In my view, the 1st amendment has always had a wishful element to it - that the free exchange of ideas will allow for the ideas to be sorted out independent of power structures. In reality, the expression of opposing views inevitably leads to collisions and cancellations. The "expressions" of the hypothetical sheriff described here suppresses the commentator's expression. Similarly, the "expressions" of public health officials may cancel the expression of activists such as the Murthy plaintiffs. I wonder if the censorship regime we are experiencing is simply a shortcoming of our legal/political system where government speech easily drowns out dissent. One takeaway from these proceedings, in any case, is that one needs to take just about anything one hears with a grain of salt.
In my view, the 1st amendment has always had a wishful element to it - that the free exchange of ideas will allow for the ideas to be sorted out independent of power structures. In reality, the expression of opposing views inevitably leads to collisions and cancellations. The "expressions" of the hypothetical sheriff described here suppresses the commentator's expression. Similarly, the "expressions" of public health officials may cancel the expression of activists such as the Murthy plaintiffs. I wonder if the censorship regime we are experiencing is simply a shortcoming of our legal/political system where government speech easily drowns out dissent. One takeaway from these proceedings, in any case, is that one needs to take just about anything one hears with a grain of salt.