B. Doctrinal Responses to Indirect Sanctions
In reaction to the excesses of the McCarthy era–-as well as the ef- forts by massive resistance in the South to deploy similar indirect sanc- tions against civil rights organizations—the Supreme Court during the late 1950s and early 1960s evolved a series of doctrinal structures to safeguard against the pathologies created by indirect sanctions.99 An awareness of the reluctance of most individuals to risk social sanctions and ostracism in order to challenge censorial interventions during the McCarthy era underpinned both a recognition by the Court of the importance of intermediate associations that might buffer individuals, and a willingness of the Court to accept third party challenges brought by associations or individuals whose situations rendered them more robust. More broadly, the Court rejected the proposition that the First Amendment constrained only official efforts to criminally punish protected speech and association. Against the backdrop of the indirect sanctions of the McCarthy era, the Court recognized the po- tentially drastic effects of indirect gambits directed to vulnerable pres- sure points, and declared that First Amendment freedoms “are pro- tected not only against heavy-handed frontal attack, but also from being stifled by more subtle governmental interference.”100
The federal government created the internet. The government has allowed and encouraged oligarchs to create monopolies under the control of the intelligence agencies in alliance with one political party.
As Glenn Greenwald said: I’m against censorship in all cases. But if you have a government that’s censoring and is democratically accountable you can vote those people out of office and influence what they’re doing. Tech corporations have no democratic accountability at all, they can do whatever they want. Because they are monopolistic entities they are starting to control and police our public discourse. The other aspect I think is very alarming is it’s oftentimes not even these corporations like Facebook and Twitter and Google that are doing it, they’re doing it at the behest of governments. They there are now Democratic Party hearings all the time demanding they censor more. Other governments around the world insisting that dissidence in their country be silenced. It’s really like a union between state and corporate power trying to police and control the Internet which was supposed to be this innovation that liberated us all from centralized control
By the beginning of the 1960s, the Supreme Court could unani- mously avow that freedoms of speech, press, assembly, and association were protected against both “heavy-handed frontal attack” and “subtle interference” designed to mobilize private sanctions.107
Does the prohibition against free speech limitation apply to government entities or private businesses?
#1 If government entities - then Trump** will get laughed out of court.
#2 If Trump** wins, not going to happen, just spit ball’n here - does that mean all the libs that have been banned from this site get their account re-instated and they can say whatever they want here?