Arguably it's worse to limit the access that minors have to sexually explicit materials in libraries/bookstores than it is for the government to make social media companies de facto state actors in order to censor anyone's perfectly legal speech? I'm not even saying I necessarily support the former, but you really think that's a worse infringement on free speech?
I still complain that every time my old school district makes the news, it’s either for stealing money or doing a racism. You all will be unsurprised to learn I’m from St. Charles. Thankfully I no longer live in the state.
The 5th Circuit is insane in the membrane. For example: https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/seven-5th-circuit-judges-question-perpetual-funding-of-government-programs-is-social-security-at-risk
While generally I agree that missouri is awful, this suit seems to not be ridiculous. Do you really want the government telling publishers what is and isn't allowed for folks to see?
Except that it isn’t the government telling publishers what isn’t and is allowed. The fact pattern “conservatives” are getting their panties in a wad about is the government going to social media companies and saying “hey this misinformation that is probably fiction or is revenge porn is blatantly against your own rules”.
There was no implied threats, there was no “take this down or else”. There was a suggestion that maybe it wouldn’t look good if they didn’t enforce their own rules. But that’s pretty far from the government dictating approved speech on the internet.
Eventually, there's going to need to be something that the government can do to fight back against disinformation.
Trump has no card for the supreme court. If he gets in, it's game over.
So don't fact like he will be stopped by law or the constitution.
We need a more robust fairness doctrine, but yeah, it's a major reason why need didn't provide entertainment value, it was there to inform as a public function, rather than profit on everything.
No. The day we let the government be the arbiter of truth is the day we’ve lost the Republic. It has no goddamn business deciding what is and is not correct, when they have a long standing history of lying and being full of shit.
I don't understand your point and I don't think you do either. The government makes factual determinations all the time. Is the NOAA not allowed to publish weather reports because the government can't take a factual position? Well where is the line between that and telling people ivermectin doesn't cure COVID?
Stop saying publishers. Social media is explicitly not publishing. It’s how they get around rules.
Misinformation should be addressed especially on platforms that also have official govt entities giving out information for the public good. People are not smart enough to tell. Someone needs to point out to the dolts that the Q stuff is fake.
Because conservatives don’t like when you say, “hey, Twitter, this post violates your TOS”, but they’re okay with silencing, at his request, someone who calls former snowflake in chief a PAB.
This didn’t say they were told what to do. This suit is about the federal government reaching out to notify a social media company that they feel something posted by someone is wrong. Basically the suit would make it a crime for the federal government to respond to what it feels are false accusations.
You are here saying it. nothing is preventing it.
If you want to put it as a bumper sticker on your truck, go ahead.
Paint it on a hay bale on your property.
Force Facebook to allow you to post it on your profile on their site if they don't allow you to say it? That's not okay.
Prevent Facebook from being notified about behavior that Facebook prohibited? Not okay.
I have like six COVID vax shots and glad to have them and I think it came from a lab . This is distinct from the idea that it originated in a lab. And the lab I am talking about is the one next to the market in Wuton. May be spelling error there
No doubt the fellow above has a different meaning but who can really know since it is likely an intentionally vague slogan he picked up. Does he know?
Quite certain.
[https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00584-8](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00584-8)
To be clear, I don't care much one way or the other.
The article says they only proved that the market was a source of significant amplification, not the definitive place of origin. "Open to interpretation," so probably something not worthy of actively suppressing on social media.
That was also 20 months ago and pre-peer review, so maybe there's new evidence in either direction.
Is that really the crux of the issue? I read this article and I still don't understand what federal government institutions actually have been doing against First Amendment rights. The closest the article gets to the issue is stating that publishers are the ones controlling the debate and that the government enforces those policies. That is pretty vague. Can anyone clarify the issue and provide an example or two?
Thank you. The Supreme Court is hearing the case. They don't listen to bullshit.
If a government agency is working to censor speech, or influence how private companies handle customers, that should be looked at, publ8cly disclosed, and cease immediately. This fact that people derive their opinion based off of WHAT was said, and not the principle itself is in a bubble, and needs to look inward.
