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.
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.
How many courts heard this case without mentioning standing?
Just in time for the election...er, steal...
the three lil squishes
At Nuremberg 2.0, judges will be granted standing to receive all manner of punishment for treason or sedition.
I’m still banned on Twitter.
Over five years now.
Guess I won’t be allowed back on anytime soon.
Must be doing something right. 😄
The Supreme Court to the easy way out by using the “no standing” stance. They could have weighed in and made it clear the limit of government attempts to restrict the peoples constitutional rights. Whereas, this now leaves wide open the government having a license to abuse the 1st amendment through intimidation / threats for it will be awhile before there will be another lawsuit to rein in these illegal acts. But in the meantime the damage will be done because this administration will be embolden to limit the peoples rights if it goes against their message.
The unfortunate part is there are too many corporations who are willing participates to stifle constitutional rights.
They shot it down on standing and not merit. HUGE difference.
Comey-Barrett and Kavenaugh are idiots. Roberts is and akways has been a catastrophy.
