# data[].attributes.body
The NRA is accusing the NY Dept. of Financial Services of blacklisting them. This deals with growing effort by government agencies to target advertisers of advertisers of conservative and dissenting websites to kill funding for opposing views. While the case deals with this effort on the state level it could produce a ruling on indirect efforts by the government including the Biden administration to censor viewed point.

In the case before the court, New York's Department of Financial Services is accused of using increased regulatory scrutiny and possible penalties to coerce financial institutions into ending their support for certain blacklisted groups. The NRA documented how former DFS Superintendent Maria Vullo appears to have pressured financial institution to drop any association with the organization.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Each year at the U.S. Supreme Court, an array of marquee cases tends to draw all of the attention. However, there are also sleepers among the pending cases that have significant importance. One such case involves a rare alliance between the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Rifle Association.

NRA v. Vullo deals with the growing effort by government agencies to target the advertisers of conservative and dissenting websites to kill the funding for opposing views. While the case deals with this effort on the state level, it could produce a ruling on indirect efforts by government, including the Biden administration, to censor viewpoints.

In the case before the court, New York's Department of Financial Services is accused of using increased regulatory scrutiny and possible penalties to coerce financial institutions into ending their support for certain blacklisted groups. The NRA documented how former DFS Superintendent Maria Vullo appears to have pressured financial institutions to drop any association with the organization.

Specifically, the NRA contends that Vullo's office pressured insurance companies not to cover the NRA or risk retaliation from the state. As the ACLU noted in its amicus brief opposing the defendants' motion to dismiss the case, the NRA might not be able to prove these allegations, but it should be given the opportunity to do so.

ACLU representing NRA is consistent with values. Its stance on transgender issues isn't.

It's chilling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit refused to allow the NRA to prove its case. It rejected any First Amendment claim, despite evidence that New York tried to silence opposing political views.

The 2nd Circuit declared that even if Vullo had " engaged in unconstitutionally threatening or coercive conduct," she would be protected by qualified immunity. The decision is a virtual green light for a type of soft censorship that uses surrogates and regulatory pressure.

Biden administration tries to censor free speech

Under the Biden administration, there has been a consistent attack on free speech through the censorship and blacklisting of opposing groups. Even facts are now deemed dangerous " malinformation," if used in a way that the administration deems misleading or harmful.

For example, according to an investigation by the Washington Examiner, the federal government helped to fund the Global Disinformation Index (GDI), which discourages advertisers from supporting sites accused of promoting disinformation.

All 10 of the sites that GDI claimed were the riskiest are popular with conservatives, libertarians and independents. GDI warned advertisers that they were accepting "reputational and brand risk" by " financially supporting disinformation online."

The "risky" sites included Reason, a libertarian-oriented source of news and commentary about the government. Conversely, HuffPost, a far left media outlet, was included among the 10 sites at lowest risk of spreading disinformation. (GDI included USA TODAY in this group.)

A triumvirate of government, corporate and academic institutions are involved in efforts to control free speech by throttling the funding for its exercise. If you want to be heard in a large context, you either stay within the lines set by these groups or face pariah status.
Florida ban violates free speech: DeSantis tramples on free speech rights of Florida students who support Palestinians
Efforts to control the funding of free speech are consistent with a larger campaign by this triumvirate. The Biden administration has relied heavily on what I have described as "censorship by surrogate" in using social media companies to silence opposing viewpoints. As I testified in Congress, the use of corporate agents still violates the First Amendment.

Indeed, a federal judge found that the Biden administration had operated a censorship system that was truly " Orwellian."

NRA v. Vullo is critical free speech case

That is why NRA v. Vullo could prove to be one of the most important free speech cases of the decade. New York (and the 2nd Circuit) would allow the government to deny free speech by cutting off its financial oxygen.

As shown by the alliance of the ACLU and the NRA in this instance, this is a fight that most citizens should be able to embrace, regardless of our differences. For every Vullo on the Democratic side, there could be a dozen Vullos on the conservative side who use the same type of coercion against pro-abortion or environmental groups.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on X @JonathanTurley
The Supreme Court could prevent this race to the bottom by imposing a bright-line rule against content-based discrimination by government agencies. The soft censorship in NRA v. Vullo will have hard consequences for free speech if New York prevails.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why the ACLU is working with the NRA to protect Americans' free speech rights

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
NRA v. Vullo deals with efforts by government agencies to target the advertisers of conservative websites to kill funding for opposing views.

# data[].attributes.body
this article is about a man gets the death penalty. Sixty corrections officers and staffers are arguing for his life. now in the article it said that he shouldn't get the death penalty. for killing his cousin and her husband. he is 51 years old.

he did do drugs on the night of the killing with him.Why not put him in an asylum. Maybe he had a grudge against her and her husband.“You’re punishing more than just the person you’re executing and that’s cruel and unusual in my opinion.”

- judge

“Dorsey was experiencing drug psychosis the night of the crime and thus incapable of deliberation – the requisite intent for capital murder,”

- his attorneys

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Sixty Missouri Department of Corrections officers and staffers are urging the state's governor to stop the execution of a "model inmate" convicted of killing his cousin and her husband.

Brian Dorsey, 51, is set to be executed in April in the 2006 killing of his cousin, Sarah Bonnie, and her husband, Ben Bonnie. He has been held in the Potosi Correctional Center for most of his sentence.