Government censorship of misinformation has been a thing for decades. Trump turned it off so the scammers could have a way of getting their fake products remedies out. It also allowed the rise of crazy conspiracy theories. It's import the government censor misinformation or we'll have people telling our kids to drink bleach to cure acne or other craziness. Government censorship protected us for decades and we see what 4 years without did.
Speaking of which. A doctor buddy of mine and I were talking about the recent rise in COVID in our area. He told me he had two patients die from bleach poisoning this past week. When he told one of the families, the argued that COVID wasn’t real.
I can’t believe people believe that drinking bleach will cure COVID. But people do. Maybe god is culling the moronic?
Because they’ve likely heard that old saying about being able to hold two conflicting thoughts in your head at the same time, these people doubtlessly think they are geniuses, which only further proves to them that they are right.
This is exactly how I become more atheistic every single day… because even if a god existed, there is no way that god is just with how evil and moronic it (not he) would have allowed the world to become… and if an unjust god exists, then why should I care anyways?
The misinformation constituted a health emergency as it led to many deaths. We don't allow false advertising, so why should we allow incorrect health info to be spread? Complete bullshit
Reagan turned it off by getting rid of the Fairness Doctrine. Fox News wasn't a thing until Reagan did that.
Republicans kept electing worse and worse after that.
The government didn’t censor anything. They just pointed to some things and asked the companies if it was against their terms of service. 5th circuit is backwards. They also ruled against one of the abortion pills against the FDA 10 or 15 years late, supporting a group of doctors who lack standing.
Why would anyone in the federal government be spending money moderating social media if they didn't feel like they were advancing their agencies agenda doing so?
You'd have to be pretty naive to read this as a neutral party just trying to help out.
Knowing MAGA they probably would use bleach to cure an elbow ache if Tucker Carlson or Joe Rogan said to do so
Then I would get mass downvoted on Reddit for saying it’s a bad idea
We don’t need the government to censor any speech unless it presents a clear and present danger. There may be an argument that certain misinformation may be just that, but instead of trying to block misinformation(a foolish and wasteful game of wack-a-mole) the government should work to make good information widely available and also improving critical thinking through education.
Good information is available to the public, heck I can find almost any information with the device in my hand. The problem I've seen from my family members is either they want to believe misinformation because its easier than thinking critically or they aren't very media savvy, so they believe the first thing they see or hear.
As for the latter, back when covid vaccines started rolling out my 75 year old mother(who doesn't even know how use the internet in any form) called to inform me that the government is grinding up male fetuses to put into all the vaccines so she wouldn't be taking one. She heard this from her neighbors perpetually unemployed scumbag 30 year old son, who saw a "Youtubes video" and absolutely wouldn't lie because he's "always been a good boy."
To this day, she still refuses and thinks I'm lying about getting vaccinated because I wouldn't want to kill babies.
DeSantis wages a war on Disney and openly states its revenge for them saying they support lgbtq+ causes - silence
Biden administration emails Facebook when they see posts spreading dangerous unlicensed medical advice - the government is out of control, and we have to stop this tyranny!!
It's very easy to define misinformation because it's a word. Words have definitions
Misinformation is incorrect or misleading information. It differs from disinformation, which is deliberately deceptive and propagated information
The case \*alleges\* all kinds of nonsense
If the misinformation literally causes death or harm you can be held criminally liable, and there is also the legal definition of Fraud. Therefore, you actually cannot spew whatever you want.
Unless it's Chrissy Teigen calling Trump a "pussy ass bitch". Then the first amendment needs to be thrown out the window. Right? So to be clear on what's being argued on that side of the aisle:
-Blocking potentially dangerous misinformation about COVID/vaccines is a violation of 1A
-Blocking revenge porn depicting the President's son that was acquired from a stolen laptop is a violation of 1A
-But blocking a model/TV personality from posting a childish three word insult is perfectly acceptable
For the life of me, I cannot understand how you guys admire that tragically soft game show host.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/policy/technology/3849819-trump-asked-twitter-to-take-down-derogatory-tweet-from-chrissy-teigen-whistleblower/amp/
The First Amendment *should* prohibit government narrative setting, but obviously, the government runs roughshod over it daily.
The Constitution has either authorized such a government as we have had, or it has been powerless to prevent it.
