A baseline Understanding mostly Missing Behind the Twitter Dicussion

A long read but broken down very well. Once you read it, everything makes sense. We in the states have work to do and the Supreme Court case regarding State Elections takes on special significance.

"I am ONE Hour into listening to the Three-Hour broadcast that Elon Musk joined tonight {YouTube Here}, and the amount of cognitive dissonance and circular discussion is off the proverbial charts. Elon Musk joins the “Twitter Stages” conversation at 01:03:00 of the VIDEO HERE. Musk noted that in addition to Matt Taibbi he has given the Twitter files to Bari Weiss. However, the debate over what DC bureaucrats did -and are doing- from within the Biden administration, to censor speech, take down social media content and stop information adverse to their political interests, is a futile conversation without the full understanding of the current U.S. surveillance state.

Some of the stage participants on the call with Mr. Musk have self-identified as targeted by the intelligence community, some are under active and ongoing investigation, yet they do not seem to have an understanding of what this U.S. social media surveillance system is.

We cannot fight our way through the issues until we first realize what lies at the root of the problem."

Appalling.

Another hole in the Twitter discussion is the almost-unmentioned fact of MSM stonewalling of the HB laptop starting before the ’20 election and continuing even now, extending to the Twitter 3.0 (Twitter 1.0 was when got its reputation, 2.0 was when it started its shadow banning, etc. - and 3.0 is Musk’s version, still in work).

But there is also the issue of C-Span. Like Twitter, in principle, a great thing - but there is a major caveat. Article I Section 6 of the Constitution includes the following:

They (congressmen and senators) shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

That is fine, or was - until C-Span. Now we have been treated by C-Span to the speech of the likes of Adam Schiff. All very well for Schiff to lie like a rug within the halls of congress - but in virtual terms, his lies were in our living rooms.

In 1964 the Warren Court handed down a unanimous decision, with enthusiastic concurrences. But like the Morrison v. Olsen (8-1) decision, Antonin Scalia made a compelling argument against that 1964 decision. The Morrison decision was handed down during Scalia’s first year on the bench, and he was the sole dissenter. And within half a decade it was clear to all that 8 members of SCOTUS had been wrong and Scalia alone had been right. And the only reason New York Times Co. v. Sullivan was unanimous was that Scalia obviously wasn’t on the bench in 1964.

Sullivan held that the First Amendment made it harder for politicians and other government officials (including judges) to sue for libel. To understand Scalia’s objection, compare his position on 1A to his Heller decision on 2A. In order to write Heller, Scalia did a deep dive into founding-era jurisprudence. He didn’t simply quote the Second Amendment but rather he referred to what the law had already been when 2A was being proposed and ratified.

The point is shockingly obvious when you think about it - none of the first eight amendments to the Constitution were intended to change a thing. The Federalists who composed and got them ratified did so only because the Antifederalists had extracted a commitment from them that they would promptly add a bill of rights to the Constitution by amendment. Otherwise ratification of their proposed constitution would have failed.

The Bill of Rights wasn’t intended to break new ground, it was strictly designed to suppress controversy over the Constitution as a whole. You don’t suppress controversy by trying to make ground-breaking changes to anything - and the BoR was crafted to not change a thing. Including the right of a politician to sue for libel, all fancy rhetoric by the Warren Court to the contrary notwithstanding. Sullivan was novel when handed down, and could only have been agreed to by people who had absolutely no fear that Big Journalism would gore their ox.

This means that the MSM should be sued into oblivion. And that C-Span shouldn’t broadcast live from within the halls of Congress - only on delay, without objection from any members who might consider Adam Schiff’s antics which he studiously avoided committing outside of the walls of Congress, for example, libelous.

The FCC should be sued, and forced to consent to require its licensees to limit their tendentiousness.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.