Big Blitz Posted October 21, 2023 Posted October 21, 2023 When this is over, Google needs to be destroyed. 2 1
Big Blitz Posted October 21, 2023 Author Posted October 21, 2023 A federal appellate court concluded Sept. 8 that multiple White House, surgeon general, FBI and CDC officials likely breached the fine line separating permissible government persuasion and jawboning from illicit “coercion and significant encouragement” when they repeatedly — and often successfully — lobbied social-media companies “to remove disfavored content and accounts from their sites.” In short, acts of “coerced censorship” by the platforms since early 2021 are now attributable to the federal government. This allows First Amendment free speech claims filed by Missouri, Louisiana and several individuals to proceed against officials like Surgeon General Vivek H. Murthy and White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre. The government targeted for suppression views and alleged misinformation that didn’t comport with its stance on contentious topics like the COVID-19 lab-leak theory and the efficacy of pandemic lockdowns and vaccines. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s ruling in Missouri v. Biden temporarily bars the officials from “coerc[ing] or significantly encourag[ing] social-media companies to remove, delete, suppress, or reduce … posted social-media content containing protected free speech.” The court delayed the ban for 10 days, giving the government a chance to file an emergency appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court. Stepping back from legal nuances such as what “significant encouragement” means (the Fifth Circuit said it’s when the government “exercise[s] some active, meaningful control over the private party’s decision”), Missouri v. Biden raises two larger points. The first is that the Supreme Court now has its hands full sorting out vital First Amendment issues affecting social-media platforms, while the second is that free-speech issues affecting the platforms are firmly entwined with the country’s political polarization. Regarding the court’s internet agenda, the justices will hear arguments on Oct. 31 in two cases: Lindke v. Freed and O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier. Both involve First Amendment claims against government officials who blocked citizens from following them on the officials’ personal social-media accounts. The court will address the threshold state-action question: When is an official’s ostensibly private account sufficiently used for and related to his government position and activities, like communicating with constituents, that it should be treated as a government account and trigger First Amendment concerns? I asserted in The Hill in May, shortly after the court agreed to hear the cases, that “the realities of today’s communication environment necessitate affording a citizen broad First Amendment rights, unless officials use their social media accounts in a purely private-citizen manner that is devoid of job-related content and trappings.” Furthermore, the court will likely soon agree to examine two cases — one from Florida, one from Texas — involving statutes that interfere with the editorial control and autonomy of large social-media platforms over their content-moderation practices regarding the content they host and where they host it. These two NetChoice cases (a trade association challenging both measures) carry the potential to finally give social-media platforms the same First Amendment rights over content that the court bestowed on print newspapers nearly 50 years ago in Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo. https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/4198285-missouri-v-biden-and-the-crossroads-of-politics-censorship-and-free-speech/amp/
Tiberius Posted October 21, 2023 Posted October 21, 2023 Oh goodie, the book burners are now screaming for free speech!
