🗞️ #053 | Online Expression Hangs in the Balance as Supreme Court Reviews Murthy Case
All of the above the fold 📰 stories of the week to keep you in the know
It’s FRIDAY, March 21!
Jump ahead to this week’s stories:
The Future of Online Expression Hangs in the Balance as Supreme Court Reviews Murthy Case
Deadline Looms for Trump in Unprecedented $454 Million Legal Challenge
Texas' Effort to Police Border Immigration Temporarily Blocked by Appeals Court
Google's Election Interference: Steering Elections Towards Democrats Since 2008
Florida Preparing for Haitian Migration Crisis Amidst Political Turmoil
Welcome Corps' Recent Expansion Sparks National Security Concerns Amid Refugee Resettlement Efforts
🗞️ The Future of Online Expression Hangs in the Balance as Supreme Court Reviews Murthy Case
On Monday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Murthy v. Missouri, a case that’s grabbing headlines as potentially the most pivotal free speech debate of our era. The heart of the matter? How the government coordinates with social media giants over what gets flagged as misinformation or outright censored—think COVID claims that flip-flopped from false to true, or the Hunter Biden laptop saga initially dismissed as Russian disinformation, only to later be verified as authentic.
A lower court had previously ruled that certain Biden administration actions amounted to a First Amendment breach by pushing social media platforms to censor specific content. This decision stood firm through an appeal to the Fifth Circuit, which maintained a ruling limiting the government’s ability to interact with these platforms. Fast forward, and now the Supreme Court is weighing in, prompted by a Biden DOJ appeal.
The crux of the arguments? The Biden administration claims it's all about persuasion, not coercion, lacking any real threat or arm-twisting. The opposition paints a different picture, highlighting implicit threats of antitrust action or the revocation of Section 230 protections as a form of pressure.
Justice Alito pointedly critiqued this dynamic, likening the government’s approach to treating platforms like subordinates, something that wouldn’t fly with traditional media outlets. Yet, even among conservative justices, there's hesitation to outright limit government-platform interactions, especially where public safety, like threats against officials or U.S. troops, is concerned.
Liberal justices went even further, with Justice Katanji Brown Jackson suggesting the First Amendment might be too constraining on government efforts to control misinformation—a stance that signals a possible tilt towards allowing the government more leeway in such interactions.
After listening to the oral arguments and the surrounding buzz, it appears there's a genuine concern the justices might side with the government. Such a decision could significantly dilute the essence of free speech, suggesting a readiness to entertain more government influence over what is and isn’t permissible on major social media platforms.
In case you missed it:
News of the Week
🗞️ Deadline Looms for Trump in Unprecedented $454 Million Legal Challenge
The financial troubles of former President Donald Trump have escalated, with a looming $454 million judgment threatening his empire. The judgment stemming from accusations of inflating property valuations for loan benefits, a critical point of contention has emerged regarding Trump's appeal process. At the heart of the debate is a bond—deemed by Trump and his legal team as "unconstitutional" and unrealistic for any individual or entity to manage.
The New York Attorney General Letitia James’ office has criticized Trump for not exhausting all avenues to secure this bond. Arguing that Trump should have "at a minimum" pledged real estate as collateral against the judgment if truly unable to secure an appeal bond. They even suggest that Trump let a court hold some of his real estate while he appeals.
This assertion challenges Trump's claim that it is "impossible" to use his real estate holdings for this purpose, suggesting a lack of substantial effort to explore every option to prevent asset seizure. Trump's team has highlighted the complexity of obtaining a bond, revealing unsuccessful attempts to secure it through 30 surety companies.
Bonds are usually supported by a combination of cash and assets worth 110% of the total judgment value, and they are given back if the defendant wins the case on appeal. Trump has mentioned on social media that he might have to sell his assets at "fire sale prices" to afford the bond for this case.
Trump's legal team argues that the request for a very high bond, given the current challenges, is an abuse of power. They believe it harms not only Trump but also the New York business community and the overall integrity of the law.
Amid these challenges, a significant development occurred when James' office filed judgments in Westchester County, signaling preparations to potentially seize Seven Springs, Trump's golf course and private estate. This action, reported by CNN on March 6, one week after Judge Arthur Engoron ordered Trump to pay the major fraud fine, represents the initial step towards property recovery. It sets the stage for potential liens or forced foreclosure, potentially leading to the dismantling of Trump's business empire and escalating the legal battle over Trump's assets.
