3 ms·

Before anyone gets all excited, this is a first amendment freedom of speech case.

kccqzy 2y ago
Exactly. People automatically associate NRA with the second amendment but in this case the court is just affirming a first amendment freedom. It says nothing about the court's actual attitude towards the second amendment.
- dylan604 2y ago
  I have such low expectations any more, that I pretty much expect the win to be spun in a way that does try using it as a vindication of the NRA in more than just first amendment when the news is spread of the win.
rootedbox 2y ago
A 9-0 freedom of speech case against a government entity is something to be excited about.
Ancapistani 2y ago
True, but the NRA's specific speech the government attempted to suppress was very much around the second amendment. I'm wondering how this will impact the former DoJ "Operation Choke Point" activities.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  I don't care if it's speech around the second amendment, or around how male members of the Supreme Court conduct their deliberations while wearing pink tutus. It's protected speech.
mitchellst 2y ago
This. The headlines are "court sides with NRA!" which fits the ongoing "illegitimate court" narrative for progressives because the NRA is unpopular. (Partly owing to "ew! guns!" and partly owing to other, unrelated legal trouble growing out of NRA leaders embezzling + offering an illegal insurance product.) But... this was about whether a government official could threaten arbitrary regulatory action against a firm's customers/vendors/partners because of that firm's constitutionally-protected advocacy. (And whether that had in fact happened in this case. 9-0 it did.) And if you're the kind of person who is set off by that and can't abide NRA having a win, I'd ask if you want your favorite progressive advocacy organization to be able to have a bank account and an insurance policy in Texas and Florida. This was not a close call or earth-shattering case.
alistairSH 2y ago
Additionally, all SCOTUS did as remand the case back to a lower court. They did NOT make a ruling on the merits of the initial case.

Exactly. People automatically associate NRA with the second amendment but in this case the court is just affirming a first amendment freedom. It says nothing about the court's actual attitude towards the second amendment.

dylan604 2y ago
I have such low expectations any more, that I pretty much expect the win to be spun in a way that does try using it as a vindication of the NRA in more than just first amendment when the news is spread of the win.

rootedbox 2y ago

A 9-0 freedom of speech case against a government entity is something to be excited about.

Ancapistani 2y ago

True, but the NRA's specific speech the government attempted to suppress was very much around the second amendment. I'm wondering how this will impact the former DoJ "Operation Choke Point" activities.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
AnimalMuppet 2y ago
I don't care if it's speech around the second amendment, or around how male members of the Supreme Court conduct their deliberations while wearing pink tutus. It's protected speech.

mitchellst 2y ago

This. The headlines are "court sides with NRA!" which fits the ongoing "illegitimate court" narrative for progressives because the NRA is unpopular. (Partly owing to "ew! guns!" and partly owing to other, unrelated legal trouble growing out of NRA leaders embezzling + offering an illegal insurance product.) But... this was about whether a government official could threaten arbitrary regulatory action against a firm's customers/vendors/partners because of that firm's constitutionally-protected advocacy. (And whether that had in fact happened in this case. 9-0 it did.) And if you're the kind of person who is set off by that and can't abide NRA having a win, I'd ask if you want your favorite progressive advocacy organization to be able to have a bank account and an insurance policy in Texas and Florida. This was not a close call or earth-shattering case.

alistairSH 2y ago

Additionally, all SCOTUS did as remand the case back to a lower court. They did NOT make a ruling on the merits of the initial case.