The Kansas City Star reports that 60 former and current Missouri Department of Corrections officers and prison staffers wrote a letter asking Republican Gov. Mike Parson to grant Dorsey clemency.

"We are part of the law enforcement community who believe in law and order," the group wrote in the letter. "Generally, we believe in the use of capital punishment. But we are in agreement that the death penalty is not the appropriate punishment for Brian Dorsey."

A representative from the Missouri Department of Corrections says the agency has nothing to do with the letter.

"We have not seen the letter," wrote Karen Pojmann, the communications director for the department, in an email to USA Today. "Purportedly, the letter was sent to the Office of the Governor, and I don't know whether he and his staff have seen it either."

She said the department has no comment on the matter.
Death row: US Supreme Court to hear case of Oklahoma death row inmate Richard Glossip
Brian Dorsey lives in 'honor dorm,' works as prison barber

The letter says that Dorsey stays out of trouble and is respectful toward officers and inmates. It also says that Dorsey is housed in an "honor dorm," given to prisoners with good conduct.

Dorsey, who was allowed to be a barber, cut the hair of prisoners and officers, including the former warden of Potosi, Troy Steele, who called Dorsey a "model inmate"

"Offender Dorsey has been able to conduct himself in this environment in exceptional fashion having exhibited no behavioral issues while under the scrutiny of the correctional staff and the harassment of other offenders," Steele said in a report.

Brian Dorsey's family weighs in

Jenni Gerhauser, a cousin of both Dorsey's and victim Sarah Bonnie, joined the 60 corrections staff members in speaking out against his execution.

"It's a unique experience because you are on both sides of this story," Gerhauser told the Star. "You've got a vested interest on both sides. There's no winners in something like this, there's not."

She said the execution would affect more than just Dorsey.

"You're punishing more than just the person you're executing and that's cruel and unusual in my opinion." she told the Star.

Dorsey and Gerhauser were born three weeks apart. The two grew up together, and spent birthdays, holidays and summers with one another.

Gerhauser told the publication that she feels helpless.

"We're very much living in the middle of eye-for-an-eye country. But I wish people would understand it's not that black and white," she said, adding that her cousin's defense at trial was a "joke."

What do Brian Dorsey's attorneys say?

Megan Crane, an attorney for Dorsey, filed an 80-page petition at the end of December, saying that her client was denied the constitutional right to effective representation.

"Dorsey was experiencing drug psychosis the night of the crime and thus incapable of deliberation - the requisite intent for capital murder," the petition says.

His team is made up of federal public defenders who took on the case pro-bono, Arin Brenner, an attorney with his defense team, told USA Today.

Dorsey's attorneys at trial were paid a flat fee to represent him in his original case, which is problematic, Brenner said.

"No matter how much work they did or didn't do, they still get the same amount of money," said Brenner. "So they convinced Brian to plead guilty to a crime he didn't remember and neurologically could not have committed in exchange for nothing."

The petition says the flat-fee structure under which Dorsey's attorneys were hired caused a clear conflict that "adversely affected" Dorsey's case.

Governor denies clemency

According to the Star, Parson has denied every request for clemency since he's been in office.

But Brenner says two things set Dorsey's case apart from the others.

"One, is the complete lack of due process and Sixth Amendment protections that Brian received," she said. "He didn't have effective counsel. He didn't get his basic constitutional rights."

Brenner told USA Today that his attorneys chose to skip the guilt phase of a trial when a jury decides if a person is guilty, according to the Office of Victims' Services.

"He missed the most important phase of any defendant's trial," said Brenner.

The second reason Brenner believes sets Dorsey's case apartment is that "he has been extraordinary as an inmate."

"There is this sense that if he isn't given clemency, then why should prisoners make better choices and choose to behave in prison if everyone just gets executed at the end?" Brenner states.

When is Brian Dorsey's execution scheduled?

Dorsey's execution date was set for 6 p.m. on April 9 by the Missouri Supreme Court, according to the Columbia Daily Tribune, part of the USA TODAY Network.

"As Attorney General, I want to enforce the laws as written, which includes carrying out the lawful sentence that has been upheld by multiple courts, including the nation's highest court," said Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey in a statement. "My office is committed to obtaining justice for victims of heinous crimes, and we will use every tool at our disposal to make Missouri the safest state in the nation."

What happened in 2006?

Dorsey was in debt to his drug dealers when, on the night of Dec. 23, 2006, he was with his cousin Sarah Bonnie and her husband, Ben, drinking and playing billiards in New Bloomfield, a city about 13 miles north of Jefferson City, the Daily Tribune reported.

After other friends left, Dorsey killed his cousin and her husband with a shotgun. Dorsey also left with cash, his cousin's car and other property to pay off his debts.

Sarah Bonnie's mother found their remains on Christmas Day in 2006. Dorsey turned himself in to authorities the next day.
Contributing: Charles Dunlap, Columbia Daily Tribune
The couple were survived by a daughter.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'Model inmate': Missouri corrections officers seek death penalty reprieve for Brian Dorsey

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Brian Dorsey, 51, is set to be executed in April in the 2006 killing of his cousin, Sarah Bonnie, and her husband, Ben Bonnie.