Connect with us

Published

2 years ago

on

For good reason, much attention was devoted to the Supreme Court’s oral arguments on Monday, over government pressure on social media companies to suppress speech that officialdom doesn’t like. The same day, though, justices heard arguments in another important case involving free speech principles violated when New York officials leaned on financial institutions to deny services to the National Rifle Association. Importantly, both cases involved “jawboning,” the use by government of threats to improperly coerce compliance.

The Rattler is a weekly newsletter from J.D. Tuccille. If you care about government overreach and tangible threats to everyday liberty, this is for you. Email(Required) PhoneThis field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Submit

Δ When Communication Becomes Coercion

As Reason’s Jacob Sullum ably summarizes, arguments in Murthy v. Missouri involve “dueling interpretations of the Biden administration’s interactions with social media platforms regarding content it viewed as dangerous to public health, democracy, or national security,” with plaintiffs arguing that “those private contacts, combined with public statements condemning the platforms’ failure to suppress ‘misinformation,’ amounted to government-directed censorship.”

At stake is the point at which efforts to persuade private companies they ought not offer platforms to certain speakers morph into “nice business you got there; it’d be a shame if something happened to it.” Did officials cross the line when they badgered tech firms to muzzle voices skeptical of lockdowns, COVID vaccinations, and election integrity? If you’ve followed the Twitter and Facebook Files, you know there’s significant evidence they did, though it remains to be seen if Supreme Court justices agree.

Remarkably, the evidence of improper strong-arming appears even clearer in National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo. In that case, the NRA, joined by the ACLU, alleges that Maria Vullo, former Superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services, abused the power of her position to punish the gun rights organization for its political positions.

“Vullo met with executives at Lloyd’s of London to discuss her views on gun control and to tell them she believed the company’s underwriting of NRA-endorsed insurance policies raised regulatory issues,” according to Abby Smith of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). “She told them Lloyd’s could ‘avoid liability’but only if the company told its syndicates to stop underwriting their insurance policies, and joined her agency’s ‘campaign against gun groups.'”

There was nothing subtle about the arm-twisting. In 2018 I wrote about guidance letters New York regulators sent to banks and insurance companies, at the behest of then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo, cautioning “regulated institutions to review any relationships they have with the NRA or similar gun promotion organizations, and to take prompt actions to managing these risks and promote public health and safety.” Given that insurance companies and banks are tightly regulated and operate largely at the pleasure of state officials, this would logically be interpreted as a threat. Subsequently, banks and insurance companies alike cut ties with the NRA.

“New York, if these facts are true, tried to circumvent the First Amendment’s ban on censorship by relying on this informal pressure campaign,” noted FIRE’s Smith. “But informal censorship violates the First Amendment, too.” Extra-Legal Threats Violate Individual Rights Protections, Say the Courts

Such informal censorship is known as “jawboning” since, as the Cato Institute’s Will Duffield wrote in 2022, it involves “bullying, threatening, and cajoling” in the place of formal legal action.

“Jawboning occurs when a government official threatens to use his or her powerbe it the power to prosecute, regulate, or legislateto compel someone to take actions that the state official cannot,” observed Duffield. “Jawboning is dangerous because it allows government officials to assume powers not granted to them by law.”

Despite formal protections for individual liberties, such as the First Amendment, the vast regulatory power wielded by government agencies in the United States is easily weaponized against people who don’t do the government’s bidding. Such abuses aren’t hypothetical but are a matter of public record already addressed by the courts.

“People do not lightly disregard public officers’ thinly veiled threats to institute criminal proceedings against them if they do not come around,” the U.S. Supreme Court recognized in Bantam Books v. Sullivan (1963). That case involved Rhode Island officials hassling booksellers to refrain from stocking allegedly obscene publications. The implied threats and constant nagging of booksellers by state officials “was in fact a scheme of state censorship effectuated by extra-legal sanctions,” ruled the court.

Does “a scheme of state censorship effectuated by extra-legal sanctions” better describe the situation in the Murthy case or in the NRA case? Well, Monday was a twofer day, so why not both? A Strong Case Against New York’s Jawboning

In truth, New York regulators’ threats to insurance companies and banks that do business with the NRA and other gun groups were so overt that even commenters hostile to the NRA and self-defense rights concede that state officials went way over the line.

