After reading the most recent assault on one of our two most significant constitutional guarantees, you’re certain to agree that” Congress shall make no law” is where the First Amendment was founded. In an ideal world, the Founders would have placed the period after “law.”
Advertisement
The late, great George Carlin needs to remind people that “political accuracy is America’s most recent form of hatred, and it is particularly harmful because it comes disguised as tolerance,” so what we need at this moment is.
” It presents itself as justice, but attempts to limit and control people’s vocabulary with strict standards and rigorous laws”, Carlin continued. ” I’m not certain that’s the way to combat bias”.
But according to the National Left in common, and Columbia Regulation professor Tim Wu in particular, it’s the best way to pay social conflict against your home foes.
Wu blasted” The First Amendment is spinning out of control” in a New York Times op-ed on Tuesday, and since my managing editor wo n’t let me respond to Wu with any of Carlin’s seven words you ca n’t say on television, even though all seven would be appropriate and, I promise you, artfully arranged, I’ll have to rely on reasoned analysis.
( I should have ordered that second martini at lunch. )
Sorry about the long snippet, but it’s important.  ,
Monday’s Supreme Court , decision , in the two NetChoice circumstances greatly adds to the issue. The cases involve two Texas-based state laws that restrict social media platforms ‘ capability to lower or eliminate content from platforms. In response to social conservatives ‘ alleged repression, both laws were passed. The Supreme Court went to lower courts to review both cases for more factual analysis, but the court went as far as to say that the First Amendment protects the millions of computational decisions made daily by social media platforms. It did so by mistakenly assuming that those computational choices are comparable to the emotive choices made by human newspaper reporters.
Even if one has issues about the knowledge and dubious legality of the laws in Florida and Texas ( as I do ), the depth of the judge’s reasoning may serve as a wake-up call. The First Amendment is spiraling out of control, and the court needs to be aware of this.
Advertisement
But that’s not what these scenarios were on. They involved social media platforms determining what website sources of perfectly legitimate viewpoints could be seen. They were about the suppression of scientific knowledge.
Recommended:  , Was This President Trump’s Ballsiest Play Actually?
The work of the First Amendment is to guard the individual’s right to say what he wants, to claim for his reason or against your cause in any public square — true or, these times, online. The First’s work is n’t to provide some kind of “balance” between an aggrieved party — of Wu’s option, you can be certain — and so- called” business interests”.
” The First Amendment” in the 18th century, Wu claimed, “was a tool that helped the underdog”. And yet he would stifle dissenting online voices, a coercion between Big Government and Big Tech that led to the election of 2020’s election.
Let me wrap up with a few thoughts that lack Carlin’s bite but that he’d undoubtedly agree with because the disingenuousness on display requires Carlin’s bitter wit to properly eviscerate.  ,
The First Amendment’s job is to forbid Congress from making any law abridging, among other rights, our freedom of speech. And it’s up to the courts to overthrow any attempt to do so, whether it be by Congress or by executive order.
Advertisement
Tomorrow is America’s 248th birthday. The First Amendment, which became effective 233 years ago this December, is almost as old as it was, and it looks just as good today as it did in 1791 thanks to the wisdom of the Supreme Court.