His legal representatives are advocating for the court's permission to post only a portion of the needed bond. However, James has requested the court not allow Trump to forgo the total bond.
Critics of the attorney general's stance argue that this push to prevent Trump from forgoing the bond is an overreach, potentially setting a dangerous precedent for future civil cases. They see it as an unnecessary complication, further entangling a highly politicized case with additional legal hurdles.
Trump's frustration is clear. In a campaign message sent out on Wednesday, Trump's reelection team urged for donations to protect Trump Tower, "KEEP YOUR FILTHY HANDS OFF TRUMP TOWER!" read the memo
This emphasizes his concerns about losing significant assets at potentially undervalued prices, a scenario he deems nonsensical, especially if the appeal could eventually vindicate him.
At the heart of the disagreement is the claim that the decision and bond failed to acknowledge an important detail: all the disputed loans were paid back, so no one was financially hurt. Therefore, opponents believe that taking Trump's properties would unfairly benefit the state and ignore the concept of fairness without actually dealing with any real financial wrongdoing. This position questions the basis of the judgment, proposing that the whole situation is driven by politics and intended to harm Trump financially and tarnish his reputation instead of addressing any supposed financial wrongdoings.
With the March 25 deadline fast approaching, Trump is facing a crucial challenge. If he doesn't secure the bond by then, New York Attorney General Letitia James could take control of Trump's assets. Such a move could profoundly affect Trump's business empire, potentially breaking up significant parts of it and deepening the financial and reputational damage caused by this legal battle.
🗞️ Texas' Effort to Police Border Immigration Temporarily Blocked by Appeals Court
In a whirlwind of legal back-and-forths, Texas' law, SB4, aimed at criminalizing illegal immigration within the state, has been temporarily blocked again.
Initially celebrated as a victory for Texas after the Supreme Court declined the Biden administration's request to halt the law, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals put the brakes on it just hours later. This law allows Texas law enforcement to arrest individuals suspected of entering the country illegally, a move that has sparked intense debate over states' rights and federal authority in immigration matters.
SB4 designates unauthorized entry into Texas from Mexico as a state crime, with penalties ranging from a misdemeanor to a second-degree felony for repeat offenders, which would result in at least six months in jail for first-time offenders, escalating to up to 20 years for those caught multiple times. After serving their sentences, migrants would be deported to Mexico, though Mexico has stated it will not cooperate with Texas in accepting deportees.
The Biden administration opposes the law, arguing immigration enforcement is exclusively a federal matter, supported by Supreme Court precedent from a similar 2012 case. Critics of SB4 warn it could lead to civil rights violations and racial profiling.
The law's brief activation did not see any arrests before being put on hold. As the legal battle continues, with the case likely returning to the Supreme Court, the future of immigration policy and state enforcement capabilities hangs in the balance.
🗞️ Google's Election Interference: Steering Elections Towards Democrats Since 2008
A report from the conservative Media Research Center (MRC) claims Google has come under scrutiny for allegedly influencing U.S. elections in favor of Democratic candidates. Covering a span of 16 years, the report accuses Google of manipulating search algorithms and results to censor Republican candidates and bolster Democrats across four presidential cycles and numerous midterm elections. According to the MRC, Google's search engine has been a tool for "election interference" on 41 occasions since 2008, highlighting a significant political bias within the tech giant's operations.
The report highlights Google's disproportionate support for Democratic candidates, citing that 96% of political donations from its employees went to Democrats in the 2018 midterms. Instances of alleged interference include manipulating search results to disadvantage Republican candidates, such as suspending pro-Hillary Clinton blogs in favor of Barack Obama in 2008 and a "Google bomb" against Rick Santorum in 2012.
A Google bomb is a technique used to tarnish a candidate's reputation. This occurs when Google users manipulate the search engine's algorithms to link the candidate's name with negative or undesirable search terms across different web pages. As a result, when someone searched for Santorum's name, they might encounter disparaging and, at times, even obscene results.
Furthermore, the MRC alleges that Google's bias even affected the outcome of the 2016 presidential election, with research suggesting that Google's algorithm could have shifted millions of votes toward Hillary Clinton.
