A curious event in Supreme Court history happened last month: An amicus brief was filed that consists entirely of a short story. Although this kind of literary contribution to law may have occurred before, it is rare and notable—especially as it was written by none other than David Mamet. As put by Joshua Katz last week in the New Criterion, such a brief from such an author is a “surprising legal intervention.”

The story concerns a pilot whose map doesn’t correlate to what he sees on the ground below. This should matter for the justices because it captures one of the dangers of government-orchestrated censorship. And it matters for Catholics and other religious minorities because their religious and moral views are particularly at risk of suppression.

Mamet filed his short story in NetChoice v. Paxton—a case that will decide the fate of free speech in this country. At stake is the 2021 Texas free speech statute, which bars dominant social media platforms from viewpoint discrimination. This protection for speech is essential because other protections have been eviscerated. …

Continue reading >>>>>>>>>>