Posted on 06/26/2024 10:28:31 AM PDT by Morgana
I misread that. Please strike my earlier comment (and this). Thanks.
The court did not rule on the question of whether the government may pressure social media companies to suppress speech in a way that would be illegal for the government to do itself. Instead, the court ruled that the plaintiffs failed to establish Article III standing to bring the case.
“SCOTUS SMASHES FIRST AMENDMENT”. You have no idea how much contempt I have for these kangaroo hacks.
“SCOTUS SMASHES FIRST AMENDMENT”. You have no idea how much contempt I have for these kangaroo hacks.
SCOTUS aka Supreme Clowns of the US
Ah yes, the ol’ “no standing” argument. Handy, that one.
So. Here is a very big deal concerning U.S. federal government outreach to “commercial communications companies that operate social connection businesses” in an attempt “to quash the spread of personal opinions opposite to those of the federal government”?
IMHO and experience, that is first-class censorship.
Am I possibly correct to state, that after examining this case, as brought before SCOTUS, that, collectively, they are looking for their backbone so deeply that the crown of their heads are inside their rectums?
Strikes Down
Injunction
Preventing
Pressuring
Suppress
Anybody else see too many negative-force words in the same headline? Anyone else’s head spun from reading it?
Sure, I read the piece to find out what all that entails; but a more succinct headline would’ve been possible.
“The crux of the decision was not based on the injunction. That’s still open for future trials”
That’s a useful tidbit toward understanding the dismissal.
Regarding specific threats used, and see this:
“Federal agents and politicians occasionally threatened that if the companies didn’t act, the government would reform Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, removing legal protections the companies enjoyed.”
If there is concrete proof of that threat being made along with who made it, that might be something that could be taken to court, seems to me.
Actually, how much of a threat is it?
The Communications Decency Act can be changed only by Congressional vote. So, the above-mentioned threat couldn’t be carried out as an inside job.
The media companies might not have been threatened at all. They and government might be colluding and the threat thing is camouflage.
Between this an Rahimi, I think they are going to screw us on Trump and Chevron. They’ll weasel on both...
It rejected the petitioners for not having standing to make their claim. In other words, it was a technical ruling.
“Ah yes, the ol’ “no standing” argument. Handy, that one.”
Standing requires an identifiable harm, or the clear potential of personal harm, to the individuals or legal entities bringing the lawsuit. The Supreme Court doesn’t issue advisory opinions, and none of the AG’s or others bringing this case were able to demonstrate a particularized harm to them, their states in general, or some nebulous group not yet harmed.
How many courts heard this case without mentioning standing?
Anybody else see too many negative-force words in the same headline? Anyone else’s head spun from reading it?
+++++++++++
100% agree. I honestly can not tell you in straight forward shop floor talk what this ruling is about.
Just in time for the election...er, steal...
the three lil squishes
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.