Posted on 03/21/2024 4:12:38 AM PDT by MtnClimber
For good reason, much attention was devoted to the Supreme Court's oral arguments on Monday, over government pressure on social media companies to suppress speech that officialdom doesn't like. The same day, though, justices heard arguments in another important case involving free speech principles violated when New York officials leaned on financial institutions to deny services to the National Rifle Association. Importantly, both cases involved "jawboning," the use by government of threats to improperly coerce compliance.
When Communication Becomes Coercion
As Reason's Jacob Sullum ably summarizes, arguments in Murthy v. Missouri involve "dueling interpretations of the Biden administration's interactions with social media platforms regarding content it viewed as dangerous to public health, democracy, or national security," with plaintiffs arguing that "those private contacts, combined with public statements condemning the platforms' failure to suppress 'misinformation,' amounted to government-directed censorship."
At stake is the point at which efforts to persuade private companies they ought not offer platforms to certain speakers morph into "nice business you got there; it'd be a shame if something happened to it." Did officials cross the line when they badgered tech firms to muzzle voices skeptical of lockdowns, COVID vaccinations, and election integrity? If you've followed the Twitter and Facebook Files, you know there's significant evidence they did, though it remains to be seen if Supreme Court justices agree.
Remarkably, the evidence of improper strong-arming appears even clearer in National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo. In that case, the NRA, joined by the ACLU, alleges that Maria Vullo, former Superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services, abused the power of her position to punish the gun rights organization for its political positions.
"Vullo met with executives at Lloyd's of London to discuss her views on gun control and to tell them she believed the company's underwriting of NRA-endorsed insurance policies raised regulatory issues," according to Abby Smith of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). "She told them Lloyd's could 'avoid liability'—but only if the company told its syndicates to stop underwriting their insurance policies, and joined her agency's 'campaign against gun groups.'"
There was nothing subtle about the arm-twisting. In 2018 I wrote about guidance letters New York regulators sent to banks and insurance companies, at the behest of then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo, cautioning "regulated institutions to review any relationships they have with the NRA or similar gun promotion organizations, and to take prompt actions to managing these risks and promote public health and safety." Given that insurance companies and banks are tightly regulated and operate largely at the pleasure of state officials, this would logically be interpreted as a threat. Subsequently, banks and insurance companies alike cut ties with the NRA.
"New York, if these facts are true, tried to circumvent the First Amendment's ban on censorship by relying on this informal pressure campaign," noted FIRE's Smith. "But informal censorship violates the First Amendment, too."
Extra-Legal Threats Violate Individual Rights Protections, Say the Courts
Such informal censorship is known as "jawboning" since, as the Cato Institute's Will Duffield wrote in 2022, it involves "bullying, threatening, and cajoling" in the place of formal legal action.
"Jawboning occurs when a government official threatens to use his or her power—be it the power to prosecute, regulate, or legislate—to compel someone to take actions that the state official cannot," observed Duffield. "Jawboning is dangerous because it allows government officials to assume powers not granted to them by law."
Despite formal protections for individual liberties, such as the First Amendment, the vast regulatory power wielded by government agencies in the United States is easily weaponized against people who don't do the government's bidding. Such abuses aren't hypothetical but are a matter of public record already addressed by the courts.
"People do not lightly disregard public officers' thinly veiled threats to institute criminal proceedings against them if they do not come around," the U.S. Supreme Court recognized in Bantam Books v. Sullivan (1963). That case involved Rhode Island officials hassling booksellers to refrain from stocking allegedly obscene publications. The implied threats and constant nagging of booksellers by state officials "was in fact a scheme of state censorship effectuated by extra-legal sanctions," ruled the court.
Does "a scheme of state censorship effectuated by extra-legal sanctions" better describe the situation in the Murthy case or in the NRA case? Well, Monday was a twofer day, so why not both?
A Strong Case Against New York's Jawboning
In truth, New York regulators' threats to insurance companies and banks that do business with the NRA and other gun groups were so overt that even commenters hostile to the NRA and self-defense rights concede that state officials went way over the line.
"Every now and then, the Supreme Court takes up a case involving a public official who acted so foolishly…that you wish the justices could each take turns smacking them upside the head," Vox's Ian Millhiser, no fan of the NRA, conceded last November. "National Rifle Association v. Vullo, which the Court announced that it would hear last Friday, is such a case."
And so far, while it's uncertain which way the justices will jump in Murthy, the court seems inclined to agree that it's impermissible for government officials to use regulatory threats to coerce financial firms into cutting ties with disfavored political organizations.
"The Supreme Court on Monday appeared sympathetic to the National Rifle Association's claim that a New York official violated the group's right to freedom of speech when she urged banks and insurance companies that worked with the NRA to cut ties with the group," SCOTUSblog's Amy Howe concluded. ACLU Legal Director David Cole "closed by telling the justices that 'the notion that this is business as usual, for a government official to speak with a private party and say we'll go easy on you if you aid my campaign to weaken the NRA. That is not business as usual. That is not ordinary plea negotiation.' Although it was not entirely clear, a majority of the justices seemed to agree with him."
