Zuckerberg Confirms Biden's Administration Pressure to Censor Facebook

IceJad said:

Zuckerberg regrets bowing to White House 'pressure' over Covid

The billionaire says White House officials pressured Meta to remove content 'for months' in 2021.

www.bbc.com

Who would have guess it? Well everyone with a functioning brain actually. In the land of the free freedom of speech is not so free apparently. Truth is what the government tells you it is. Everything else is misinformation and disinformation.

Your COVID-19 and Biden's laptop stories are the untruths because big tech companies like Facebook (Meta) said so. And Facebook said so because Biden persuaded (ordered) so.

What is more horrid is the press release by the administration. It is nothing short of doubling down on gaslighting us. "You" should think of "your actions" on the American people. While the biggest affect on the American people is done by the administration and the media/tech cartels.


Here I thought chairman Xi has the race for world most obvious liar in the bag. Good to know Biden is still in the race and has some good chances to win.

Gambate! Biden-san! Can't let China have all the glory. USA! USA! USA!

Click to expand...

This is completely obvious to the alert: old Twitter did this censoring nonsense on behalf of the government before Musk bought it. Metaphorical heads need to roll in government because of this Constitutional violation. And the appropriate parties with standing need to sue all social media outlets.

essentialsaltes said:

How about 9 Justices?

Click to expand...

The plaintiffs lacked standing. The merits of the case were not reached.

The relevant part of your article:
The lawsuit centers on “jawboning,” a term used to describe informal efforts by government officials to persuade someone outside the government to take action. In this case, the plaintiffs – two states with Republican attorneys general and several individuals whose social media posts were removed or downgraded – challenged the Biden administration’s efforts in 2021 to restrict misinformation about the COVID-19 vaccine. They argued that the administration’s actions had violated social media users’ rights to free speech.


A federal judge in Louisiana ruled for the plaintiffs. U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty agreed that federal officials had violated the First Amendment by “coercing” or “significantly encouraging” social media platforms’ content moderation decisions. Doughty issued an order that limited the extent to which the White House and several other government agencies could communicate with social media platforms.


The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit largely upheld that ruling, prompting the Biden administration to ask the Supreme Court to intervene. The justices put Doughty’s order on hold while they reviewed the dispute.


In a 29-page decision, the Supreme Court on Wednesday reversed the decision by the court of appeals and sent the case back for further proceedings. Because the plaintiffs were seeking an order limiting future communications between government officials and social media platforms, Barrett explained, the plaintiffs’ lawsuit could only go forward it they could show “a substantial risk that, in the near future, at least one platform will restrict the speech of at least one plaintiff in response to the actions of at least one Government defendant.”

The dissent was more accurate. Hopefully the case will be re-filed.

RestoreTheJoy said:

The plaintiffs lacked standing.

Click to expand...

Because no one could show the government had injured their free speech rights.

essentialsaltes said:

Because no one could show the government had injured their free speech rights.

Click to expand...

That was a given, hence the two lower rulings; a number of posters had been demonized and silenced and even de-platformed, causing financial damage to some of them. The problem was the Order seeking limits on future communications between government and social media WITHOUT demonstrating the government will restrict again (even though we know that one segment routinely suppresses narratives it doesn't like and the other just refutes it). Not sure how that can be proven. But it will happen eventually.

IceJad said:

Firstly I think you need to talk to a lawyer before you say false. No judge will say you're free to go because you didn't manage to rob or kill. That's not how the law works.

Click to expand...

Nobody's claiming otherwise. But no crime and no speech was suppressed here.

IceJad said:

Secondly we are not talking about congress and law here.

Click to expand...

Then we're not talking about free speech.

IceJad said:

We are talking about government overreach. A government agency using (abusing) its powers and authority to force a private company to comply to orders contrary to the First Amendment.

Click to expand...

Nobody was forced to do anything.

IceJad said:

The first Amendment was violated when the administrator ordered private companies to demote or remove contents by private citizens.

Click to expand...

No such orders were ever given.