Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court tosses out claim Biden administration coerced social media companies to remove content
NBC News ^ | June 26, 2024 | Lawrence Hurley

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 ...


TOPICS: Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-85 next last
To: IllumiNaughtyByNature
"Standing was the issue and the plaintiff’s were all lumped under same umbrella.

"Standing" is the new way to ignore what The People want, and doing the bidding in the Courts as paid/co-erced/threatened/intimidated to do, by the New World Order.

Since when, in a National Federal Election, do Citizens NOT have Standing when their votes are negated and voices blocked? Is "Standing" ONLY established by those who donate enough $$$$$ to The Agenda, or are a Designated Protected Class?

The coup of 2020 was turned back in the Courts at every turn, by the "Standing" rejections, even where the plain Facts and Evidence was CLEARLY in hand, but no one was allowed to bring a Case. How is "Standing" consistent with the 14th Amendment's "Equal Protection under the Law" Provision?????

21 posted on 06/26/2024 7:44:46 AM PDT by traditional2 (lets go B*and*n)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Coronal

22 posted on 06/26/2024 7:45:57 AM PDT by Yo-Yo (Is the /Sarc tag really necessary? Pray for President Biden: Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibFreeUSA
Again, Barret & Kavanaugh, the two “conservative” bleeding-heart wimp noodles that can’t see what’s driving the sinister agenda put right in front of their eyes. Shameful lot.

Oh, they can see it alright. It's just that, when all is said and done, they're not actually opposed to it.

People who seek refuge from governmental oppression from those who are themselves government workers -- which is all that, at the end of the day, Supreme Court Justices are -- set themselves up for this sort of disappointment.

23 posted on 06/26/2024 7:48:52 AM PDT by DSH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: FrankRizzo890

So the deciding issue was whether there was coercion? But my argument is that it is almost impossible to entangle cooperation with the government’s preference, which amounts to self censorship, from the fear that not cooperating means being punished. That in my mind is censorship. It does not always have to be a direct “shall not.” It is enough if an action is taken because of the implication of government displeasure.


24 posted on 06/26/2024 7:48:56 AM PDT by lastchance (Cognovit Dominus qui sunt eius.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Coronal

The democrats will do it again and again and again


25 posted on 06/26/2024 7:48:58 AM PDT by butlerweave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coronal

Makes sense. The social media companies were just looking for political cover to do the things they already wanted to do. If the administration had prosecuted or issued regulations muzzling them, that would be justiciable. And in any case, if the social media companies had felt aggrieved, they could have sued. Facebook’s profits are in the tens of billions.


26 posted on 06/26/2024 7:49:03 AM PDT by Zhang Fei (My dad had a Delta 88. That was a car. It was like driving your living room)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coronal

“Standing” again. This utterly absurd legal concept must be significantly revised. It is the root of 90% of the bad judgments coming out of all courts.


27 posted on 06/26/2024 7:50:02 AM PDT by LS ("Castles made of sand, fall in the sea . . . eventually." Jimi Hendrix)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MCSETots
The “Roberts Dodge” as it has come to be known after being applied so many times involving important cases.

For this essential case, he had his dogsbody, Barrett, apply the Roberts Dodge.

28 posted on 06/26/2024 7:51:23 AM PDT by glennaro (2024: The Year of The Reckoning, lest our Republic succumb to the "progressive" disease of the Left)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

Yep!


29 posted on 06/26/2024 7:53:04 AM PDT by caprock (from the flats of SE New Mexico)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

But the Biden Administration did in fact ask, there are emails


30 posted on 06/26/2024 7:55:17 AM PDT by PMAS (Vote with your wallets, there are 80 million of us - No China made, No Amazon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: pierrem15

“Terrible decision. Basically it’s unclear who, if anyone, has standing to sue when the gov jawbones a media outlet to stifle criticism, and it ignores the mountain of evidence presented showing censorship, as Alito points out.”


On this matter, Alito would be the activist judge legislating from the bench that we all fear. Jawboning the media is what every government entity does. When the government starts passing legislation or formal rules for controlling what the media presents, then we’d have an actual 1st Amendment violation.


