In a recent video, criminal defense attorney Tom Grieve broke down a disturbing tactic used by government officials to suppress pro-Second Amendment voices without ever passing a law. The technique, known as “jawboning,” is the use of political pressure, often behind closed doors, to coerce private companies like Facebook and X (formerly Twitter) into censoring gun content. According to Grieve, it’s a silent war on both the First and Second Amendments.
Silenced Without a Law – How Jawboning Works
Jawboning is not about legislation or public votes. It’s about shadow influence. Grieve described it as “a mob boss suggesting you close your shop with a goon standing behind him.” There’s no direct order, just an implied threat: comply with our censorship demands or risk penalties, investigations, or regulatory scrutiny. For pro-gun users online, that means disappearing posts, shadowbans, and outright bans – not because of platform policy, but because of veiled government pressure.
NRA v. Vullo: The Supreme Court Recognizes the Threat
Grieve used the 2024 Supreme Court case NRA v. Vullo as a prime example. After the 2018 Parkland shooting, New York financial regulator Maria Vullo allegedly leaned on banks and insurers to sever ties with the NRA. Though she cited violations related to the NRA’s Carry Guard insurance product, the group claimed her actions were politically motivated. The Court unanimously agreed the NRA had a plausible First Amendment case. As Grieve emphasized, this was “jawboning disguised as regulatory concern.”
A Rare 9-0 Decision Defending Free Speech
What makes NRA v. Vullo so impactful is that the Court’s decision was unanimous, rare in contentious speech cases. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for the majority, made it clear: government officials cannot use their authority to punish or silence organizations based on viewpoint. Grieve pointed out the significance: “Even left-leaning justices understand that jawboning is a constitutional landmine, especially when aimed at deeply unpopular, yet protected, speech like gun rights advocacy.”
Armslist v. Facebook: Suppression in the Private Sector
Grieve didn’t stop with federal regulators. He highlighted Armslist LLC v. Facebook, a 2025 Pennsylvania Supreme Court case, to show how jawboning has infiltrated Big Tech. Armslist, a legal marketplace for firearms transactions, was deplatformed by Facebook in 2020. The platform not only banned their page, but blocked links to their website even in private messages. Grieve emphasized that this wasn’t random; it followed years of political pressure.
Senators Behind the Scenes: “Because of the Implication”
According to court filings, federal lawmakers began pushing Facebook to restrict gun content as early as 2016. In 2020, a group of 13 senators demanded the company suspend accounts that violated firearm policies. By 2021, lawmakers like Senator Dianne Feinstein were threatening to strip platforms like Armslist of Section 230 immunity – an action that would expose them to lawsuits over user content. Grieve summed it up in one phrase: “Because of the implication.” A soft threat that packs real consequences.
A Rigged Information War
Grieve warned that jawboning is dangerous not just because it silences speech, but because it warps the public narrative. “If social media becomes an anti-gun fortress,” he said, “the narrative shifts – not for you or me, but for people on the fence.” When Second Amendment voices are banned or suppressed while anti-gun rhetoric flows freely, the playing field isn’t just tilted – it’s rigged.
The Stakes Go Far Beyond Guns
Though jawboning is targeting gun owners now, Grieve cautioned that the tactic can easily be turned against any unpopular viewpoint. “If the government can jawbone tech giants to silence pro-gun voices,” he said, “they can do the same for religion, free markets, even health freedom.” This isn’t just about the Second Amendment – it’s about the First. And once a precedent is set for censorship through indirect coercion, the door is open for all liberties to be undermined.
The Legal Landscape Remains Murky
In 2024, the Supreme Court declined to take a stand on jawboning in Murthy v. Missouri, a case involving alleged White House coercion of platforms over COVID-19 content. However, the Fifth Circuit Court found compelling evidence of coercion. Grieve noted that while the ruling was narrow, the pattern is now undeniable: politicians increasingly use indirect pressure to achieve censorship they can’t legally enforce themselves.
The Emotional Exploitation of Tragedy
Grieve highlighted how jawboning often spikes after mass shootings, when public emotion is at its highest. Politicians use the emotional climate to push tech companies into “voluntary” content crackdowns. But as he reminded viewers, “When a senator threatens regulation or a regulator dangles penalties, compliance isn’t a choice – it’s survival.”
What Can Be Done? Four Ways to Fight Back
Grieve offered a four-step plan for resisting jawboning. First, expose it. “Shine a light on every letter, every meeting, every veiled threat,” he said. Second, support platforms that resist government pressure. Third, advocate for laws that forbid tech companies from becoming de facto government censors. And fourth, support legal organizations like Gun Owners of America, Firearms Policy Coalition, and the Second Amendment Foundation in their court battles.
This Is About Power, Not Just Guns
Perhaps Grieve’s most sobering point was that this issue isn’t limited to the gun debate. “The Second Amendment,” he said, “isn’t just about firearms – it’s about freedom versus tyranny.” If the government can silence dissent by leaning on corporations, then all speech is at risk. And if public debate is silenced, the right to bear arms will be next.
“Stay Loud, Stay Vigilant”
Grieve ended with a quote from Voltaire: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” He urged viewers to remain active, informed, and vocal. “Don’t let them mute your right to defend your rights,” he said. With jawboning lurking in the shadows, silence may no longer be neutral – it may be submission.
Tom Grieve’s breakdown of jawboning exposes a dangerous trend in American governance: silencing unpopular speech not by law, but by pressure. Whether it’s through deplatforming pro-gun pages or leaning on banks to drop clients like the NRA, the message is clear – “comply or else.” And as Grieve rightly warns, this isn’t just about guns. It’s about whether liberty survives the digital age.
Ed spent his childhood in the backwoods of Maine, where harsh winters taught him the value of survival skills. With a background in bushcraft and off-grid living, Ed has honed his expertise in fire-making, hunting, and wild foraging. He writes from personal experience, sharing practical tips and hands-on techniques to thrive in any outdoor environment. Whether it’s primitive camping or full-scale survival, Ed’s advice is grounded in real-life challenges.
