What's new
By:
Filters

So the Supreme Court rules its okay for the government to force censorship

Thumping

Thumping

Well-known member
Joined
May 19, 2020
Member Number
255
Messages
1,465
apnews.com

The Supreme Court rules for Biden administration in a social media dispute with conservative states

The Supreme Court has sided with the Biden administration in a dispute with Republican-led states over how far the federal government can go to combat controversial social media posts on topics including COVID-19 and election security.
apnews.com apnews.com

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Wednesday sided with the Biden administration in a dispute with Republican-led states over how far the federal government can go to combat controversial social media posts on topics including COVID-19 and election security.

By a 6-3 vote, the justices threw out lower-court rulings that favored Louisiana, Missouri and other parties in their claims that federal officials leaned on the social media platforms to unconstitutionally squelch conservative points of view.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the court that the states and other parties did not have the legal right, or standing, to sue. Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas dissented.
 
It's a fine ruling. The states don't have standing because the impacted person is an individual, not the state, unless official state media accounts were being censored. Those individuals being censored are the ones with standing.
 
Motorcharge said:
No they didn't, they ruled the state lawsuit was overly broad and had no legal standing. Every media outlet is framing this like they upheld the censorship to rage bait people. The censorship can still be litigated over.
Click to expand...

platforms can do whatever they want. Yelp hiding legitemate reviews for $$ is bullshit too, but its their platform.
 
fordguy said:
platforms can do whatever they want. Yelp hiding legitemate reviews for $$ is bullshit too, but its their platform.
Click to expand...


Void_of_Light said:
Not when it's at the government's behalf. That's the most direct violation of the 1a I can think of.
Click to expand...

AND they get protections by functioning as a PLATFORM, well protection does not come without a cost.
 
non-OP said:
It's a fine ruling. The states don't have standing because the impacted person is an individual, not the state, unless official state media accounts were being censored. Those individuals being censored are the ones with standing.
Click to expand...
The individual does not get a vote. The state cast the vote on his behalf.

You know the whole "Representative Republic"... "electoral college" thing.

That alone gives the state standing.

Edit:
The Supreme Court isn't last because it's right. It's only right, because it's last.
 
Last edited:
Motorcharge said:
No they didn't, they ruled the state lawsuit was overly broad and had no legal standing. Every media outlet is framing this like they upheld the censorship to rage bait people. The censorship can still be litigated over.
Click to expand...

1719520590477.png
 
Motorcharge said:
No they didn't, they ruled the state lawsuit was overly broad and had no legal standing. Every media outlet is framing this like they upheld the censorship to rage bait people. The censorship can still be litigated over.
Click to expand...
yep

the rest of you should learn some legal procedures and definition causes otherwise you just sound dumb.
 
It's total bullshit that they claim they didn't have standing.

FFS, it's the FIRST FREAKING AMENDMENT and indisputable proof that .gov under Sniffy violated that most basic of all rights.

Freaking copout...bunch of limpwristed, nutless chickenshits.
 
fordguy said:
platforms can do whatever they want. Yelp hiding legitemate reviews for $$ is bullshit too, but its their platform.
Click to expand...
They can, but the government can't. The government outsourcing censorship is a flagrant violation of the 1st amendment. What they did during COVID absolutely should be litigated against, this case just wasn't it.
 
rockota said:
so... who does have standing?
Click to expand...
Anyone who was censored or deplatformed and can prove the government was pushing for it. There's tons of celebrities, social media people, doctors, etc who were victims of the government pushing censorship through these companies in the last few years who have very solid, legitimate cases. There's probably going to be tons of lawsuits over this ever since Elon bought Twitter and made all their files on this public. It will be harder to prove with other social media sites and apps, but even outside of Twitter there's definitive proof this happened. Zuckerberg even testified in front of Congress that it happened on his platforms under order from government agencies.
 
non-OP said:
It's a fine ruling. The states don't have standing because the impacted person is an individual, not the state, unless official state media accounts were being censored. Those individuals being censored are the ones with standing.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say it was a fine ruling. Frankly the majority opinion is bullshit. They predicated it on judicial history of the Court not having that broad of oversight. It's a bullshit argument, that's a good reason not to hear the case but they decided to hear it and overturn a lower court instead. The majority opinion reads like a cop out to not open the can of worms of declaring the government can't outsource their power to a 3rd party to circumvent the Constitution. The case was not overly broad just because they had a broad range of evidence.

Barret's majority opinion is one of the dumbest I've ever read from the Court and she's far from the dumbest person currently sitting on that bench.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Back Refresh