31 posted on 06/26/2024 7:55:39 AM PDT by Bob Wills is still the king (Just a Texas Playboy at heart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: FrankRizzo890

“Right, and it was probably done VOLUNTARILY. And while I might not like it, this is probably the correct conclusion.”

So doing the same with newspapers would also be fine with you? Maybe we now are the Soviet Union, after all.


32 posted on 06/26/2024 7:59:11 AM PDT by BobL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: IllumiNaughtyByNature

“Headline is false. Standing was the issue and the plaintiff’s were all lumped under same umbrella.”

One has to have their ducks in a row on standing (according to how the Supremes view standing) or the SC is given any easy way out.


33 posted on 06/26/2024 7:59:30 AM PDT by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: LS

“Standing” again. This utterly absurd legal concept must be significantly revised. It is the root of 90% of the bad judgments coming out of all courts.


While I understand your frustration, “standing” is a fundamental element of our legal system. Standing merely requires a showing that the parties in court are actually people who have sustained some direct harm from the action being contested. Absent a government silent on all matters, standing requires a showing of harm for the government’s speech or action.


34 posted on 06/26/2024 8:00:39 AM PDT by Bob Wills is still the king (Just a Texas Playboy at heart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Coronal
TwiX post by DC Draino:

There is a lot of doom and gloom about the 6-3 SCOTUS decision in Murthy v. Biden and how it impacts the 1st Amendment

I would like to quell some of those concerns

This decision reversed the injunction based on *standing*

SCOTUS said that without the plaintiffs having sufficient standing, they could not decide the case on the merits

The case is still allowed to proceed *on the merits* in lower federal courts as to whether the gov’t violated the plaintiff’s 1st Amendment right to free speech on social media

Long story short, this battle for free speech rights is NOT over and SCOTUS will likely get further involved down the road

10:45 AM · Jun 26, 2024 · 10.7K Views

35 posted on 06/26/2024 8:00:58 AM PDT by Yo-Yo (Is the /Sarc tag really necessary? Pray for President Biden: Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JudyinCanada

But this ruling allows the government to apply more pressure to Musk to go along with the Establishment Social Media guidelines that the left will make up as needed to push their agenda on any number of “crucial” issues.


36 posted on 06/26/2024 8:02:47 AM PDT by aynrandfreak (Being a Democrat means never having to say you're sorry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Coronal

So from now on one must assume what they read is a lie! What if Trump fires the current FBI and has his own FBI would the other side say it’s ok?


37 posted on 06/26/2024 8:05:20 AM PDT by jacob allen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bob Wills is still the king

I get that. And here’s why its so hideously wrong:

I am a US Citizen. ANY federal vote for ANY president and/or US senator, even not from my state, that is acquired illegally, should automatically give me standing.


38 posted on 06/26/2024 8:07:16 AM PDT by LS ("Castles made of sand, fall in the sea . . . eventually." Jimi Hendrix)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Coronal

This nation is rapidly sliding towards a communist Marxist dictatorship government run by the DOJ, CIA and the FBI. It’s gonna come to a point that we are not going to need a president anymore. I cannot believe the Supreme Court rule in behalf of the untouchable FJB well oiled administration and his evil hordes of DC swamp creatures. You would think what they did to Thomas, Alito, Amy Barrett, and Kavanagh they would side with the first amendment. This is sickening and dangerous! We are losing rapidly our freedoms and seem our constitution is in its last gasps of life.


39 posted on 06/26/2024 8:09:30 AM PDT by RoseofTexas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

For God’s sake, read the decision.

There was no examination of whether or not coercion happened. The lawsuit was so stupidly structured that evaluation of the events actually taking place was never judged.

THE PLAINTIFFS LACKED STANDING, and how could they not know that? Monumental stupidity. Probably money involved. The lawyers bringing the suit made no effort to establish standing. There must be clear injury to the specific parties brining the lawsuit, and politics does not qualify as injury.


40 posted on 06/26/2024 8:10:13 AM PDT by Owen (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-85 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson