The Court explained that the First Amendment prohibits government officials from relying on the "threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion … to achieve the suppression" of disfavored speech. Although the commission lacked the "power to apply formal legal sanctions," the distributor "reasonably understood" the commission to threaten adverse action, and thus the distributor's "compliance with the [c]ommission's directives was not voluntary." To reach this conclusion, the Court considered things like: the commission's coordination with law enforcement and its authority to refer matters for prosecution; the notices themselves, which were "phrased virtually as orders" containing "thinly veiled threats to institute criminal proceedings" if the distributor did not come around; and the distributor's reaction to the notices and followup visits….
Ultimately, Bantam Books stands for the principle that a government official cannot do indirectly what she is barred from doing directly: A government official cannot coerce a private party to punish or suppress disfavored speech on her behalf….
And all 9 handed Vullo her ass.
With, of course, Jackson saying "But the .gov should have some lattitude here, because reasons." Still a solid victory. All it needs now is suing Vullo for her actions.
https://reason.com/volokh/2024/05/30/unanimous-first-amendment-victory-for-the-nra-represented-by-the-aclu/
3 comments:
Of course Jackson had reservations about limiting .gov power.
(A lib NEVER wants to limit .gov power)
That vacuum skulled moron is right up there in IQ with Sotomayor.
Both are mud fence dumb.
It's illegal to kill people. Getting someone else to do it for you doesn't make it legal. Having Twitter shut someone down is just as wrong as doing it yourself. How that could be confusing is,,confusing
Anonymous, what do you expect from Affirmative Action hires?
Post a Comment