Asking
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Wait ... Did they just say UNANIMOUS???

Yup, that's right. The Supremes just made a unanimous decision. All nine justices of the Supreme Court of the United States just agreed on something.



When is the last time THAT happened?? Actually, so far in 2024 it has happened quite a bit. Over 80% of cases so far this term have been unanimous. You didn't know that, did you? Not that consensus by itself is evaluative of function, but I think the Court is working fairly well here.

So what was this most recent case about, you ask? It was about my favorite subject of all: The Freedom of Speech (expression) and more specifically the prohibition against any government infringement on the People's pre-existing Right to Free Expression.

Specifically, in this case, the NRA was "harmed" as a result of actions taken by the State of New York. Those actions were taken openly by the State because it did not like the politic expression coming from the NRA, specifically it's stance in favor of the individual right to keep and bear arms.

And guess who took up the NRA's case and argued it before the Supremes?? I hope you're sitting down for this: The ACLU. Yup, the legal bastion of the left took up the right to free speech of the flag bearer of the right. No wonder the Supremes were unanimous here.





I've written often on here about the fundamental right of all people to free expression unimpeded by government interference.

And I've asked you several times if you support the right to free speech. My litmus test to supporting this fundamental right is this: Do you support and defend the right of people with whom you vehemently disagree to speak their ideas no matter how strongly you disagree?? Or do you seek to silence the opposition?

Well, the ACLU defended the NRA's right to free speech.
Justice Sotomayor voted for and defended the decision.

What about you? Do you support and defend the fundamental right of everyone across the political spectrum to free expression??
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
SunshineGirl · 36-40, F
I have never sought to silence the "opposition", not least because I do not view the world in simple binaries. My views have evolved over the years and I acknowledge my debt to the liberal traditions of the institutions that have educated and employed me.

But freedom of speech as an absolute? Protecting the right of the powerful and mighty to bully and intimidate those without the resources or acumen to stand their ground? The extraordinary behaviour of Donald Trump during and after his trial to my mind illustrates the downside of anyone being allowed to say anything they like at any time. (As an aside, I cannot understand why this is not treated as contempt of court, or why the judge was unwilling or unable to act more decisively to the defendant's interruptions and tactics).

The world moves on. We live in a deafening sound chamber where freedom of expression effectively ensures the success of those vested interests who shout loudest or behave most outrageously. The greatest threat to that freedom is not a democratically constituted government, but the worst actors in society.
sarabee1995 · 26-30, FVIP
@SunshineGirl The Right to free expression is afforded to the weak and the mighty.

When many people think alike, they have the right to band together and express their beliefs together.

This does NOT afford to anyone the right to bully or intimidate. In fact, here in the States, this has been tested in the courts and bullying and intimidation are not protected speech.

And his behavior actually was treated as contempt of court. 🤷‍♀️
SunshineGirl · 36-40, F
@sarabee1995 I know the judge mentioned the possibility of custody for what was said in the court room. But that did not seem to extend to statements outside of court. Or to the defence counsel who at one stage appeared to forget who he was representing and pursued a personal vendetta with one of the witnesses 🤷‍♀️ All a bit chaotic and in hindsight those negative tactics definitely backfired. I was just surprised at how much freedom there seemed to be for the defence to essentially defame prosecution witnesses instead of presenting a coherent case.