Freedom of speech, unalienable right of freedom of expression.

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

The case is one of several presenting questions about the intersection of free speech and technology on the Supreme Court’s docket. Credit...Kenny Holston/The New York Times

By Adam Liptak

Reporting from Washington

Oct. 20, 2023, 4:34 p.m. ET

The Supreme Court on Friday paused a sweeping ruling from a federal appeals court that had prohibited thousands of Biden administration officials from engaging in many kinds of contact with social media platforms.

The justices also agreed to hear the administration’s appeal in the case, setting the stage for a major test of the role of the First Amendment in the internet era, one that will require the court to consider when government efforts to limit the spread of misinformation amount to censorship of constitutionally protected speech.

Three justices dissented from the court’s decision to allow contacts while the case moves forward. “Government censorship of private speech is antithetical to our democratic form of government, and therefore today’s decision is highly disturbing,” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch.

In asking the Supreme Court to act, Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar said the government was entitled to express its views and to try to persuade others to take action.

“A central dimension of presidential power is the use of the office’s bully pulpit to seek to persuade Americans — and American companies — to act in ways that the president believes would advance the public interest,” she wrote.

In response, the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana, both Republicans, along with people who said their speech had been censored, wrote that the administration had crossed a constitutional line.

“From the desk of Freedomsdmocracy”.

…after studying and analyzing the above, this is a conclusion:

Free speech is enumerating an individual feelings, ideas or point of view in a situation that is evolving and/or did happen or might happens. A person has the unalienable right  of freedom of expression. To tell things that are false, deceive the public with the intention of hurting, misleading and defamatory thoughts in the public via a mean of distribution, is not free speech. Doing the same thing in private, to a group or a private meeting,  does not violate the above and falls within the unalienable right of free speech of the group. Free speech is not to be prohibited as long as it is not per se, propaganda directed to hurt a group, an individual or an institution or entity and done in public. When done so, it is calumny and the affected entity has the right to demand a compensation for such situation and the issuer of the calumny, must make and official apology via the same means the calumny was used to present the so-called free speech.

The above does not applies when it comes to be said publicly or privately as a joke, entertainment, amusement with the intention to enjoy or make the viewer enjoy the moment. It is the right of the presenter of the show to decide what is to be expressed or not or the one that tell the story for entertainment in his/her telling.

E.R.