But can the courts prevent citizens who are elected to public office from talking? Has President Biden lost his ability to call up Zuckenberg to talk to him about matters of public policy? How can the President do his duty if the courts can gag him?
That’s the whole point. The pubs don’t want a Democrat president doing his duty. They want him ruined.
It is remaining unvaccinated, or under-vaccinated, and failure to follow other evidence-based practices, that kills people.
From NPR, December 2022:
Why vaccine hesitancy persists in China
While there are multiple causes here, a big one, in China’s low vaccination rate, for those who need it most, is that people do not trust one-sided media. The NPR story doesn’t quote people saying quite that, but Chinese have to be careful talking to foreign media. And if they trusted what they were told, they would have had the vaccine by then.
I’ve read enough history of medicine to know that vaccine hesitancy is a universal. The need for the U.S. Supreme Court to rule in favor of mandatory vaccination, in 1905 (for adults) and in 1922 (for children), illustrates this. So the need to refute anti-vaxxers never ends. But suppressing their mistaken ideas is not going to reduce belief in them. If anything, it will put the level of distrust on steroids.
By the administration? Zero times. Maybe the judge should stop congressional Republicans from calling in Social Media companies for banning conservatives. Is that your actual concern here? Actual pressure from actual congressional Republicans when the SM companies do things they don’t like? Because the case at hand was not about that.
I don’t know, but they weren’t threatened with anti-trust actions because they pulled down or refused to pull down information, or because they banned or didn’t ban people of whatever political stripes. If they were threatened, it was because they were doing anti-competitive things, not for exercising speech.
The court on a 6-3 vote found that plaintiffs did not have standing to sue in part because they had failed to adequately allege that the content moderation at issue was as a result of government actions.
So they threw out the case on standing to sue criteria, so didn’t make a definitive judgement–which means there was no basic resolution–and cases will keep coming up.
But I don’t think anyone is going to have standing on this. The government doesn’t get involved in social media content moderation, despite right wing propagandists saying otherwise.
That may depend on the definition of “involved.” Nobody seems to be disputing that the federal government has, er, “suggested” that social media outlets look at certain postings (for example, some involving COVID-19); what the Court said was, when it came down to it, the decision to remove the posts was entirely with the social network - “sue them instead” - and in that light, I agree that nobody is going to have standing without proof that the government actually threatened the social media companies somehow.
Agreed, but they’ll keep trying. Death of a thousand cuts.
Although it does not appear to have garnered much interest on the SDMB after the ruling came down, I wanted to point out one bit that I found interesting in Barret’s majority opinion. In footnote 4, the opinion states:
“The Fifth Circuit relied on the District Court’s factual findings, many of which unfortunately appear to be clearly erroneous. The District Court found that the defendants and the platforms had an “efficient report-and-censor relationship.” Missouri v. Biden, 680 F. Supp. 3d 630, 715 (WD La. 2023). But much of its evidence is inapposite. For instance, the court says that Twitter set up a “streamlined process for censorship requests” after the White House “bombarded” it with such requests. Ibid., n. 662 (internal quotation marks omitted). The record it cites says nothing about “censorship requests.” See App. 639–642. Rather, in response to a White House official asking Twitter to remove an impersonation account of President Biden’s granddaughter, Twitter told the official about a portal that he could use to flag similar issues. Ibid. This has nothing to do with COVID–19 misinformation. The court also found that “[a] drastic increase in censorship . . . directly coincided with Defendants’ public calls for censorship and private demands for censorship.” 680 F. Supp. 3d, at 715. As to the “calls for censorship,” the court’s proof included statements from Members of Congress, who are not parties to this suit. Ibid., and n. 658. Some of the evidence of the “increase in censorship” reveals that Facebook worked with the CDC to update its list of removable false claims, but these examples do not suggest that the agency “demand[ed]” that it do so. Ibid. Finally, the court, echoing the plaintiffs’ proposed statement of facts, erroneously stated that Facebook agreed to censor content that did not violate its policies. Id., at 714, n. 655. Instead, on several occasions, Facebook explained that certain content did not qualify for removal under its policies but did qualify for other forms of moderation.”
You get two guesses who appointed said district court judge. And the second guess doesn’t count.
Since it is extremely rare for a SCOTUS opinion to call a judge to task for such horrible partisanship in its fact finding (especially when it is unnecessary since the case was resolved by the standing issue), it is important to emphasize, once more, just how much MAGA has poisoned the judiciary with partisan hacks. In this case, it’s Terry A Doughty, who not only fucked this case up, but also relied on heavily debunked pseduoscience in another case where he attempted to negate Covid vaccine mandates.
So, a hearty fuck you to Doughty, and to all the idiot judges whom put politics over the law and the use of judicial shopping.
And, as an added measure, I get the sense that that footnote was, at least in part, a swipe at current Supreme Court partisan hack, Alito, who said in his dissent: “If the lower courts’ assessment of the voluminous record is correct, this is one of the most important free speech cases to reach this Court in years”. Seeing as how the “lower courts’ assessment” was much more political hit job than actual evidence based fact finding was complete bullshit, I like to think Barret might be taking a shot at Alito. So, in addition to Doughty, I’ll add a fuck you for Alito, who is acquiring "fuck you"s at a rate unseen by any other living justice not named Clarence “please bribe me” Thomas.