AARON SIRI ON TIKTOK BAN AND MURTHY V. MISSOURI
Comments
ICAN Lead Counsel, Aaron Siri, Esq., covers the good and bad of the TikTok Ban bill and it’s future as well as ICAN’s contribution to the free speech case Murthy v. Missouri, which recently had a hearing in the Supreme Court
POSTED: March 22, 2024
Explore
There is a significant Difference between the Tik Tok & Murthy V. Missouri question – ‘should the President be able to tell the owner of an information forum of the private sector to remove information that might influence children to Jump out the Window.’
It is a difference of Domain – Tik Tok is Spyware parading as a social App, Spyware is itself illegal, but Tik Tok is the Enemies tool of espionage, infiltration and subversion of the people of the United States of America. A threat to the Nation is the Government Domain – it is their Duty to preserve the United States. Tik Tok – is not about Free Speech it is about protecting the Nation from the Enemy that has used this App as a weapon of Psychological War.
The Hypothetical query by the Justice concerns the Domains of Society & Private Enterprise, which are outside of the Government Domain. Afterall, to remove the “challenge” to safeguard the children, would in fact endanger them, because no one would know of the danger – that could be lurking in other information forums, in schools… anywhere children interact or if their child was already influenced but not yet acted. The only responsible action would be to provide a public notice.
The United States Government is responsible for protecting the nation at the behest of the people – it is not empowered with acting for the “Good of the People”.
The United States Government is not the Ruler and the People its subjects.
The First Amendment
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Where is exactly does it say – the government can persuade private entities to become complicit in government censorship agendas, but they cannot act coercively to gain compliance of censorship?
It astonishes me that “Constitutional Authorities, do not even reference the actual text of the Constitution.
Nor do they realize the United States is not a Democracy!
Considering historical Context – the First Amendment is a clear prohibition of Government interference in all aspects of communication – where we derive our information, how we express our information/opinions concerns., and do so publicly, are our beliefs are our own and cannot be proscribed or regulated.
In my opinion the Government should never initiate contact to any forum promoting communication – to remove information – true or not – or spread lies to shape and negate the will of the people.
Intent – demonstrated by motive – is all that is needed to determine a clear effort to oppress the people.
“For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?” ~ Alexander Hamilton: The Federalist No. 84, [28 May 1788]
“Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain everything, they have no need of particular reservations. “WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America.” ~ Alexander Hamilton: The Federalist No. 84, [28 May 1788]
“ Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority, which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it, was intended to be vested in the national government. “ ~ Alexander Hamilton: The Federalist No. 84, [28 May 1788]
And he was right
Oh – Hamilton and most of the other contributors did not want the inclusion of the Bill of Rights.
To read his entire argument – just look up the Federalist #84
~ Alexander Hamilton: The Federalist No. 84, [28 May 1788]