The Supremes overturned a couple of similar findings by lower federal “courts” relating to “free speech”. Both cases are about blocking on Twitter or Facebook, not about real speech. The lower courts decided that local officials could block responses at their social media accounts. The Supremes decided that officials CAN’T block. (Note: this back-and-forth wasn’t entirely clear to me, and I wrote it backwards at first.)
If we assume for argument that the 1787 “constitution” (which died in 1803) still exists, what would the old obsolete “constitution” say? This part IS entirely clear to me.
Blocking is not speaking.
In 1787 terms the citizens were petitioning the officials for redress, and the officials simply refused to listen. The officials DIDN’T PROSECUTE the citizens for petitioning, which would have been improper under the obsolete “constitution”. The officials just closed the door and left the citizens outside. Nasty but perfectly normal human behavior.
The Supremes may be setting a truly bad precedent. If you CAN’T block, then by simple logic you CAN be forced to listen to an argument you don’t like. Forced listening goes along with forced speech. Both are the worst type of tyranny.
The cake-baker decisions are forced speech, and these decisions are forced listening.
Later: Conservatives are cheering the decision without seeing what it means. The Supremes ALWAYS serve Deepstate. There’s ALWAYS a gotcha.
Polistra's Mill 