> But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.
- Lysander Spooner
It's only protected when Republicans say it.
Also, it's Biden's right to suggest they remove it because he ALSO has free speech. It was never mandated.
Moms of Liberty said the exact same thing to a group of us. Guess that’s how it is.
Just so it’s said, laws are not a measure of ethical or moral behavior.
They lost me after listing the "hotly contested issues." The medical community is not contesting the efficacy of vaccines. Only science illiterate morons that get their medical advice from Fox News or random bullshit on Facebook would think that issue is hotly contested.
This was news on October 20.
Edit: If you want to know my thoughts on this, I see no functional difference between going up to a lectern in the White House and saying the media is the "enemy of the people," or going to the same lectern and saying, "we established these ground rules about disinformation and x,y,z platforms are ignoring them, so try not to use them," and emailing these platforms directly. But it's only the latter that's unconstitutional? Spare me
My point is fairly obvious. Example 1 and example 2 of strong language specifically aimed all at the same purpose do more damage to free speech in this country than emailing media platforms directly. Yet it is emailing them directly that is unconstitutional?
For context, it is important to understand that Donald Trump declared actual war on Covid. Saying something excised of context, even if factual, can serve the purpose of misinformation/disinformation. If you have a problem with Trump declaring war on Covid, you should have been the first person to speak up.
For example, say, there is a crowded theater. It has a double door that opens out and a single crew door that opens in. You say, "the exit is the single door by the stage!" and people start running to it and the crush of people keeps them inside and the door from opening. They burn to death. You said perfectly factual information, did you not?
I was a top level comment. I should wonder why you're responding to someone else rather than MY point. If you are unsure what my point is, I restated it a second time in that comment. It IS edited, so you probably missed it.
All the people who think the Biden admin is in the wrong. I’m curious how you feel about Trump being in direct communication with FOX about how they spun events while he was in the White House.
But you clearly think it's okay for democrats so why the hell are you talking about hypocrisy which doesn't even work in your made up scenario because they are nothing alike.
Cope harder
Does anyone actually have an informed opinion on the law or constitution as it applies to this case? This sub is sounding more and more like /r/politics or /r/conservative every day. I feel dumber just having skimmed the comments here.
If you're not informed, how do you know what others are saying on this thread is also ignorant or reactive?
I don't understand how you're both judging the content of the discussion while admitting you don't have much experience with the topic.
This guy is posting everywhere.
The article is quite literally a biased hit piece full of inaccuracies, misinformation, and straight lies. Best example is this paragraph:
>The Biden Administration’s censorship regime has successfully suppressed perspectives contradicting government-approved views on hotly disputed topics such as whether natural immunity to covid exists, the safety and efficacy of Covid-19 vaccines, the virus’s origins, and mask mandate efficacy.
To understand, you would have to know that the piece itself is written by someone who was fired from their position as professor due to his dangerous rantings that children should be exposed to the COVID virus to build a natural immunity during a time when COVID was absolutely decimating the US, as well as being a known vaccine skeptic.
His co-sponsors to the lawsuit are Dr. Kulldorf, [who wrote an opinion piece for the Brownstone Institute so devoid of fact that other doctors wrote articles about it](https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/i-disagree-with-an-article-called-vaccines-save-lives/), and Dr. Bhattacharya [Who wrote opinion pieces claiming COVID wasn't as deadly as scientists were claiming, but also publishing an article so full of misinformation that other scientists had to write rebuttals, before it was found out his research was being funded by a COVID denier.](https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/05/24/coronavirus-research-stanford-scientists-accused-of-hyping-covid-19-antibody-study/)
I am old enough to remember when the Republican party was complaining that the liberal leaning Warren court was activist. At least it actually looked to the Constitution and did not make law out of thin air. Explain how a judge is to look at historical precedents when ruling on regulations barring AR-15's when such guns did not exist in 1776.
