Supreme Court tosses claim Biden admin coerced social media to remove content(nbcnews.com)
nbcnews.com
Supreme Court tosses claim Biden admin coerced social media to remove content
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-tosses-claim-biden-administration-coerced-social-media-c-rcna151356
15 comments
Not just that, you can’t sue because someone else (a hypothetical someone) may have been harmed.
It's a little less specific than that. While the ruling officially only addresses standing and doesn't decide merit, there are several footnotes that basically go "the underlying theory of government action here is just wrong."
And they're ultimately saying that the plaintiffs don't have standing because they couldn't trace their bans to government action... which is pretty close to a merits finding, as the lack of a government role is pretty dispositive as to whether or not that role was impermissible.
And they're ultimately saying that the plaintiffs don't have standing because they couldn't trace their bans to government action... which is pretty close to a merits finding, as the lack of a government role is pretty dispositive as to whether or not that role was impermissible.
For those people trying to make this political, it's not. Trump could easily use this to pressure tech companies to take down posts advocating for "violent" abortions, or Palestinian "misinformation", or whatever left-of-center viewpoint you could think of. SCOTUS just said it's A-OK to use the full force of government to intimiate companies into restricting free speech.
>SCOTUS just said it's A-OK to use the full force of government to intimiate companies into restricting free speech.
Speaking of trying to make this political... this decision says nothing of the sort.
Speaking of trying to make this political... this decision says nothing of the sort.
> Trump could easily use this to pressure tech companies to take down posts advocating for "violent" abortions, or Palestinian "misinformation", or whatever left-of-center viewpoint you could think of.
Yes, and they did. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/elon-tru...
> Oftentimes, requests would demand Twitter stop “shadowbanning” certain conservative accounts, or that the company reinstate banned or suspended right-wing personas. Other times, offices of senior Trump administration officials would send emails seeking to remove tweets that they believed to be “hate speech” or death threats aimed at their principals. And over the years, the knowledgeable sources say, staffers for Republican officials would regularly flag to Twitter content that they believed violated the app’s terms of service or other policies, including on spreading “misinformation” or “disinformation.”
Tech companies can, and regularly do, say "no", as the First Amendment explicitly permits.
Yes, and they did. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/elon-tru...
> Oftentimes, requests would demand Twitter stop “shadowbanning” certain conservative accounts, or that the company reinstate banned or suspended right-wing personas. Other times, offices of senior Trump administration officials would send emails seeking to remove tweets that they believed to be “hate speech” or death threats aimed at their principals. And over the years, the knowledgeable sources say, staffers for Republican officials would regularly flag to Twitter content that they believed violated the app’s terms of service or other policies, including on spreading “misinformation” or “disinformation.”
Tech companies can, and regularly do, say "no", as the First Amendment explicitly permits.
Just the latest attempt at fascism from the right wing. Apparently, the only real purpose they see for government is mandating their ideology.
Support this at your own peril.
Support this at your own peril.
Could you elaborate? Is the part where the Democrat run executive branch put pressure on social media companies to censor topics fascism or is the Supreme Court ruling that the litigants did not have standing to sue the government for that fascism?
Actually, the fascist part is where Republican attorney generals put pressure on a Republican appointed judge who accepted their allegation of "coercion" --- all without any evidence to that effect whatsoever.
This is a mockery of how the courts are supposed to work.
This is a mockery of how the courts are supposed to work.
I think it was unclear in your original comment that you were opposed to the injunction, not the SCOTUS ruling.
How is this from the right wing?
How is it not?
The original "injunction" was put in place by a Trump appointed "judge" as the result of legal action from Republican Attorney Generals in Louisiana and Missouri --- all without any evidence to support the allegation of "coercion".
The original "injunction" was put in place by a Trump appointed "judge" as the result of legal action from Republican Attorney Generals in Louisiana and Missouri --- all without any evidence to support the allegation of "coercion".
The injunction was an attempt by the right-wing.
The right-wing SCOTUS seems to have determined it was a bit too much.
The right-wing SCOTUS seems to have determined it was a bit too much.
The right-wing SCOTUS seems to have determined it was a bit too much.
To their credit, yes they did.
The total lack of evidence did not support any such broad injunction. This case should never have made it to the SC docket. The fact it did just reeks of influence peddling and partisan gamesmanship.
To their credit, yes they did.
The total lack of evidence did not support any such broad injunction. This case should never have made it to the SC docket. The fact it did just reeks of influence peddling and partisan gamesmanship.
The ideology of the right wing is that Biden and "the left" exercise authoritarian control over social media and use coercion to force those platforms to suppress free speech and "inconvenient truths." That an ostensibly right-wing (by majority) court decided against such an anti-leftist narrative, even just on technical grounds, doesn't seem at all like fascism.
I think an important thing here is the ruling is pretty specific - they are essentially saying it still could be litigated. If there was a future case where speech was suppressed and a government official was complicit, that would be grounds for a 1A lawsuit. But you can't just sue because you are butthurt that Facebook takes down your post but not Fauci's.