Pun Salad

At EconLib, G. Patrick Lynch continues his look at the Libertarian Party's woes, with a focus on how things are going in New Hampshire, which means he was forced to use the headline: Live Free or Die. We cited his previous article on the LP a few days ago, which looked at the purge of the LP's "Old Guard" by the "Mises Caucus".

Some interesting historical analysis:

I'm dubious of the FSP ➡ Mises causality that Lynch seems to imply.

But what makes sense to me is that the Mises folks seem to be intent on making the LP tent smaller. I can "live free" of the LP pretty easily.

Also of note:

• Yeah, how do they get away with that? Alex Tabarrok takes a look at The Puzzling Law and Economics of Out-of-State Tuition. He links to a Bryan Caplan post on the subject, which concentrates on the economics involved. But here's the legal issue:

  I’ve argued for a long time that an enterprising lawyer ought to sue on the grounds that this is a violation of the constitution’s Privileges and Immunities Clause (Article IV, Section 2): “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” Indeed, in Toomer v. Witsell the Supreme Court noted that

  “…without some provision of the kind removing from the citizens of each State the disabilities of alienage in the other States, and giving them equality of privilege with citizens of those States, the Republic would have constituted little more than a league of States; it would not have constituted the Union which now exists.

  and they ruled that it was unconstitutional to charge out-of-state fisherman a much higher price for a fishing license than in-state fishermen.

  At the University Near Here, the per-year tuition (2023-4) is $15,520 for in-state, $35,290 for out-ot-state. (Additional bumps for some majors apply.)

  But (on the other hand) those out-of-state students can freely vote in New Hampshire elections. In fact, UNH encourages them to do so.

• The debate continues… on Murthy v. Missouri. Here's Jacob Sullum: The Supreme Court Should Reject Clandestine Government Censorship of Online Speech: The Biden Administration's Social Media Meddling Went Far Beyond 'Information' and 'Advice'

  When federal officials persistently pressured social media platforms to delete or downgrade posts those officials did not like, a government lawyer told the Supreme Court on Monday, they were merely offering "information" and "advice" to their "partners" in fighting "misinformation." If the justices accept that characterization, they will be blessing clandestine government censorship of online speech.

  The case, Murthy v. Missouri, pits two states and five social media users against federal officials who strongly, repeatedly, and angrily demanded that Facebook et al. crack down on speech the government viewed as dangerous to public health, democracy or national security. Some of this "exhortation," as U.S. Deputy Solicitor General Brian Fletcher described it, happened in public, as when President Joe Biden accused the platforms of "killing people" by allowing users to say things he believed would discourage Americans from being vaccinated against COVID-19.

  Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, who echoed that charge in more polite terms, urged a "whole-of-society" effort to combat the "urgent threat to public health" posed by "health misinformation," which he said might include "legal and regulatory measures." Other federal officials said holding social media platforms "accountable" could entail antitrust action, new regulations, or expansion of their civil liability for user-posted content.

  Well, that sounds bad. Over at the WSJ, the editorialists are also unfond of Government’s ‘Thinly Veiled’ Social-Media Censorship.

  The line between government coercion and attempts to persuade can blur, and the Supreme Court’s oral arguments on Monday in Murthy v. Missouri added little clarity. This is too bad because the government’s facile argument deserves a rebuttal.

  The Justices pressed both parties to describe how the dealings of Biden officials with social-media platforms differed from those with the press. “It’s probably not uncommon for government officials to protest an upcoming story on surveillance or detention policy and say, you know, if you run that, it’s going to harm the war effort and put Americans at, you know, risk,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted.

  True. But in our experience, government officials don’t threaten legal or regulatory retribution against newspapers, which they have little power to carry out. The same isn’t true for social-media platforms. White House officials issued thinly veiled threats of legal consequences if platforms didn’t do more to police so-called misinformation.

  That's a free link, so click over to read how Biden spokesmodel Jen Psaki pretty explicitly tied social media companies' acquiescence to imposition of "better privacy protections and a robust antitrust program".

  But were we unfair to a SCOTUS judge yesterday? At Reason, Billy Binion defends her: A Viral Narrative Distorts Ketanji Brown Jackson's Understanding of Free Speech.

  "My biggest concern," said Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson on Monday, "is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways."

  That comment came during oral arguments in Murthy v. Missouri, the case that asks if President Joe Biden's administration violated the First Amendment when it sought to pressure social media apps to remove information it deemed harmful. It took almost no time for Jackson's tidbit to set off the viral narrative that she doesn't grasp basic constitutional principles, particularly when considering the point of the First Amendment is indeed to hamstring what the government can do in response to speech it may not like.

  "Jackson raises eyebrows with comment that First Amendment 'hamstrings' government," wrote Fox News. "Leftists want unlimited government — which is why they hate the Constitution," lamented The Federalist. It was "literally one of the craziest things I've ever seen," said Rep. Jim Jordan (R–Ohio).

  But like so many viral narratives, Jackson's comments were fairly benign in context, and were actually echoed by Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. Perhaps most ironically, her remark spoke fundamentally to the crux of the case: The government, of course, does not have the right to punish someone criminally for the vast majority of speech. But does it have the right to persuade?

  So you might want to check that out. Meanwhile the (usually sensible) Mike Masnick at Techdirt is more worried about disinformation: The Disinformation Campaign That Has Effectively Destroyed The Ability To Combat Disinformation.

  We already covered the oral arguments in the Murthy v. Missouri case earlier this week, showing that the Supreme Court appears to be quite skeptical of the arguments by the states regarding the federal government “jawboning” to convince social media to take down certain content. For months now, we’ve been pointing out that the factual record in that case is a mess, driven by conspiracy theorists pushing nonsense. Unfortunately, a few Judges both believed the nonsense and then when they couldn’t rely on it to make their point had to misquote people, quote things out of context, or entirely fabricate parts of quotes in their rulings.

  What became abundantly clear in the oral arguments Monday was that multiple justices, including Trump-appointed ones, found the factual record to be suspect and problematic. The crux of the case was effectively (1) the White House made a few public statements in which they were angry about how social media moderated, (2) the companies regularly met with government agencies about a variety of things (cybersecurity, COVID misinformation, election integrity), and (3) therefore we can assume that any content moderation that occurred on the platforms was at the government’s command.

  I think Masnick's argument is, to use the same adjective as the WSJ, facile. But (as I said) he's usually sensible, so … we link, you decide.

  As if I needed to tell you that.