With government reaching ever further into American life, it's time the court reminds officials, once again, that their intrusive powers aren't supposed to be used to bypass protections for individual rights.
I hope there are harsh penalties against Vullo. Suing the taxpayers of NY does nothing to punish the government thugs.
I would think if the Federal or state Government has regulatory control over a business entity, and issues a “wink-wink” suggestion that the entity take action against a third party, de-facto intimidation is manifest. The “wink-wink” meaning “ we can shut you down”
Along with Trump, Titia James added the scalp of the NRA to her belt by suing them over executive expense accounts. In another political kangaroo trial, she gutted them for millions. Now she parades around in their skin suits. Despicable.
“Suing the taxpayers of NY does nothing to punish the government thugs.”
Violating civil rights can be a crime.
Those who weaponize the law have forfeited their right to life, liberty and happiness
Feel free to send this to your Congressional ‘representative’:
‘ESSENTIAL’ FEDERAL SPENDING BILL
....
The Treasury shall withhold payment of all funding under current federal law to the State of New York, the City of New York, the City of Buffalo, New York County, Kings County, Queens County, Bronx County and Erie County and pay it instead to Donald J. Trump upon his application at any IRS office in the State of Florida until he has received $560 million in reallocated funds.
Payment he shall so receive shall be free of federal revenue imposition.
There shall be a 100% federal excise tax levied on all plaintiff punitive damage award income in excess of 10% of the federally taxable income of each defendant in jurisdictions below the national level where the wrongful conduct took place in the last federal income tax year for which a federal return was last due prior to the initial case filing date.
There shall be a 100% federal excise tax levied on all plaintiff punitive damage income in excess of a highest net annual income, of each plaintiff, of a recent tax year after 2009 and prior to case filing, which may selected by each plaintiff, or otherwise by a way acceptable to the Secretary of the Treasury, which was timely reported to the IRS for possible or actual Amendment XVI taxation.
Each plaintiff, each legal representative and each court shall file such federal tax returns as the Secretary of the Treasury shall require and be liable to the maximum reasonable extent for tax payment.
Maybe Letitia James will file charges.
As rebels against our nation, Amendment XV and the due process requirements of our Constitution, their right to government employment and funding, directly or indirectly, certainly has ceased.
“Maybe Letitia James will file charges”
Trump’s DOJ could file federal charges.
Governments by their construct are coercive entities. This fact alone is the reason government should be keep as small as possible. Human nature being what it is inevitably leads to the illegal use of government resources to control not so much what has been made illegal, but what the folks running the government don’t like. Our national government needs to shrink by about 40%.
This is a waste of time. The NRA will NEVER win a case in any of the DNC’s Feral courts.
I’m willing to wager that NRA prevails in this case at the Supreme Court.
Before Trump risks another bad personnel choice in picking an AG, he has two obstacles: 1. Election fraud. It may be so obvious and open, but the left and media will ignore the truth. 2. A deep state that will do ANYTHING to keep Trump out of office.
“”With the grace of Allah almighty, the Martyr Izz ad-Din Al-Qassam Brigades announced the introduction of Shawaz (1) armor-piercing explosive device into service. The sapper units of Al-Qassam [Brigades] detonated one of the devices on intruding enemy vehicles in their last raid on the Jenin camp, proving its highly destructive capabilities. Engineers of the unit continue to work day and night to produce the highest number of devices and develop newer versions of it. It is a jihad of victory or martyrdom.”
“Our national government needs to shrink by about 40%.”
It should be a corporate tax unit and a Treasury debt payoff unit.
“Improvised explosive devices (IEDs) are said to have caused between half and two-thirds of all American deaths and injuries in Iraq and Afghanistan. Of the roadside bombs encountered by U.S. troops in those warzones, EFPs are among the most lethal.
“EFPs detonate with a force capable of traveling more than a mile per second and can breach tank armor 300 feet away. The devices are fashioned from commonplace items, including steel, PVC pipe, and explosives and are sealed with a copper disk.”
https://www.motleyrice.com/anti-terrorism/efp-roadside-bomb-lawsuits
When we still has a republic...
“Henry Shrapnel (1761-1842)...invented an antipersonnel weapon capable of defragmenting with the explosion of charge. Modern grenades or improvised explosive devices may be seen as an evolution of Shrapnel’s ammunition.”
“The device can defeat the defenses on the most heavily armored U.S. vehicles, including the 60-ton Abrams tank. It blasts a molten projectile with immense force through its target.”
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/military-grapples-with-onslaught-of-homemade-bombs-in-iraq
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.