With Nikki Haley in Second Place in NH I Feel Obligated to Remind Voters That She is a Constitutional Threat – JP

Much has been said about the rise of Nikki Haley to second place in New Hampshire, mainly as a vehicle for bashing a struggling Gov. Ron DeSantis, who has the second place spot almost everywhere but the Granite State.

Polls that were taken before Haley announced that she wanted her government to out every public speaker on social media.

“…every person on social media should be verified by their name. First of all, that’s a national security threat. When you do that, people have to stand by what they say and it gets rid of the Russian bots the Iranian bots and the Chinese bots, and then you’re going to get some civility when people know their name is next to what they say.”

And again, no. It is unconstitutional, and Nimarata Nikki Randhawa should know better (that’s her birth name and public information). I bring it up for two reasons. First, it should be the end of her campaign, but we’ve yet to see any evidence. And two, Ace wrote some words about “Wine Aunt Nikki Haley,” and I needed an excuse to share them.

This is a terrible policy idea offered only to achieve a trivial, stupid goal — “we want people to be nice on the internet!” — but of course Wine O’Clock Wendys can only offer this kind of deranged perspective-free obsessive nattering.

We’re grappling with serious, existential issues and you want the government to make sure your fucking Twitter feed is “nice”??!?!

Incivility is not a national security threat, while most of what passes for the American Republic (bastardized by generations of negligence and abuse) is. Hence, the ability of insiders to speak anonymously to the problem we see in government is essential and protected. The State cannot make social media require speakers to use their real names or associations, and Nimarata Nikki Randhawa would be going up against two bulwarks if she tried. (.: She Didn’t Mean to But Nikki Haley Just Ended Her Campaign for President.)

First, without regard to ideological labels, SCOTUS frequently defends free speech cases unanimously. It is a problematic Amendment to crack. Second, we have the Bruen decision. America rose in the smoke and haze of uncivil discourse—a charge led by the anonymous pamphleteers. Using pseudonyms in public political discourse is a well-established American tradition. Haley can say she wants it, but she can never do it, so you’d be right to ask – after being repulsed by the mere thought of it – what else has she said for effect that has no chance of happening, and she knows it.

Additionally, because the government cannot force “social media” companies to require speakers to publish under their legal name, the platform owners would be left to decide – perhaps with some prompting from the CIA, FBI, IRS, or OSHA, to do it anyway. Their lawyers would never let it happen, and not just because – as noted – it is not something the State can force. It would be bad for business. Anyone who needed or wanted to speak freely but had to do so anonymously would do that “talking” somewhere else. The loss of subscribers could snowball into a loss of interest, revenue, and investors, and that Big Tech, Left-Coast lifestyle to which platform execs had become accustomed.

And maybe you can’t sell that to Google, so now what?

Well, you could begin by not voting for politicians who announce how they intend to use government force to violate the rights of free citizens. It is a long list that didn’t start with Nikki Haley but of which she is now included, and it should disqualify her for many offices but most certainly that of the President of the United States.