This is the case about social media “jawboning” — 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 standing — that is, a legal right to sue.
No standing ... Roberts’ favored avoidance ploy.
It took them these many months to determine standing?
Utterly ridiculous. Absolutely awful ruling.
What they are saying is that the federal government can lean on media companies to censor and ban their political opponents and nobody can do anything about it.
Therefore, due to this dodge by Roberts, it remains legal to censor-by-proxy.
See, I knew it. I remember when Second Amendment activists would say, “If they can dilute or remove the Second Amendment, then how would you like it, mass media, if the First Amendment was also diluted or removed?”
I’d remark that this is their plan all along.
Once again, I was right.
I’m getting sick of being right all the time.
court holds that the challengers — two states and five social-media users — do not have standing — that is, a legal right to sue.
So...gov’t colluding with social media companies - effecting elections - gets a pass?
:-(