Despite these serious allegations, Google firmly denies any wrongdoing, arguing that its platform operates without political bias and emphasizing its interest in maintaining user trust and engagement across the political spectrum. The controversy has sparked discussions on the power of tech companies in shaping political discourse and the need for greater transparency and accountability in their operations.
🗞️ Florida Preparing for Haitian Migration Crisis Amidst Political Turmoil
Florida is gearing up for a significant uptick in illegal immigration from Haiti amidst the country's spiraling chaos. This situation arose following Haiti's Prime Minister Ariel Henri's announcement to resign, set against a backdrop of a violent coup led by the country's most formidable gangs. These gangs, under the leadership of Jimmy Chérizier, notoriously known as "Barbecue" for his brutal tactics of burning people alive in their homes, have seized control over vast portions of Port-au-Prince, exacerbating the violence and lawlessness plaguing Haiti.
The dire circumstances in Haiti have triggered alarms over potential mass migration to Florida, posing a substantial challenge to the state's resources and border security. Florida Congressman Matt Gaetz has voiced deep concerns over the ramifications of this crisis on his state, spotlighting the inability to distinguish Haiti from a failed state given the gang dominance and governmental collapse.
In response, the US has been proactive in fortifying its readiness for a possible surge in Haitian migrants. Coordination between the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense has resulted in increased patrols along Florida's coastline. Governor Ron DeSantis has further bolstered this effort by deploying over 250 additional law enforcement officers, military personnel, and an array of air and sea craft to ensure preparedness.
Despite these efforts, the scope of the challenge is daunting, underscored by the vastness of the maritime area that needs patrolling. The crisis has brought to light the Biden administration's past dealings with Haiti, particularly a controversial 2021 agreement with Haiti's provisional prime minister. This deal, which resulted in the cancellation of elections in exchange for the repatriation of Haitians from an encampment in Del Rio, Texas, is now criticized for precipitating Haiti's descent into its current turmoil.
As Florida braces for a potential influx of Haitian migrants, the state has not been passive in its rescue efforts. Governor DeSantis announced the return of 14 Americans from Haiti, showcasing a commitment to safeguarding not only state security but also the welfare of US citizens caught in the crisis. Meanwhile, the US government's attempts to stabilize Haiti include backing a transitional committee to guide the country towards democratic elections and requesting Congress to approve $40 million in aid for Haiti. However, this proposed aid has been stalled by Republican concerns over the risk of it being misappropriated by the gangs now dominating Haiti.
🗞️ Welcome Corps' Recent Expansion Sparks National Security Concerns Amid Refugee Resettlement Efforts
The Welcome Corps program, initiated by the State Department under the Biden administration, represents a shift in how the U.S. approaches refugee resettlement. By engaging private sponsors, including U.S. citizens and green card holders, the program has attracted over 15,000 Americans keen to support approximately 7,000 refugees from countries like Cuba, Ethiopia, El Salvador, Venezuela, and Syria. A noteworthy component of this initiative is the Welcome Corps at Work, which aims to align refugees with employment opportunities in sectors such as hospitality, healthcare, and technology.
The program has recently expanded, allowing sponsors to recommend specific individuals for sponsorship, a move that has amplified existing controversies. Critics have voiced significant concerns over this expansion, particularly regarding the potential for national security risks and the program's effectiveness in aiding refugees' cultural integration into American communities. The skepticism extends to the vetting process, with fears that it may not be rigorous enough, especially given the new provisions for sponsor recommendations.
Furthermore, doubts about the Welcome Corps' ability to ensure a smooth transition for refugees into U.S. society persist amid broader discussions on the Biden administration's overall approach to immigration and refugee policy.
This approach includes raising the refugee cap significantly and introducing other initiatives to admit individuals from similar backgrounds, including a new effort to bring in 100,000 Ukrainians and a separate program for up to 30,000 migrants from Venezuela, Cuba, Haiti, and Nicaragua, provided they have a U.S. sponsor.
This Wednesday, on 🗞️ Above the Fold, paid subscribers will get an exclusive article and a podcast episode about a viral video in which a Venezuelan illegal immigrant shares tips on how illegals can use squatter's rights. I'll also explore how this poses a threat to property rights and explain why these rights are crucial for a free society.