“Every now and then, the Supreme Court takes up a case involving a public official who acted so foolishly…that you wish the justices could each take turns smacking them upside the head,” Vox’s Ian Millhiser, no fan of the NRA, conceded last November. “National Rifle Association v. Vullo, which the Court announced that it would hear last Friday, is such a case.”

And so far, while it’s uncertain which way the justices will jump in Murthy, the court seems inclined to agree that it’s impermissible for government officials to use regulatory threats to coerce financial firms into cutting ties with disfavored political organizations.

“The Supreme Court on Monday appeared sympathetic to the National Rifle Association’s claim that a New York official violated the group’s right to freedom of speech when she urged banks and insurance companies that worked with the NRA to cut ties with the group,” SCOTUSblog’s Amy Howe concluded. ACLU Legal Director David Cole “closed by telling the justices that ‘the notion that this is business as usual, for a government official to speak with a private party and say we’ll go easy on you if you aid my campaign to weaken the NRA. That is not business as usual. That is not ordinary plea negotiation.’ Although it was not entirely clear, a majority of the justices seemed to agree with him.”

With government reaching ever further into American life, it’s time the court reminds officials, once again, that their intrusive powers aren’t supposed to be used to bypass protections for individual rights.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

UK

Police appeal to trace further 18 people linked to disorder at Unite the Kingdom march

Published

43 mins ago

on

September 22, 2025

By

Police appeal to trace further 18 people linked to disorder at Unite the Kingdom march

Police have appealed for help to identify an additional 18 people suspected of public order offences and assaults on emergency workers on the day of the Unite the Kingdom march.

Between 110,000 and 150,000 people attended the rally in central London on 13 September, the Metropolitan Police estimates.

Protesters heard a number of speeches, including from far-right activist Tommy Robinson, who organised the rally and called it the “biggest freedom of speech” event in British history.

Pics: Met Police
Image:
Pics: Met Police

An anti-racism counter-protest, attended by about 5,000 campaigners, also took place, with the two groups clashing on Whitehall and Trafalgar Square, separated by lines of police.

Police previously said 24 people were arrested at the protests, 23 of whom are believed to have been involved in the Unite the Kingdom rally, while one was believed to be involved in the counter-protest.

The force launched an appeal to identify 11 people last week, one of whom was identified.

Officers now want to speak to a further 18 people “in connection with a range of public order offences and assaults on emergency workers” and have released 16 new images.

Pics: Met Police
Image:
Pics: Met Police

The Met previously said 26 officers were assaulted with kicks and punches, adding: “Bottles, flares and other projectiles were also thrown and concerted attempts were made to get past barriers.”

“Our post-event investigation continues and officers have looked through hundreds of hours of CCTV footage to review evidence to help with further inquiries,” said Detective Chief Inspector Natalie Norris.

“We have 28 people we want to speak to in connection with a range of offences – and we are again appealing for the public’s help to track them down.”

Read more from Sky News:
UK to push peace plan at UN summit
Gatwick second runway given green light

People may have travelled from outside London, so she said she was asking people “across the country” to look at a number of pictures that have been released and to get in touch if they recognise anyone.

Continue Reading

Business

Trump reveals Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch could be involved in TikTok deal

Published

4 hours ago

on

September 22, 2025

By

Trump reveals Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch could be involved in TikTok deal

Donald Trump has revealed that media mogul Rupert Murdoch and his son Lachlan could be part of a deal in which TikTok in the United States will come under American control.

The US president also namedropped Michael Dell, the founder and CEO of Dell Technologies, as a possible participant in the deal during an interview with Fox News, which is owned by the Murdochs.

“I think they’re going to be in the group. A couple of others. Really great people, very prominent people,” Mr Trump said. “And they’re also American patriots, you know, they love this country. I think they’re going to do a really good job.”

Mr Trump said that Larry Ellison, founder and CEO of software firm Oracle, was part of the same group. His involvement in the potential TikTok deal had previously been revealed.

President Donald Trump speaking to reporters outside the White House. Pic: AP/Mark Schiefelbein
Image:
President Donald Trump speaking to reporters outside the White House. Pic: AP/Mark Schiefelbein

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said on Saturday that Oracle would be responsible for the app’s data and security, with Americans set to control six of the seven seats for a planned TikTok board.

This comes after Mr Trump said he and China’s Xi Jinping held a “very productive call” on Friday, discussing the final approval for the TikTok deal, much of which is still unknown.

