Biden administration can resume contact with social-media platforms ‘until further orders’

You can’t be that ignorant, can you?

 

what is the exact action you are taking exception to? Not broadly but what activity are referring to on “censoring”?

 

You evidently didn’t read the decision or what the judge ordered. Or the Fifth Circuit’s order. Until you do, spare your insults. That is why the right wing Fifth Circuit reversed. When I read the district court’s decision, I knew that even the ultra right Fifth Circuit would reverse it. Your amateur, non-lawyer trained opinion doesn’t matter. Nor does information provided by your right wing sources. Or the opinions of a right wing freak like Musk who made an horrendous business deal buying Twitter. And, you might want to learn what prior restraint is. And what it isn’t.

 

Well said. For the conservative court to reverse it says a lot.

 

Bwahaha…reminds me of Baghdad Bob “There is nothing to see here”

 

Depends. If one of the sane panels on the Fifth Circus gets the case, it probably won't. If a crazy panel gets it, it probably will. The injunction here was way overbroad (to the point that it could be argued that it violates separation of powers) and covered a lot of things that aren't remotely close to First Amendment violations.

This case involved both the Trump and Biden administrations. The more you know.

 

You still haven’t discussed a word of what is in the opinions.

 

Help me out and post the evidence?

 

Huh?

 

I love reading one of the least informed posters trying to take one of the brightest to task.

 

Federal government using social-media giants to censor Americans


Missouri Attorney General Releases More Documents Exposing White House's Social Media Censorship Scheme

Tons of articles out there. Not hard to find unless you don’t want to see it.

 

It is his M.O. He will post various takes that range from ill informed to downright wrong, then when his incorrect information is called out, he resorts to personal insults and other such tactics.

 

Thanks for responding.
In the first one, it looks like someone was edited or banned from social media sites and claims in a lawsuit that it was because the federal govt demanded it. Maybe it’s true, maybe it’s not. Just because it’s in a lawsuit doesn’t mean anything.

on the second, you’ve got a republican attorney general claiming the email proves White House interference. I can’t tell if it really does and I only see pretty far right sources repeating his claim. I didn’t even see that Fox wrote that story.

 

To be fair, 1) as you mentioned, the mechanism they employed is offered by he companies themselves and is open to all citizens, including me and you, and 2) They were reporting only posts related to misinformation about COVID, and public health is a proper function of government.

That said, like you I am still a bit uncomfortable with the administration directly engaging with that mechanism due to the power dynamic. From their perspective, the activity might look like this: “We’re in charge of keeping people safe during this pandemic, and helping twitter to identify false medical information in tweets that go against Twitter’s own rules is a positive way to accomplish this goal.” However, if I am twitter and see a post reported not just by any old internet geek, but the US presidents office, I am likely to take it more seriously. I do not see it as rising to a public takeover (we should reserve that categorization for a more serious offense), but in thorny issues regarding the 1st amendment, I tend to side with private entities over the government.

 

Biden admin led massive 'speech censorship operation,' former state AG will testify



Psaki: White House ‘Flagging’ COVID ‘Disinformation’ for Social Media Censors | National Review

Zuckerberg tells Rogan FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

US, Stanford, social media firms censored true Covid-19 info: Twitter Files

Again, I can keep posting examples. It isn't hard to find if one truly wanted to know.

 

I do think there's a difference between government criticism as opposed to adverse actions or even threats of adverse actions. The Disney analogy is an interesting one. I don't know the facts of this case but it seems pretty clear that State of Florida enacted legislation to hurt Disney and that it did so as retaliation.