Crowded Theater Fires

(Crowded Theater Fires)

The First Amendment to the Bill of Rights allows for most forms of expression, independent of most government interference. However, it was pointed out that such expression is not absolute. For instance, one cannot yell "fire in a crowded movie theater." Of course, the Colleary to that comes when there actually might be a fire in a crowded theater.

Or a global pandemic. As was mentioned the other day, the government with the cooperation of social media colluded to promote a narrative that could tolerate no dissent. That being said, what happens when the government gets it wrong ? Making a partnership with the likes of Facebook/META, or YouTube ? Having those platforms screen those who were not necessarily following the Party line ? In other words, speech was restricted because non-government data was labeled as misinformation.

That is not to say that such information was factually wrong regarding the disease. And those who held these contrary opinions had the right to be able express them. That is a First Amendment guarantee. So, a case was sent to the Supreme Court. A suit was filed by Louisiana and Missouri, Murphy vs Missouri, challenging the Administration and its Big Tech connection that limited speech.

Certain assumptions were made in the government's argument. That it is infallible. That its judgement must be followed at all costs. Arguments were presented but it was the reaction of Associated Justice Jackson that proved most telling. It had been her posit that the government had a "duty" to act in such crises and a free release of information could "hamstring" the ability to act.

Is that not the point ? The First Amendment, as indeed all Amendments, are meant to constrain government action in one form or another. Just because a China virus, that probably came from a lab spill, that developed vaccines in the end are not that effective, that the masks, N-95 and so on, social distancing and shuttering the economy, all that should be able to have been expressed. In the end, all these were proven correct but if these sentiments were allowed to be aired in public. contradicting the White House.

When a ruling gets delivered, it has the potential to re-define the limits of both state power as well as those for the individual. Any case that can re-define personal liberty is always something the Court must address. How this gets addressed remains to be seen. At least no is yelling fire in a crowded theater.