Once confirmed, the deal should stop TikTok from being banned in the US after lawmakers decided it posed a security risk to citizens’ data.

More on Tiktok

Related Topics:

Officials warned that the algorithm TikTok uses is vulnerable to manipulation by Chinese authorities, who can use it to push specific content on the social media platform in a way that is difficult to detect.

Congress had ordered the app shut down for American users by January 2025 if its Chinese owner ByteDance didn’t sell its assets in the country – but the ban has been delayed four times by President Trump.

Read more from Sky News:
Trump delivers speech at Charlie Kirk’s memorial
Pentagon orders journalists to agree to reporting rules

Mr Trump said on Sunday that he might be “a little prejudiced” about TikTok, after telling reporters on Friday: “I wasn’t a fan of TikTok and then I got to use it and then I became a fan and it helped me win an election in a landslide.”

After the call with Mr Xi, Mr Trump said in a Truth Social post: “We made progress on many very important issues, including Trade, Fentanyl, the need to bring the War between Russia and Ukraine to an end, and the approval of the TikTok Deal.”

Mr Trump later told reporters at the White House that Xi had approved the deal, but said it still needed to be signed.

Representatives for the Murdochs, Mr Dell and Mr Ellison have not yet commented on a potential TikTok deal.

Continue Reading

Business

Gatwick second runway given green light by government

Published

4 hours ago

on

September 22, 2025

By

Gatwick second runway given green light by government

Gatwick’s second runway has been given the go-ahead by the government.

The northern runway already exists parallel to Gatwick‘s main one, but cannot be used at the same time, as it is too close.

It is currently limited to being a taxiway and is only used for take-offs and landings if the main one has to shut.

The £2.2bn expansion project will see it move 12 metres north so both can operate simultaneously, facilitating 100,000 extra flights a year, 14,000 jobs, and £1bn a year for the economy.

It would also mean the airport could process 75 million passengers a year by the late 2030s.

Gatwick is already the second busiest airport in the UK, and the busiest single runway airport in Europe.

No public money is being used for the expansion plan, which airport bosses say could see the new runway operational by 2029.

Read more from Sky News
Minister defends France migrant returns deal
Lib Dems pledge windfall tax on banks

The expansion was initially rejected by the Planning Inspectorate over concerns about its provisions for noise prevention and public transport connections.

Campaigners also argued the additional air traffic will be catastrophic for the environment and the local community.

A revised plan was published by the planning authority earlier this year, which it said could be approved by the government if all conditions were met.

The government says it is now satisfied this is the case, with additions made including Gatwick being able to set its own target for passengers who travel to the airport by public transport – instead of a statutory one.

Nearby residents affected by noise will also be able to charge the airport for the cost of triple-glazed windows.

And people who live directly under the flight path who choose to sell their homes could have their stamp duty and estate agent fees paid for up to 1% of the purchase price.

CAGNE, an aviation and environmental group in Sussex, Surrey, and Kent, says it still has concerns about noise, housing provision, and wastewaster treatment.

The group says it will lodge a judicial review, which will be funded by local residents and environmental organisations.

‘Disaster for the climate crisis’

Green Party leader Zack Polanski criticised the second runway decision, posting on X: “Aviation expansion is a disaster for the climate crisis.

“Anyone who’s been paying any attention to this shambles of a Labour Govenrment (sic) knows they don’t care about people in poverty, don’t care about nature nor for the planet. Just big business & their own interests.”

Friends of the Earth claimed the economic case for the airport expansion has been “massively overstated”.

Head of campaigns Rosie Downes warned: “If we’re to meet our legally-binding climate targets, today’s decision also makes it much harder for the government to approve expansion at Heathrow.”

Shadow transport secretary Richard Holden welcomed the decision but said it “should have been made months ago”, claiming Labour have “dithered and delayed at every turn”.

“Now that Gatwick’s second runway has been approved, it’s crucial Labour ensures this infrastructure helps drive the economic growth our country needs,” he said.

A government source told Sky News the second runway is a “no-brainer for growth”.

“The transport secretary has cleared Gatwick expansion for take-off,” they said. “It is possible that planes could be taking off from a new full runway at Gatwick before the next general election.

“Any airport expansion must be delivered in line with our legally binding climate change commitments and meet strict environmental requirements.”

Continue Reading

Trending