that the Republican Party is trying to play on is an all-male, all-white kind of, you know, we must preserve what we consider to be American. Which is as outdated as bell bottom pants. He went on to ridiculously claim “Walz is considered a conservative Democrat, at best. I mean, and a bulldog Democrat at that.” Seemingly ignorant of the naturalization test, Sharpton mocked the idea of testing would be Americans on their way in. “And how do you -- Do they give you a test on capitalism coming in? Many home-born Americans have questions about capitalism, especially if you get to the extremes of it,” he proclaimed. “So, I think this is how they're trying to play to that base of, it's us against them. They're not one of us,” he said. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: MSNBC’s Morning Joe August 26, 2024 7:30:55 a.m. Eastern (…) REP. JAMES COMER (R-KY): Minnesota is not your normal state where Tim Walz is governor. Who the –great people in Minnesota. But you also have, you know, a huge population of residents in Minnesota that have come from other countries and have various different ideologies that don't really respect capitalism. And we're concerned about that because we have the strongest economy in the world, but we cannot have more government. We cannot operate like China does where the government plays the major role in every business. The government has to have ownership in every business, and the government dictates every facet of our lives. That won't work in the United States. And this is what Tim Walz appears to believe, and we know he's taken students to China and tried to teach them that China is doing things the right way. [Cuts back to live] KATTY KAY: Hmm. Okay. JONATHAN LEMIRE (mumbling): I don’t know. KAY: Rev. AL SHARPTON: I mean. KAY: It's ‘not a normal state.’ They have people from other countries, god forbid, who don't believe in capitalism. SHARPTON: And what does that mean? I think that what he is really showing is that the whole appeal that the Republican Party is trying to play on is an all-male, all-white kind of, you know, we must preserve what we consider to be American. Which is as outdated as bell bottom pants. I mean, you can't deal with a country -- first of all, many people in New York, many people in L.A., many people everywhere came from other countries. What does that really mean? KAY: Every state has people from other countries. SHARPTON: Right. So, what Comer is playing to is what Trump is really saying. This whole male, white dominance, and they're other than us. Walz is considered a conservative Democrat, at best. I mean, and a bulldog Democrat at that. So, to try to make him other than that. And how do you -- Do they give you a test on capitalism coming in? Many home-born Americans have questions about capitalism, especially if you get to the extremes of it. So, I think this is how they're trying to play to that base of, it's us against them. They're not one of us. (…)

Florida police arrested three people for an alleged scheme as part of which a woman was attacked with acid outside of her home in New Jersey. The Gloucester County Prosecutor’s Office said in a statement that 49-year-old William DiBernardino hired 38-year-old Betty Jo Lane and 39-year-old Jmarr McNeil to toss acid on the victim. 'The victim sustained chemical burns over 35 percent of her body.' Prosecutors said the victim was returning home after work in July when she was attacked in the driveway of her Monroe Township home. “As the victim opened her car door, she was approached by an unknown female who threw a cup and its liquid contents directly at the victim,” read the statement from the prosecutor's office. “The victim sustained chemical burns over 35 percent of her body and was airlifted to a burn center where she is still being treated." Investigators said they used a "highly caustic liquid" in the attack. Police were able to track what they believed was the rental vehicle used in the attack to Florida and to their suspects. Investigators believe DiBernardino paid the pair to drive from Jacksonville, Florida, to New Jersey. After an investigation, police arrested DiBernardino, who had been in a previous relationship with the victim. Florida police also arrested McNeil and Lane. Prosecutors filed a slew of charges against the trio, including first-degree conspiracy to commit murder, first-degree attempted murder, second-degree aggravated assault, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose in the third degree and stalking in the fourth degree. A news report published by WCAU-TV on YouTube showed the booking photos of each of the suspects. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Film director Quentin Tarantino launched into a rant saying that Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris does not need to cave to pressure about granting press interviews. Tarantino was being interviewed by Bill Maher on his podcast when he flew into the emotional tirade. 'I'm gonna vote for her f***ing anyway no matter what she says!'"I think it's just about winning the f***ing election, all right? And the easiest path to winning the election. Look, you can talk about maybe she should have had more guts about this or that or the other, but we're the f***in' president!" he opined. "Right," Maher responded. "And Trump's not the president, and we're the f***in' president, and now it's gonna be about this. But this is gonna be about f***ing winning! What most people don't give the Democrats enough credit for, all right, but we give the Republicans credit for it, sometimes it's just about f***in' winning, and it doesn't matter how we look!" he continued. "At this moment, it's about f***ing winning!" "It's about f***ing winning!" he re-emphasized. "It's a mad f***ing dash, and she is running; she's not stopping to stumble!" Maher had been trying to make the case that it was a mistake for Harris to avoid taking press interviews, but he appeared to be persuaded by Tarantino's exhortations. The Harris campaign has been lambasted for avoiding interviews while many on the left argue that there is no political advantage for Harris to do otherwise. "I'm gonna vote for her f***ing anyway no matter what she says in a stupid f***ing interview, so don't f*** s**t up!!" Tarantino continued."Exactly!" Maher replied. Tarantino is best known for his breakout movie "Pulp Fiction," but he's also celebrated for other films including "Reservoir Dogs" and "Kill Bill." In 2023, he made headlines when he admitted that he supports more gun control despite owning a gun for his own self-defense. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Very few people have seen Jerry Lewis' “The Day the Clown Cried." This hasn't kept the never-released 1972 film — in which Lewis directs himself as an alcoholic circus clown in Auschwitz who finds redemption entertaining children on their way to the gas chambers — from becoming an inside joke among cineastes and comedy nerds. The sheer, misguided hubris of such an undertaking fits perfectly with our image of late-period Lewis: the maudlin telethon host; the obnoxious, out-of-touch elder statesman; the egocentric self-mythologizer. And yet as critic Richard Brody points out, the Holocaust as we now know it was rarely discussed in the early 1970s. The term itself had yet to come into widespread use. Long before Claude Lanzmann or Steven Spielberg or Roberto Benigni (whose “Life Is Beautiful” won two Academy Awards with a similar premise), Lewis “went where other directors didn't dare to go, taking on the horrific core of modern history and confronting its horrors.” Lewis was always one to take big swings. In 1960 he launched his career as a director by producing, writing, directing, and starring in “The Bellboy,” a plotless tribute to comedies of the silent era that Paramount was nervous would be a flop. Audiences loved it. Lewis continued to push himself as a filmmaker, not only with his unforgettable performances and stunning set pieces, but also with his technical mastery. Insatiably curious, Lewis prided himself on knowing every member of his crew and understanding just what they did. This led to innovation: Lewis developed and was the first to use the now-ubiquitous video assist. Long before he became a legend, Lewis thought of himself as “the total filmmaker.” In his 1971 book of the same name, he is frank that his intense, all-in approach comes at a cost. It is often torture when you have complete personal control. … Eventually, you may beg not to have autonomy so that the morons can pass judgment. You can lie back and bleed, whimpering safely, "Look what they did to me." Whatever his artistic failures and personal foibles, it is to Lewis' credit that he never succumbed to this temptation.

