ad-image

Liberal Defense of Porn Now a Conservative Defense of Guns – SCOTUS Monday

The question presented to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is:

Does the First Amendment allow a government regulator to threaten regulated entities with adverse regulatory actions if they do business with a controversial speaker, as a consequence of (a) the government's own hostility to the speaker's viewpoint or (b) a perceived "general backlash" against the speaker's advocacy?

Petitioner, the National Rifle Association of America (“NRA”), relies on Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58 (1963), to defend its First Amendment rights.  Bantam books is a case where booksellers sold sexual magazines and the government used its various levers of power to force the booksellers to stop the activity. 

In NRA’s brief at p. 15: “[T]he vice of the system” lay in the government’s conjoined threats and law enforcement actions because, when used to intimidate booksellers into “voluntary” censorship, they “plainly serve[d] as instruments of regulation independent of the laws against obscenity.”

The issue is straightforward. Vullo urged the financial institutions under her supervision to cut ties with the NRA because of its gun promotion advocacy. If NRA has shown Vullo coerced these actions, NRA’s First Amendment rights were violated under Bantam Books.

Sadly, the Second Circuit (appellate court) sided with the Vullo and New York’s Department of Financial Services, which is why SCOTUS now needs to consume calendar battling these sociopathic regulators – one way to describe the Second Circuit’s behavior as argued in the Amicus Brief of the American Center for Law and Justice at page 2:
 

The Second Circuit used at least two approaches that avoid the instruction of Bantam Books, blur First Amendment lines, and create broad opportunities for state censorship through strong encouragement of third-party blacklisting.

[T]he Second Circuit minimized the importance of a leveraging tactic used by Respondent Vullo’s Department of Financial Services (“DFS”) through its investigation of merely "technical” violations by regulated insurance companies that did business with NRA, followed by its strong efforts to “encourage” those companies and other regulated entities to boycott NRA or discontinue gun rights insurance programs with that Second Amendment group; DFS ultimately extracted a consent order from those several companies “whereby the companies agreed to pay a total of more than $13 million in fines and to discontinue the programs” with NRA.

We Expect SCOTUS to Find for NRA and Admonish the Regulators and the Second Circuit. They all knew better and this Court will not allow such absurdities to take our freedom.

Sign in to comment

Comments

Powered by StructureCMS™ Comments

ad-image

Get latest news delivered daily!

We will send you breaking news right to your inbox

Copyright © 2024 Conservative - All Rights Reserved
Powered by