Kathy Jennings stands AGAINST free speech

Remember this in 2026. We could have had a much better AG.

Even if you look crazy, you still have a First Amendment right - for now. Heck, these people in the photo don’t have a First Amendment and they still express themselves with English as a second language.

Photo by Transly Translation Agency on Unsplash. In case someone I know from social media reads this, proof I’m not the only one who gets it.

Last year the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Missouri v. Biden that the administration “likely” violated the First Amendment by colluding with social media companies to chill free speech. In their case, the plaintiffs asserted:

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants, through public pressure campaigns, private meetings, and other forms of direct communication, regarding what Defendants described as “disinformation,” “misinformation,” and “malinformation,” have colluded with and/or coerced social-media platforms to suppress disfavored speakers, viewpoints, and content on social-media platforms. Plaintiffs also allege that the suppression constitutes government action, and that it is a violation of Plaintiffs’ freedom of speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Because the Fifth Circuit Court ruled against Biden and for free speech, the attorneys general in 23 Democrat-run states got their collective panties in a wad. Commentator and legal analyst Jonathan Turley pointed this out, stating “a filing in the Supreme Court supporting censorship efforts by the Biden Administration has supplied a handy list of the anti-free speech states for citizens.”

In glancing through the amicus brief filed by these AGs, they defended their position as one of law enforcement.

In Amici States’ experience, fostering such open discourse about content moderation—so that companies can develop and effectively enforce their own policies against content that undermines public health and safety—has been critical to these efforts. The decision below, if permitted to stand, would chill such mutually beneficial information sharing and dialogue, and would irreparably harm the public interest.

One example they gave were that of the Buffalo shooting, where a white man targeted black customers at a grocery store. They also claimed the previous system assisted states in reducing child trafficking and scams, and promoted safety:

Amici States also have worked proactively to mitigate and warn the public about social-media trends that encourage users to engage in acts that threaten public safety.

While that’s all well and good, it’s a question of degree. It’s only a matter of time before states (and government in general) devolve from censoring roundly unpopular free speech to becoming their own judge and jury about what information can be deemed good for the public, particularly when their interests are at stake. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and today’s censoring of a scammer becomes tomorrow’s government-encouraged social media withholding of important speech like the news about Hunter Biden’s laptop, ivermectin as an possible effective treatment for COVID, or alternative viewpoints such as the Great Barrington Declaration that called for a more focused approach to fighting the COVID disease rather than a global shutdown.

Here’s the issue: we’re all mature adults here (some more than others.) The way I look at it, we should be able to discern what’s real and what’s “fake news.” I’m not going to say that we’re all the best about it - I see people fall for obviously satrical social media all the time - but we need to live and learn about it sometime rather than have Big Brother government decide for us.

As I mentioned above, Delaware’s AG Kathy Jennings is one of the signatories to this amicus brief, as is Maryland AG Anthony Brown, former Congressman and LG for Martin O’Malley. (Brown is the guy who lost to Larry Hogan in 2014.) But while Jennings’ office is happy to put out releases about suing Amazon and Meta, they’re more tight-lipped about this brief. (As is Brown’s, although they reacted to a similar case.)

Our modern life is one of tradeoffs, and with freedom comes responsibility. Once upon a time the liberal would say, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,” but now they’ll tell you, “I disapprove of what you say, so you’ll not be allowed to share it.” By signing the amicus brief, both Jennings and Brown have signified they fail to understand the concept of free speech and full sharing of information. They also have shown that they don’t put their trust in the people but in the government.

Unfortunately, we don’t get a crack at either of them at the ballot box until 2026, a point at which the Supreme Court will have long since laughed their case out of court, and rightly so. Yet even if they don’t and we have to go all reverse Antifa like those in the photo above to get a point across, we will.

Until next time, also remember you can Buy Me a Coffee since I have a page there.