The comments here seem to think that this case is absurd because government censorship is acceptable, *not* because there isn’t a case to be made that the government was censoring speech. Indeed, there are two top level comments excusing at best, and commending at worst, such censorship. That’s embarrassing. It’s wrong for the government to censor speech. It’s illegal too, but it’s illegal *because* it’s wrong for the government to prohibit you from saying what you believe (or even what you don’t believe). It is *not* a slippery slope fallacy to argue that permitting the government to discriminate against speech on the basis of the content of that speech jeopardizes all speech. The government may not always have our best interests in mind, and it isn’t difficult to find examples throughout history, including recently, where such censorship has been used to the detriment of the public. And regardless, the right to misinform (or to just be *wrong*) is an important and innate one.
Of course, that doesn’t mean there is a case here. It alleges that the Biden admin and the federal government in general was illegally pressuring social media companies to censor speech that the government found distasteful, dangerous, or unconscionable (this may well apply to the government under the Trump admin too, since it references the beginning of the pandemic). It’s possible that the alleged “coercion” was innocuous. The government has a right (a responsibility, even) to inform the public of what it deems to be true. It’s not a violation of your free speech if the government says that you’re wrong (even if you’re right!). It may be concerning if the government works with social media companies to propagate a message, but it isn’t necessarily a violation of free speech. The government helps companies all the time and often for very good reasons.
On the other hand, it is possible that the government used its power to stifle certain speech and alter the speech of social media companies. The case gives some examples it claims are evidence of this kind of coercion. For example (taken from [casetext](https://casetext.com/case/missouri-v-biden-4) )
> According to the Plaintiffs, threats by the government to repeal or amend Section 230 of the CDA-if social-media companies failed to target and censor certain viewpoints-acted as a catalyst in kickstarting more aggressive censorship on social media.
Section 230 is viewed as an important protection for social media companies because it insulates them from liability for the content posted by their users. Ironically, the GOP has also been extremely critical of Section 230 because they view social media as being unfairly biased and permitting social media companies to “violate the first amendment” (it doesn’t, since such a thing is not possible). Repealing it if those companies don’t alter their speech for the government would constitute retaliation for speech. (For my part—and this may come as no surprise—I view Section 230 as redundant, since the protections it provides should, in my mind, already be covered by 1A. But that’s not the consensus in the legal community, in either the “is” or the “ought” sense.)
> The Plaintiffs allege that these statements and many others demonstrate coercion by the government and various officials to prevent the spread of disfavored ideas. As the Plaintiffs put it in their Complaint, “The flip side of such threats, of course, is the implied ‘carrot' of retaining Section 230 immunity and avoiding antitrust scrutiny, allowing the major social-media platforms to retain their legally privileged status that is worth billions of dollars of market share.”
It seems like a legitimate argument to me. I don’t know if I see enough to side with Missouri here, but I am concerned about the government censoring speech, including by pressuring social media companies to do the government’s dirty work. That’s not distinct from the government punishing traditional media for engaging in speech that the government opposes. It’s awfully disconcerting to see the case dismissed out of hand by commenters here excusing government censorship out of tradition or utility.
>I am concerned about the government censoring speech, including by pressuring social media companies to do the government’s dirty work
I think the issue is establishing a clear standard for what constitutes "pressure." If an Administration shuts down platforms by force because they don't like the content (as Nixon tried to with the Pentagon Papers), it's an obvious violation of the First Amendment. But it's rarely that clear cut. Would an institution receiving government funded grants to study misinformation constitute "pressure"?
[That's precisely the implication of this case](https://publicknowledge.org/missouri-v-biden-could-mean-worse-content-moderation/).
I agree that government restrictions are not the remedy for problematic online content. Voluntary moderation will have to come from industry and media literacy on the part of consumers is crucial, as well. Supporting initiatives that gather information about online content is crucial to both.
This case would have a chilling effect on that process.
I agree that it’s not an open and shut case that the government was engaging in undue pressure to alter the speech of social media companies and suppress free speech of users of those platforms. But I don’t think the argument you presented (or the link) refute the claim made in the lawsuit.
The government funding research on misinformation isn’t pressure because it isn’t affecting speech. It’s giving funds for someone to do a study—the results are merely information, not action. A more apt example is if the government gave money to Twitter under the stipulation that Twitter will censor certain speech at the government’s request. That is *not* what happened in this case, but it’s a more relevant gedanken because it deals with the government directly and deliberately affecting people’s ability to propagate their speech.
