Posted on 06/26/2024 7:25:23 AM PDT by Coronal
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday threw out claims that the Biden administration unlawfully coerced social media companies into removing contentious content.
In reaching its conclusion, the court overturned an injunction that would have limited contacts between government officials and social media companies on a wide range of issues if allowed to go into effect. The Supreme Court had previously put the injunction on hold.
The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals later narrowed the scope of Doughty’s injunction. But the appeals court still required the White House, the FBI and top health officials not to “coerce or significantly encourage” social media companies to remove content the Biden administration considered misinformation. The court on a 6-3 vote found that plaintiffs did not have standing to sue.
The Republican attorneys general in Louisiana and Missouri, along with five social media users, filed the underlying lawsuit alleging that U.S. government officials went too far in putting pressure on platforms to moderate content. The individual plaintiffs include Covid lockdown opponents and Jim Hoft, the owner of the right-wing website Gateway Pundit.
The lawsuit included various claims relating to activities that occurred in 2020 and before, including efforts to deter the spread of false information about Covid and the presidential election. Donald Trump was president at the time, but the district court ruling focused on actions taken by the government after President Joe Biden took office in January 2021.
In July last year, Louisiana-based U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty barred officials from “communication of any kind with social-media companies urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcnews.com ...
That is true. But it would also put Musk in the position of being able to expose them, and subsequently sue them. I doubt that much, if any, pressure had to be put on the globalist SM platforms. They would gladly go along with censoring what they also wanted to censor.
It’s just one more example of the corrupt government, and how the mockingbird media is clearly the enemy of the people. This is something about which they should be screaming, but they’re in the same globalist boat!
You're ignoring how this works.
All of the legal guaranties of the Constitution are meaningless if the state and major institutions are controlled by a party of like-minded individuals acting in concert to suppress your rights.
It's like a cop asking a bystander to beat you after you're handcuffed and then claiming you have no excessive force claim because he didn't do it.
No they simply had to ask which they did extensively even down to twitter banning small users with as little as 200 followers
In one case I reviewed a congressional staffer saw something that small and called twitter to drop the user which they did
Over covid
They’ve done it over all their political aims
There is extensive cooperation between this DOJ and intelligence and congress and the democrat party and social media in oppressing opposition posting and information dissemination
This rejection by SCOTUS was not about merit but standing
Standing is often used as a punt
A larger issue is why the states would not have standing when the claim is that the Feds are violating their citizen's rights. Are they also not harmed when the Feds harm their citizens?
Barret is a huge disappointment. I understand she’s better than what we’d have gotten in Trump and McConnell didn’t force her through at the end of his term but still...
I have read about the WH having direct contact with their globalist SM buddies to notify them of what they want taken down. It’s truly despicable, if they’re supposed to be against censoring the opinions of others.
Perhaps some of the multitude of vaccine injured could bring a class action suit against these platforms and the WH for suppressing information which could have saved lives and prevented debilitating side effects.
Someone must have standing - frankly, I’d think it would be everyone.
Seriously, what proof is there of the Biden administration coercing social media companies to remove content other than message traffic of Biden’s administration coercing social media companies to remove content?
p
i thought the ruling on this issue was essentially that the complainants didn’t have standing .... according to scotusblog.com:
“In Murthy v. Missouri, a dispute over the government’s communications with social media companies during the 2020 election season and COVID-19 pandemic, the court holds that the challengers — two states and five social media users — do not have a legal right to sue.”
They should be required to say who —does— have standing.
In -this- case, who —does— have standing?
I would think that it would be any social media outlet claiming to have been pressured by the government into removing or suppressing something.
Thank u
Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch would agree:
"Justice Samuel Alito wrote a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch joined...This evidence was more than sufficient to establish Hines’s standing to sue… and consequently, we are obligated to tackle the free speech issue that the case presents,” Alito added. “The court, however, shirks that duty and thus permits the successful campaign of coercion in this case to stand as an attractive model for future officials who want to control what the people say, hear, and think..." Alito's dissent
“standing” the last refuge of scoundrels.
According to lawyer Robert Barnes, this is a fairly recent “made up” hurdle in the 20th century. It “seems” like a way for the court(s) to get out of having to make tough decisions.
To be fair, my court guru Zen Master disagrees, says it has a long tradition. And we really can’t get around Article III of the Constitution.
My response was that smart lawyers (like Mickey Haller, the “Lincoln Lawyer”) would invent a way to do so!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.