It’s football season again. But whether we deserve it is another question entirely.Because if playing eight years in the NFL, earning $14 million as a backup quarterback, and then becoming an ESPN analyst lead you to throw your own daughter under the transgender short bus, we may need to rethink some of our priorities.What would you rather have on your tombstone: Loving Christian father or ESPN NFL analyst?I’m talking about Dan Orlovsky, eunuch extraordinaire.Orlovsky doesn’t need a job, and he doesn’t need an income. What the self-professing Christian really needs is a spiritual enema, because he’s totally full of crap.According to OutKick, Orlovsky earlier this month posted “protect our daughters” on X after an Olympic Games in which two men beat women in the boxing ring and stole their gold medals. He then deleted the post, saying “it did not represent ESPN.” This came right after Samantha Ponder, who has been ESPN’s lead pregame analyst since Chris Berman retired and a public critic of deranged men trying to play women’s sports, was laid off ahead of the start of the NFL season.It seems Orlovsky values being known as an obscure ESPN analyst a few times a week for five minutes more than defending the dignity of his own daughter. What would you rather have on your tombstone: Loving Christian father or ESPN NFL analyst?What Orlovsky did is despicable, but it’s also typical. It reflects the state of maleness in America. This is why apologists for Democrat vice presidential nominee Tim Walz are branding him as the candidate of choice for non-masculine dads who are in touch with their inner child. They know their target audience — a sea of Dan Orlovskys who have happily sacrificed themselves and their progeny to the darkness of the spirit of the age.Go watch your football, little boy, and stay out of our way while we burn down civilization and hunt down that rascally kicker Harrison Butker in between the free abortions on offer outside the Democratic National Convention.Heaven help us, because if those demons are more willing to openly sacrifice innocent children to gain power than you are to protect and defend your own, then we deserve everything that’s coming our way.I truly hope that in Dan Orlovsky’s personal life outside ESPN, the men he associates with are at least giving him one hell of an embarrassed side-eye. And what about his pastor? Will anyone confront his cowardice? I would hope that if I ever publicly betrayed my family and my faith at that level, someone who cared about me would slap the woke out of me instead of just asking for fantasy football tips.You simply aren’t allowed to want or need anything more than you want or need the Lord, least of all a job covering football at ESPN or your season tickets. I’m pretty sure Jesus said something awfully clear about what happens if you deny Him.By all means, put on your favorite jersey, order some buffalo wings, and get comfortable in the man cave to watch the big game during the coming months. But when your daughter needs you to be her hero, then you need to answer the call without excuse or exception. It’s either that or a millstone, and you won’t be any less dead for your failure just because the weight tied around your neck and dragging you to the bottom of the eternal abyss happens to come in your team’s favorite colors.

CONFIRMED: NASA Astronauts Will Remain Stuck in Space Until FEBRUARY 2025 (Thanks, Kamala!)

You'll Be (Totally Not) Shocked to Learn Poll That Shows Kamala Up by Seven Points Is FAKE NEWS

Trump Assassination Attempt: SWAT Counter-Sniper Questions 'Odd' Pattern of Evidence-Handling