Murthy v. Missouri: AMA v. AAPS; Flaccid Amendment v. First Amendment. The Speakers’ Corner And The Public Square. (March 18, 2024)
. . .
J “The American Medical Association (AMA) provides the soundest diagnosis and prescription.”
K “The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) provides the soundest diagnosis and prescription.”
. . .
J “In brief, the AMA encourages the dissemination of accurate information and enforces the censorship of misinformation and disinformation.”
K “In brief, the AAPS promotes the First Amendment and protects free speech.”
. . .
[See the discussion “AMA? BITFD!” by Ben Hunt in “Epsilon Theory” dated November 24, 2020. (“I thought I was immune to being shocked by corporate mendacity and greed. Then I started digging into the AMA.”) See “Technocensorship: When Corporations Serve As a Front for Government Censors” by John Whitehead, the recipient of the Second Annual Noble Prize In Jurisprudence (October 16, 2017), and Nisha Whitehead at The Rutherford Institute dated February 27, 2024. Their amicus brief is more poetry than prosaic turgid legal prose. (“The facts of this case are positively Orwellian.”]
[See the e-commentary at Graduation Advice: Find The First Amendment (May 15, 2023).]
Bumper stickers of the week:
The Supreme Court hears oral argument in Murthy v. Missouri this morning.
Questions presented: (1) Whether respondents have Article III standing; (2) Whether the government’s challenged conduct transformed private social-media companies’ content-moderation decisions into state action and violated respondents’ First Amendment rights; and (3) Whether the terms and breadth of the preliminary injunction are proper.
e-commentary 
Leave a comment