The 40th President of the United States Ronald Reagan had a way of shutting down Democrats who tried to twist the truth into a pretzel: "There you go again," he'd say.

If Reagan were alive today, he'd certainly use that phrase on former Biden adviser Tim Wu for his new op-ed in the New York Times that complains the First Amendment is "out of control."

Wu's op-ed focused on the Supreme Court's decision not to strike down laws in Texas and Florida that prevent social media censorship of users' content.

Wu's point in the op-ed was that the First Amendment is being used to benefit greedy corporations, but his real point was that the Supreme Court's ruling made it harder for the government to control the speech of individuals.

Threatening the state

"The judiciary needs to realize that the First Amendment is spinning out of control. It is beginning to threaten many of the essential jobs of the state, such as protecting national security and the safety and privacy of its citizens," Wu wrote. "Sometime in this century the judiciary lost the plot. Judges have transmuted a constitutional provision meant to protect unpopular opinion into an all-purpose tool of legislative nullification that now mostly protects corporate interests. Nearly any law that has to do with the movement of information can be attacked in the name of the First Amendment."

Conservatives and others who don't drink the liberal kool-aid like Elon Musk were quick to hit back at Wu's narrative.

The New York Times is attacking *your* freedom of speech! pic.twitter.com/TRIa13TWdY

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 2, 2024

"Fear of government power over the free flow of information was a big part of the reason why ‘congress shall make no law.’ Indeed, that's also a big part of why the founders included ‘the press’ in 1A, by which they didn't mean institutional journalism, they meant the literal biggest information moving technology of the day: the printing press," Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) President Greg Lukianoff said.

In other words, Wu has his boxers in a knot because the court didn't stand by and let Big Tech censor users at the request of Democrats anymore.

Unanimous decision

This really isn't a liberal vs. conservative issue: the ruling sending the case back to the lower courts was unanimous.

"Today, we vacate both decisions for reasons separate from the First Amendment merits, because neither Court of Appeals properly considered the facial nature of NetChoice’s challenge. The courts mainly addressed what the parties had focused on. And the parties mainly argued these cases as if the laws applied only to the curated feeds offered by the largest and most paradigmatic social-media platforms—as if, say, each case presented an as-applied challenge brought by Facebook protesting its loss of control over the content of its News Feed," the court wrote.

The House Judiciary Committee GOP account wrote on X about the op-ed, "Out of all the groups, shouldn't the @nytimes support the First Amendment more than anyone?"

And that's a good point.

But that's exactly the problem: the media and Big Tech are so much in the pocket of the left that they can't see the First Amendment clearly anymore.

Everyone knows the media is mostly a mouthpiece for Democrats, which has led to their distorted view of the First Amendment.