Are you in an Anti-Free speech state?

[NxNW]

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.

What laptop? Has anyone produced a photo of this alleged laptop yet, or is it still a Republican fantasy?

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.

Show me a viewpoint that was actually suppressed, and we'll talk.

 

[Vambram]

What laptop? Has anyone produced a photo of this alleged laptop yet, or is it still a Republican fantasy?

Show me a viewpoint that was actually suppressed, and we'll talk

Come back to reality about the laptop, and then we will talk.

 

[Hans Blaster]

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.

But that's not what the plaintiffs complain about. They complain about the Biden campaign getting a story in the NY Post blocked for a couple days. Not censorship.

 

[Bradskii]

Come back to reality about the laptop, and then we will talk.

We don't need a laptop to discuss this.

“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 second highlighted sentence sounds reasonable. But if you accept that then you need to accept the first sentence as well. But the intent is to deny that ability of government officials to engage with the companies on important matters. You can't accept that they have a valid interest and then argue that it should be curtailed.

 

[NxNW]

Come back to reality about the laptop, and then we will talk.

You have evidence of it?

 

[Nithavela]

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

He might be a well respected legal scholar and professor, but judging by the comments under this article, his blog attracts a slightly less respectable clientele.

As a matter of fact...

 

[Hans Blaster]

He might be a well respected legal scholar and professor, but judging by the comments under this article, his blog attracts a slightly less respectable clientele.

As a matter of fact...

Have you seen his clientele? There is that old guy with the meter-long comb-over. Yikes, he's a piece of work.

 

[Nithavela]

Have you seen his clientele? There is that old guy with the meter-long comb-over. Yikes, he's a piece of work.

I think I don't want to expose my face to that. But they seem ugly enough in personality that one doesn't have to stoop to judging them by their looks.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I think I don't want to expose my face to that. But they seem ugly enough in personality that one doesn't have to stoop to judging them by their looks.

Oh, he has plenty of offensive qualities that aren't the way he looks. Yet Turley will always defend him.

 

[Vambram]

You have evidence of it?

It appears to me that, unless someone were to walk up to you and place the infamous Hunter Biden laptop in your own hands, you will always claim that this laptop is a fantasy instead of a reality.

 

[Bradskii]

It appears to me that, unless someone were to walk up to you and place the infamous Hunter Biden laptop in your own hands, you will always claim that this laptop is a fantasy instead of a reality.

While Nx is waiting for your picture of the laptop, perhaps we can get back to the OP (which is yours after all). Can you comment on post 24?

 

[stevil]

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...

Not sure what in your mind would be the reasonable middle ground.

Of course people who make movies or tv shows have every right to cast whomever they wish for parts regardless of race, skin colour, sexuality or gender.
Of course public schools are looking to protect children from discrimination regardless of race, skin colour, sexuality or gender.

 

[stevil]

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.

I personally think governments should be allowed to have open dialogue with businesses. In fact I would prefer dialogue than legislative coercion or regulation.

 

[Bradskii]

I personally think governments should be allowed to have open dialogue with businesses. In fact I would prefer dialogue than legislative coercion or regulation.

I can't honestly see how it can be stopped. Surely the freedom of association gives anyone the right to engage in discourse for a common good.

 

[stevil]

I can't honestly see how it can be stopped. Surely the freedom of association gives anyone the right to engage in discourse for a common good.

The USA right, especially the MAGA right are trying very hard to turn everything political.
They pretend that campaigns to reduce disinformation during a deadly pandemic, or to remove dangerous and discriminatory rhetoric are attacks against the right of the political right voice.

It allows them to continue attacking the Democrats, and the establishment and the government by scaring the public into believing in a Shadow State of evil establishment. Some people think this approach will get right wing supporters bums off seats and into the voting booths, others think this will get people clutching their guns and shooting their perceived leftist neighbors.
Ultimately it is all about getting certain wealthy and connected right wing people into power.

 

[Vambram]

We don't need a laptop to discuss this.

“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 second highlighted sentence sounds reasonable. But if you accept that then you need to accept the first sentence as well. But the intent is to deny that ability of government officials to engage with the companies on important matters. You can't accept that they have a valid interest and then argue that it should be curtailed.

It looks like the judges decided that there is a fine line between engaging with social media companies about "misinformation and election interference" and then actually advancing the government's interest to the point that different viewpoints are censored and/or suppressed. I believe that the judges decided that government agents and government agencies should not go around censoring or suppressing lawful freedom of speech, nor should they be encouraging social media platforms to do that either.

 

[Bradskii]

The USA right, especially the MAGA right are trying very hard to turn everything political.
They pretend that campaigns to reduce disinformation during a deadly pandemic, or to remove dangerous and discriminatory rhetoric are attacks against the right of the political right voice.

It allows them to continue attacking the Democrats, and the establishment and the government by scaring the public into believing in a Shadow State of evil establishment. Some people think this approach will get right wing supporters bums off seats and into the voting booths, others think this will get people clutching their guns and shooting their perceived leftist neighbors.
Ultimately it is all about getting certain wealthy and connected right wing people into power.

I will cast iron guarantee you that if you went to a MAGA rally and told anyone that the Dems were trying to stop Republican officials meeting with social network companies to help prevent disgusting sexual content by perverts and homosexuals being made available to children and to help prevent our elderly being scammed out of their money and to stop them showing graphic violent videos to our kids then they'd be up in arms.

'They will refuse to allow us our constitutional right to have a say in what these people put out on their so called 'social networks'. I mean, ma'am, do you want these sort of people spreading lies and propoganda about our party and our elections? Sir, do you want these people to publish whatever they want without our elected officials having no say in the matter?'

'Well, hell no! This is the US of A. Not some commie country where these companies can just put out any garbage they want'.

Of course not. Thank y'all for your support.

 

[Bradskii]

It looks like the judges decided that there is a fine line between engaging with social media companies about "misinformation and election interference" and then actually advancing the government's interest to the point that different viewpoints are censored and/or suppressed. I believe that the judges decided that government agents and government agencies should not go around censoring or suppressing lawful freedom of speech, nor should they be encouraging social media platforms to do that either.

They did. Except that Missouri wanted any government officials (which would mean Republican or Democrat), banned from even talking to these companies and entering into discussions as to what they might mutually agree could be considered harmful.

 

[Vambram]

They did. Except that Missouri wanted any government officials (which would mean Republican or Democrat), banned from even talking to these companies and entering into discussions as to what they might mutually agree could be considered harmful.

I am not entirely sure about that. However, the various distinctions within this case will be adjudicated, debated, and then decided when it goes before SCOTUS.

 

[Bradskii]

I am not entirely sure about that.

It's your thread. Why haven't you read the brief?