Source: nbcnews.com 5/30/24
[ACSOL is posting this as it could relate to eventually making the registry non-public]
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the National Rifle Association can pursue a claim that a New York state official’s efforts to encourage companies to end ties with the gun rights group constituted unlawful coercion.
The justices unanimously found that the NRA can move forward with arguments that its free speech rights under the Constitution’s First Amendment were violated by the actions of Maria Vullo, then the superintendent of the New York state Department of Financial Services.
The case was one of two before the justices concerning allegations of government coercion of private entities. The other, yet to be decided, involves claims that the Biden administration unlawfully pressured social media companies when it urged them to remove certain content.
“Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors,” liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote on behalf of the court in Thursday’s ruling. The NRA, she added, plausibly alleges that Vullo “did just that.”
William Brewer, a lawyer for the NRA, said the ruling was a “landmark victory for the NRA and all who care about our First Amendment freedom.”
Wouldn’t such a broadly applicable ruling be useful for Registrants and the goal of making SO Registries non-public, “law enforcement use only”? 🤔
Just thinking aloud. 🤷🏻♂️
I read the article but I’m not sure how this is relevant to PFRs? Could someone explain?
Trying to get from A to B.
A: The State cannot coerce private entities to suppress disfavored speech
B: Public disclosure of Registry information violates A.
While I love the idea, I’m not seeing how you get from A to B.
The website suppresses speech? How?
It would seem to me that the website compels speech, by forcing me to provide all the personal data disseminated on the website. It further compels by implying that I endorse the need to disseminate the supplied data. If I did not agree with the State that this data needs to be publicly disseminated, I would not supply it, is the implication I am compelled to make.
Forbidden to protest the implication of endorsement? I am not provided with any means to protest the dissimilation, thus the implication that I endorse the discrimination, that I am compelled to make, remains?
Hanoi Hilton videos? The Prisoners of War (PoW) held at the facility known as the “Hanoi Hilton” were compelled to make filmed statements denouncing the American involvement in Vietnam. The film footage was then disseminated by their jailers.
By compelling these people to make these statements, and providing no means to denounce them, their jailers fabricate the appearance of endorsement.
“If the PoW didn’t agree with the statements, they would not have made them”.
The PoW is compelled to make public statements, and forbidden to protest/denounce their endorsement of the statement.
Same thing with the website?
“If the PFR didn’t agree this data needs to be made public, they wouldn’t supply it.” Thus my Free Speech right to protest/denounce is suppressed by the State, and the appearance of endorsement of this compelled speech is maintained. That’s true, but does it matter to this decision?
That’s the best I got .. anyone else have an idea?
There is a jump from A to B. Many websites keep a running database of email addresses that are compiled as part of registration across the country. When an email address is detected as being part of that database the account is immediately disabled. Therefore, because a registrant’s information is made public in anyway shape or form it has the tendency to chill free speech. That is the A to B jump but actually proving this to meet a legal burden is a different story.