Are you in an Anti-Free speech state?

[Vambram]

Are You in an Anti-Free Speech State? We Now Have The Definitive List

For years, we have discussed the alarming shift in the Democratic party on free speech with candidates running on pledges to censor opposing views and politicians supporting blacklisting and censor…

jonathanturley.org

For years, we have discussed the alarming shift in the Democratic party on free speech with candidates running on pledges to censor opposing views and politicians supporting blacklisting and censorship on social media. Many citizens oppose such efforts to restrict their rights under the First Amendment, but are unaware of the work of their representatives to limit free speech. Now, a filing in the Supreme Court supporting censorship efforts by the Biden Administration has supplied a handy list of the anti-free speech states for citizens.

The 5th Circuit previously ruled in Missouri v. Biden that administration officials “likely violated” the First Amendment and issued a preliminary injunction banning the government from communicating with social media companies to limit speech.

Not surprisingly, the state of California is leading the effort to get the Supreme Court to reverse a decision enjoining the government from censorship efforts. California has long sought to impose speech limits on doctors, businesses, and citizens to silence opposing viewpoints.

However, 23 Democrat-led states joined this ignoble effort in signing on to the brief of California Attorney General Rob Bonta. The brief lauds past efforts of these states to combat “harmful content” on the Internet and to protect the public from “misleading information” through partnerships with social media companies.

So here is the list to see if you are residing in an anti-free speech state:

 

[dogs4thewin]

nope GA is not on the list

 

[Hans Blaster]

Apparently the only criteria is for your state's AG to have participated in a brief countering that garbage Mizzouri case. Legal scholarship ain't what it used to be. (Oh, and the brief was filed 5 months ago. It is so timely. eyeroll.)

 

[SavedByGrace3]

The founding fathers knew this sort of thing would happen... hence the 1st Amendment.
We are just seeing political people prove they were right.

 

[Vambram]

Apparently the only criteria is for your state's AG to have participated in a brief countering that garbage Mizzouri case. Legal scholarship ain't what it used to be. (Oh, and the brief was filed 5 months ago. It is so timely. eyeroll.)

Jonathon Turley is a well respected legal scholar and professor. Perhaps you didn't know that.

Also, the so-called garbage can Missouri case has been accepted to be heard by the Supreme Court of the United States.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

While my state's not on the list, and while I can largely sympathize with "some" of the conservative arguments on this one...I'd be curious to see their detailed methodology on this, because I

Because I've seen a two-faced approach to this topic happening a lot lately.

The people who clutch pearls over schools banning "Gender Queer" and "Flamer" are at odds with the people who clutch pearls over the fact that a movie features a gay character or replaces a white character with a black character.

The reasonable middle ground on this topic seems to be shrinking...

 

[Hans Blaster]

Jonathon Turley is a well respected legal scholar and professor. Perhaps you didn't know that.

I know what his rep used to be.

Also, the so-called garbage can Missouri case has been accepted to be heard by the Supreme Court of the United States.

There is no accounting for taste.

 

[Bradskii]

However, 23 Democrat-led states joined this ignoble effort in signing on to the brief of California Attorney General Rob Bonta. The brief lauds past efforts of these states to combat “harmful content” on the Internet and to protect the public from “misleading information” through partnerships with social media companies.

The brief describes the process of open communication with social media companies to enable discussions to held in regard to content that is mutually agreed to be harmful. And we're talking live streams of shootings, inappropriate contentography, paedophilia, incest, scams, price gouging etc. Any actions that companies take to prevent mostly children being bombarded with this crud are purely voluntary.

Who on earth would want to stop this? Calling it anti free speech is nonsensical. This isn't a black and white matter. It's farcical to throw out the means to control that which we'd all agree needs to be controlled on some plea to protect free speech.

If something comes up whereby you think a social media company had been 'pressured' into restricting something you think they shouldn't have, then bring it to the table. Maybe we'll all agree with you. But to say that it must all be allowed is simply crazy.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The brief describes the process of open communication with social media companies to enable discussions to held in regard to content that is mutually agreed to be harmful. And we're talking live streams of shootings, inappropriate contentography, paedophilia, incest, scams, price gouging etc. Any actions that companies take to prevent mostly children being bombarded with this crud are purely voluntary.

Who on earth would want to stop this? Calling it anti free speech is nonsensical. This isn't a black and white matter. It's farcical to throw out the means to control that which we'd all agree needs to be controlled on some plea to protect free speech.