JaCrispy Posted October 21, 2023 Posted October 21, 2023 (edited) 1 hour ago, Tiberius said: Oh goodie, the book burners are now screaming for free speech! ^^^^ Disingenuous and hyperbolic post… Either you don’t understand the actual concept of “book burning”, or you’re being intentionally dishonest for political points…I’ll let you choose… If not, congrats on contributing nothing to the conversation…👍 Edited October 21, 2023 by JaCrispy 1
JaCrispy Posted October 21, 2023 Posted October 21, 2023 3 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: 😉 3
Big Blitz Posted October 21, 2023 Author Posted October 21, 2023 1 hour ago, Tiberius said: Oh goodie, the book burners are now screaming for free speech! We support free speech just the speech we approve of. We will work to make sure our version of acceptable speech will be enforced by the private sector. 1 1 1
BillStime Posted October 21, 2023 Posted October 21, 2023 2 hours ago, Tiberius said: Oh goodie, the book burners are now screaming for free speech! 100%
BillStime Posted October 21, 2023 Posted October 21, 2023 Funny how these idiots didn’t mind Trump doing the same exact thing for four years and even signed an EO Stung By Twitter, Trump Signs Executive Orders To Weaken Social Media Companies
Big Blitz Posted October 21, 2023 Author Posted October 21, 2023 8 minutes ago, BillStime said: Funny how these idiots didn’t mind Trump doing the same exact thing for four years and even signed an EO Stung By Twitter, Trump Signs Executive Orders To Weaken Social Media Companies This is not the same you really are a freaking moron. Somehow……Trump. 1 1 1
BillStime Posted October 21, 2023 Posted October 21, 2023 1 hour ago, Big Blitz said: This is not the same you really are a freaking moron. Somehow……Trump. Oh - it’s practically the same damn thing Covidiot 1
JaCrispy Posted October 22, 2023 Posted October 22, 2023 (edited) 1 hour ago, BillStime said: Funny how these idiots didn’t mind Trump doing the same exact thing for four years and even signed an EO Stung By Twitter, Trump Signs Executive Orders To Weaken Social Media Companies I think you copied the wrong link…It’s title is also very misleading… The article it cites has Trump quoted as saying he wants to prevent social media from censoring speech… Therefore, if you are against “book burning” (as you claim) it seems you would support that… I’m for all speech being out there, even if I disagree with it…Do you agree? Edited October 22, 2023 by JaCrispy 1
L Ron Burgundy Posted October 22, 2023 Posted October 22, 2023 26 minutes ago, JaCrispy said: I think you copied the wrong link…It’s title is also very misleading… The article it cites has Trump quoted as saying he wants to prevent social media from censoring speech… Therefore, if you are against “book burning” (as you claim) it seems you would support that… I’m for all speech being out there, even if I disagree with it…Do you agree? There's a segment of our population that wants full freedom of speech for one reason. So they can lie incessantly and rile up the village idiots. A few years ago I would not have cared and said the truth will win out. The past 6 years have shown that sentiment as naive. I dont know the remedy to this. I've seen some fact checking on Twitter but mostly it's on its way to becoming 8chan.
BillStime Posted October 22, 2023 Posted October 22, 2023 1 hour ago, JaCrispy said: I think you copied the wrong link…It’s title is also very misleading… The article it cites has Trump quoted as saying he wants to prevent social media from censoring speech… Therefore, if you are against “book burning” (as you claim) it seems you would support that… I’m for all speech being out there, even if I disagree with it…Do you agree? So Trump signs an EO because he got fact checked. And Twitter Kept Entire ‘Database’ of Republican Requests to Censor Posts They’re both playing the same fn game
John from Riverside Posted October 22, 2023 Posted October 22, 2023 I always thought the both sides have been doing this for a long time And I really hate both side arguments but it’s true 1
BillStime Posted October 22, 2023 Posted October 22, 2023 5 minutes ago, John from Riverside said: I always thought the both sides have been doing this for a long time And I really hate both side arguments but it’s true But one party - as you can see from the above - is desperate for ANYTHING to go their way. It’s been a rough going for them… just visit billsfans if you want to see the truly deranged.
Joe Ferguson forever Posted October 22, 2023 Posted October 22, 2023 I''m finding some of these posts true laugh out loud. Could be 13 miles biking, someone passed me a joint or the stellas. not sure which...
Big Blitz Posted October 22, 2023 Author Posted October 22, 2023 5 hours ago, JaCrispy said: I think you copied the wrong link…It’s title is also very misleading… He’s deliberately trying to be misleading. I’m not sure he even knows the subject matter of the topic - Biden colluded with Big Tech to suppress the “conspiracy theorists” about Covid - which was essentially political opposition. Low info Bill and any other low info leftist trash likely knows this - that’s why he’s trying to derail the thread with his usual “but Trump sucks” garbage. 1
L Ron Burgundy Posted October 22, 2023 Posted October 22, 2023 5 hours ago, BillStime said: But one party - as you can see from the above - is desperate for ANYTHING to go their way. It’s been a rough going for them… just visit billsfans if you want to see the truly deranged. I dont get why if they post there why still post here? They love echo chambers just stay there. 1
Recommended Posts