Without the ability to lie those who rely on lies to prevail find themselves at a terrible disadvantage. Freedom of speech was designed to allow a full spectrum of speech, making no distinction between wise words and stupid words, truth and lies.

The only distinction made, in a unanimous Supreme Court decision, was between ordinary disgusting speech and speech that is a foreseeable and immediate incitement to violence. Where the line of is has long been a subject of furious debate on both sides. What removes certain speech from the broad protections of the First Amendment is the imminence of the physical harm it is certain to cause (or economic harm caused by defamation).

The absolute, unregulatable right to spread false information that has already led to violence is in a different category than an absolute right to call somebody else a fucking asshole.

More insightful reporting and analysis by historian Heather Cox Richardson:

Trump-appointed judge Terry A. Doughty of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana issued a preliminary injunction saying the First Amendment prevents the government from trying to stop the spread of disinformation. 

Doughty has become the judge Republican attorneys general seek out in their challenges to the Biden administration, and in this case, that judge shopping appears to have paid off. In a lawsuit brought by the attorneys general of Louisiana and Missouri, Doughty temporarily prevented employees of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Health and Human Services from talking to social media companies for “the purpose of urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech.” 

At stake is the belief among right-wing figures that government officials and social media companies have teamed up to silence them, although in fact, studies show that social media algorithms actually amplify right-wing political content and that social media companies are reluctant to remove it out of fear of backlash from extremists. Right-wing complaints stem from the removal of disinformation during the pandemic, and of accounts linked to the violence of January 6, 2021. 

For years, the government has worked with social media companies to try to address terrorism, images of child sexual abuse, and disinformation about the pandemic and elections. But disinformation has become a key political tool for the Republicans, and going into the 2024 election season, they have doubled down on the disinformation that the 2020 presidential election was fraudulent and flooded the media with that lie. 

Fittingly, as Philip Bump pointed out in the Washington Post today, Doughty’s injunction accepts right-wing allegations at face value, meaning he cites as a mark against the administration something that, in fact, didn’t happen. 

Foreign accounts have amplified right-wing lies, and the injunction specifically targets the FBI’s Foreign Influence Task Force, which leads the push to identify and stop malign foreign influence in our social media. 

But there is a new twist there: Russia’s Yevgeny Prigozhin—the man who recently led his Wagner Group soldiers toward Moscow to demand changes in Russian military leadership—was key to the 2016 Russian disinformation campaign, and Reuters reported on Sunday that he announced on Saturday that his media company, including a troll factory that sought to influence public opinion in the U.S., is shutting down. 

That the injunction claims to protect free speech by forcing people to stop communication was not lost on observers. Harvard constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe called the injunction “blatantly unconstitutional” and noted: “Censoring a broad swath of vital communications between government and social media platforms in the name of combating censorship makes a mockery of the first amendment.” Tribe joined law professor Leah Litman to eviscerate the “breathtaking scope” of the order. 

The Department of Justice appealed the order today. It will go to the right-wing Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Disinformation is also behind the attempt of far-right House members to undermine the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, both of which maintain the rule of law in the United States. The FBI was key to investigating Russia’s attempt to help former president Trump win the 2016 presidential election and the efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, while the DOJ has been central to making sure that those who have broken the law are held accountable.

Right-wing Republicans, many of whom are implicated in the events surrounding the 2020 election, insist that the FBI—overseen by Trump appointee Christopher Wray—and the DOJ are improperly targeting them. They are calling for Wray to be fired and Attorney General Merrick Garland, who heads the DOJ, to be impeached. Barring that, they want to starve the department and the bureau by slashing their budgets. 

Trump attacked the FBI and the DOJ from the beginning of his presidency, and today the House investigation into the FBI and DOJ includes the Oversight, Judiciary, and Ways and Means Committees. It is currently centered on right-wing insistence that President Biden’s 53-year-old son, Hunter, received a lenient deal from the DOJ and that the DOJ retaliated against an IRS whistleblower about the case. Legal analysts say that, in fact, the younger Biden got a harsher deal than others and point out that David Weiss, the U.S. attorney overseeing the case, was appointed by Trump. 

On June 7, Weiss told Jordan in a letter that Garland had given Weiss full authority over the case; on June 30, Weiss wrote to deny that the DOJ had retaliated against a whistleblower, reiterating that he had “been granted ultimate authority over this matter.” Wray is scheduled to testify before the House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Representative Jim Jordan (R-OH), on July 12. Jordan is a key critic of what he claims is FBI focus on Republicans.

Disinformation was a key factor in the rise of Russian president Vladimir Putin to the authoritarian power he now holds.

source

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals found that Judge for life Aileen Cannon had no jurisdiction to interfere on behalf of Donald Trump in Trump v. United States. Trump v. USA was the legally incoherent lawsuit Trump brought to stop the Department of Justice from conducting their criminal investigation of his illegal retention of presidential records and his obstruction of the investigation. Trump has since been indicted for those crimes. Cannon is the judge assigned to make all rulings in the case the United States v. Donald Trump, in which her benefactor stands accused of unlawful retention of government documents and obstruction of justice..

The unanimous Eleventh Circuit panel ruling overturned all of Cannon’s baseless partisan decisions in Trump v. U.S. They reprimanded her for abusing her discretion, first in not dismissing the case, and then by making findings with no basis in law (and with no jurisdiction to rule on any of it in the first place) and ordered her to dismiss the case she should never have stuck her loyal partisan nose into.

If that does not amount to reasonable questions about her ability to judge the case impartially, the case she already made rulings to delay and suppress evidence in, nothing does.

As to her legal credentials for serving as judge in this historic case, well… Being nominated for that lifetime appointment used to include relevant experience and a proven track record, outside of fidelity to Federalist Society doctrine. Aileen Cannon has had virtually no relevant legal experience and no track record to speak of. The perfect candidate for Trumpie!