If something comes up whereby you think a social media company had been 'pressured' into restricting something you think they shouldn't have, then bring it to the table. Maybe we'll all agree with you. But to say that it must all be allowed is simply crazy.

I would add that anyone concerned by Mr. Turley's posting, should actually read the fairly short brief. (There is a lot of structural material, headers and the like, at the front and back. It can be read in a few minutes.)

 

[Vambram]

I know what his rep used to be.


There is no accounting for taste.

Ah, therefore, on a side note, I suppose that you have a similar distaste towards Alan Dershowitz concerning reputation and discernment?

 

[Vambram]

The brief describes the process of open communication with social media companies to enable discussions to held in regard to content that is mutually agreed to be harmful. And we're talking live streams of shootings, inappropriate contentography, paedophilia, incest, scams, price gouging etc. Any actions that companies take to prevent mostly children being bombarded with this crud are purely voluntary.

Who on earth would want to stop this? Calling it anti free speech is nonsensical. This isn't a black and white matter. It's farcical to throw out the means to control that which we'd all agree needs to be controlled on some plea to protect free speech.

If something comes up whereby you think a social media company had been 'pressured' into restricting something you think they shouldn't have, then bring it to the table. Maybe we'll all agree with you. But to say that it must all be allowed is simply crazy.

The lawsuit in question from the state of Missouri that is going to the SCOTUS is in regards to social media companies has very little ... if anything.... to do with inappropriate content such as pedophilia, incest, live streaming of shooting, etc.

 

[Bradskii]

The lawsuit in question from the state of Missouri that is going to the SCOTUS is in regards to social media companies has very little ... if anything.... to do with inappropriate content such as pedophilia, incest, live streaming of shooting, etc.

You haven't read the brief, have you...

It explicitly explains what the process is that allows state and federal organisations to enter into discussions with social media companies specifically to mutually agree on preventing 'inappropriate content such as pedophilia, incest, live streaming of shooting, etc.' Missouri wants that process to stop. Thus increasing the chance that 'inappropriate content such as pedophilia, incest, live streaming of shooting, etc.' will be available to children.

Again, if you think a social media company has been or is being pressured to block content that you think should be available, then bring it to the table and we'll discuss it. I'm pretty certain that it won't be 'inappropriate content such as pedophilia, incest, live streaming of shooting, etc.'.

Ball's in your court.

 

[Vambram]

Biden administration coerced social media giants into possible free speech violations: court

The White House may have violated First Amendment rights by pressuring tech companies to suppress or remove posts, 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled.

www.usatoday.com

The White House, health officials and the FBI may have violated the First Amendment rights of people posting about COVID-19 and elections on social media by pressuring technology companies to suppress or remove the posts, a federal appeals court ruled late Friday.

The decision from the conservative 5th Circuit Court of Appeals partly upheld an order from a Louisiana federal judge that blocked many federal agencies from having contact with companies like Facebook, YouTube and X, formerly Twitter, about content moderation.

But the 75-page opinion from three-judge panel also significantly narrowed the scope of the order that was a major victory for conservatives.

The Biden administration has 10 days to seek a Supreme Court review of the ruling.

“DOJ is reviewing the court’s decision and will evaluate its options in this case," the White House said in a statement. "This administration has promoted responsible actions to protect public health, safety, and security when confronted by challenges like a deadly pandemic and foreign attacks on our elections. Our consistent view remains that social media platforms have a critical responsibility to take account of the effects their platforms are having on the American people, but make independent choices about the information they present.”

The states of Louisiana and Missouri filed the lawsuit along with a conservative website owner and four people who opposed the administration’s COVID-19 policy.

The lawsuit accused administration officials of coercing platforms into taking down controversial content including election fraud, the FBI's handling of Hunter Biden's laptop and the COVID pandemic.

The 5th Circuit panel found that the White House coerced the platforms through “intimidating messages and threats of adverse consequences” and commandeered the decision-making processes of social media companies, particularly in handling pandemic-related and 2020 election posts.

“It is true that the officials have an interest in engaging with social media companies, including on issues such as misinformation and election interference. But the government is not permitted to advance these interests to the extent that it engages in viewpoint suppression,” the judges wrote.

The appeals court pared down U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty’s July 4 ruling, saying it was "overbroad." Doughty said the lawsuit may involve "the most massive attack against free speech in United States' history."

