[Alberta's Child]

The more I read about this case, the more I'm convinced it was a terrible legal case to bring in the first place. What made it such a ludicrous case was that the plaintiffs were third parties that would have an enormous burden of proof in any civil lawsuit. And the FIRST burden of proof (which was the only point of contention in this particular Supreme Court decision) was that they'd have to demonstrate that they were actually harmed by the defendant's actions even though the defendant never acted directly against them.

Even Alito's dissent in the case exposed the crippling flaw that should have gotten the case thrown out of any courtroom in the nation (the bold text is my emphasis):

The plaintiffs claim standing based on the "direct censorship" of their own speech as well as their "right to listen" to others who faced social-media censorship. Notably, both theories depend on the platform's actions -- yet the plaintiffs do not seek to enjoin the platforms from restricting any posts or accounts.

In other words ...

If there was any legally actionable conduct in this case, then one of the following two courses of action would be required:

1. The plaintiffs in the case sue FACEBOOK (not the U.S. government) for blocking content.

2. Facebook sues the U.S. government for censoring its content.

The Supreme Court ruled (correctly, in my opinion) that since the U.S. government never acted directly against the plaintiffs, these plaintiffs have no standing to take direct legal action against it.

[libertylover]

Your comment seems correct even though I sure don’t like Facebook censoring what people write.

IMHO, a post should only be deleted if it threatens someone or someone’s property. Let the goofballs speak (or write) and I’ll decide what to believe. That comment applies to Free Republic as well.