 

[Fantine]

I'm in a state that is trying to heavily censor what's available in libraries, and whose governor just appointed a former state-legislator who wants to defund any library in the state who doesn't purge its shelves to the library board, I really don't think that the Democrats are disturbing my "free speech."

Not to mention that our attempts to put the Freedom of Information Act into the state Constitution via referendum are blocked by the AG (so that the governor can continue to chow down at the public trough without the public knowing).

Given the amount of complete falsehoods in social media I am not opposed to a certain amount of oversight. There are so many innocent people in this country whose exposure to accurate information is unavailable. In my state I hear them talking and my head absolutely spins with the things they believe.

And in Washington, DC, I have never seen the current White House press office verbally abuse the press--and I have never seen the current president leave the podium in a huff or call reporters liars and worse. I have never seen reporters have to seek security patrols for assistance because our current president pointed them out to a whipped-up audience blathering for red meat (as happened in the previous administration.)

 

[Hans Blaster]

Biden administration coerced social media giants into possible free speech violations: court

The White House may have violated First Amendment rights by pressuring tech companies to suppress or remove posts, 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled.

www.usatoday.com

The White House, health officials and the FBI may have violated the First Amendment rights of people posting about COVID-19 and elections on social media by pressuring technology companies to suppress or remove the posts, a federal appeals court ruled late Friday.

The decision from the conservative 5th Circuit Court of Appeals partly upheld an order from a Louisiana federal judge that blocked many federal agencies from having contact with companies like Facebook, YouTube and X, formerly Twitter, about content moderation.

But the 75-page opinion from three-judge panel also significantly narrowed the scope of the order that was a major victory for conservatives.

The Biden administration has 10 days to seek a Supreme Court review of the ruling.

“DOJ is reviewing the court’s decision and will evaluate its options in this case," the White House said in a statement. "This administration has promoted responsible actions to protect public health, safety, and security when confronted by challenges like a deadly pandemic and foreign attacks on our elections. Our consistent view remains that social media platforms have a critical responsibility to take account of the effects their platforms are having on the American people, but make independent choices about the information they present.”

The states of Louisiana and Missouri filed the lawsuit along with a conservative website owner and four people who opposed the administration’s COVID-19 policy.

The lawsuit accused administration officials of coercing platforms into taking down controversial content including election fraud, the FBI's handling of Hunter Biden's laptop and the COVID pandemic.

The 5th Circuit panel found that the White House coerced the platforms through “intimidating messages and threats of adverse consequences” and commandeered the decision-making processes of social media companies, particularly in handling pandemic-related and 2020 election posts.

“It is true that the officials have an interest in engaging with social media companies, including on issues such as misinformation and election interference. But the government is not permitted to advance these interests to the extent that it engages in viewpoint suppression,” the judges wrote.

The appeals court pared down U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty’s July 4 ruling, saying it was "overbroad." Doughty said the lawsuit may involve "the most massive attack against free speech in United States' history."

If this is about "government censorship" of social media, then why is the first "example" the plaintiffs give in their original complaint about a request from a political campaign for a candidate that held no office at the time requesting the removal of links to a news story? Does that sound like "government censorship"?

 

[Vambram]

If this is about "government censorship" of social media, then why is the first "example" the plaintiffs give in their original complaint about a request from a political campaign for a candidate that held no office at the time requesting the removal of links to a news story? Does that sound like "government censorship"?

It sounds a lot like government censorship to me.

 

[Hans Blaster]

It sounds a lot like government censorship to me.

Really? A political campaign involving no one holding office making a request of a private company to supress some links is "government censorship"? If you think so, then why should we give any credence to what you say on this case?

 

[Vambram]

Really? A political campaign involving no one holding office making a request of a private company to supress some links is "government censorship"? If you think so, then why should we give any credence to what you say on this case?

Evidently, the 5th Circuit court disagrees with your opinion.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Evidently, the 5th Circuit court disagrees with your opinion.

Then they've lost touch with reality, because none of the individuals involved in that example were in government.

How do you rectify calling actions by non-government actors as government censorship?

 

[Vambram]

Then they've lost touch with reality, because none of the individuals involved in that example were in government.

How do you rectify calling actions by non-government actors as government censorship?

Apparently, you have forgotten the evidence showing government intervention from the FBI and other agencies concerning the censorship of the Hunter Biden laptop as well as censorship during the Covid 19 pandemic.