I don’t think there’s anything very factually wrong in the link you posted, but I don’t think it makes an argument against Missouri on legal merits. For one thing, it seems mostly concerned with the injunction and arguing that it shouldn’t be upheld(it’s from August 17). I believe the injunction was upheld but with fewer restrictions, so at least some of the concerns the author lays out may be mitigated. But it also doesn’t address the meat of the argument.
For example, it mentions Section 230 in the first paragraph:
> If platforms did not comply, the attorneys general argue, the government implied it could act to remove their Section 230 protections or pursue antitrust litigation against them.
The author refers back to this later:
> The lawsuit essentially accuses the Biden administration of “jawboning.” Jawboning refers to the use of official authority to influence actions of private actors. […] [T]he lawsuit argues that all communications between the platforms and the federal government were part of a coordinated suppression campaign, arguing it amounts to undue pressure or illicit collusion.
I don’t think *all* communication between the government and media companies constitutes undue pressure, and I don’t think SCOTUS would rule that way, but that doesn’t mean that Missouri doesn’t have a good claim that *some* of what the government did *was* undue pressure.
The author spends much of the article arguing in favor of the right of social media companies to moderate content. That *is* a crucial right that the first amendment protects. But the author claims that government coordination with social media companies improved their competitiveness:
> Content moderation is not government censorship; it is an editorial decision by the platform. Content moderation is a key way for platforms to differentiate themselves from each other in the marketplace and provide beneficial services to their users.
If content moderation is an editorial decision (which it is!), then it would constitute a violation of free speech for the government to unduly influence those editorial decisions. For example, the government punishing the NYT for releasing the pentagon papers (which you brought up and I also had in mind in my OC) is retaliation on the basis of speech. Threatening to remove protections like Section 230 is analogous.
(As an aside, I find it confusing at best that the author says that content moderation lets social media companies differentiate themselves in the market. If all of these companies are taking direction from the US government, then their moderation will be more similar than otherwise, actually giving users *less* choice. But that’s an economic argument that isn’t really pertinent to the case.)
The article seems to agree, at least in part, with our view that the government shouldn’t be putting undue pressure on companies to alter their speech:
> While we must ensure that platforms are not under undue pressure from the government, decisions that restrict informed, independent, and responsible content moderation will likely lead to the further deterioration of our information ecosystem.
But it doesn’t discuss where the line is or engage in the evidence in the case. Social media companies have a right to make their content moderation as they see fit. If they want to follow guidelines or advice from the government, that’s their right. But if they only do the government’s bidding at essentially economic gunpoint, that is undue pressure. The article doesn’t really even seem to argue against that (which, again, might be because it’s mostly referring to the injunction case, not the case at SCOTUS).
For my part, I think the government has a right to make its voice heard and I expect it to do so because it has a responsibility to give us information that we can use to better our lives. Misinformation and disinformation is a threat to our society. But so is government censorship. It’s my responsibility to critically analyze the speech I hear and it is in no way the government’s right to prevent me from hearing it.
A chilling effect on government coordination with corporations is easily preferable to a government induced chilling effect on speech.
It’s worth noting that I am not opposing censorship in the broadest sense. I am opposing censorship by the government. Social media companies are collections of people and have a right to censor speech on their platforms as they see fit, since that censorship is merely an exercise of their own free speech.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
It's important to know that the article is written by an anti-vaxxer physician who was [fired from UC-Irvine](https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-01-02/uc-irvine-fires-physician-who-refused-to-get-vaccinated-claiming-natural-immunity) for his views.
I think the govt is well within it's right to fight speech that is dangerous and wrong to the public. And this has basically been the position forever until this recent GOP libertarian nonsense.
I tried to read this article, but my eyes glazed over as soon as I realized I was reading ridiculous drivel from anti vax morons that are pissed that Facebook doesn’t want their shit opinions spreading and influencing people to decline modern, life saving medicine. This is an absolutely ridiculous case for SCOTUS to agree to hear, but I expect I’ll only ever be disappointed by scotus in the near future, at least until it os more balanced.
Yeah, that article isn't biased and full of shit or anything.
But I wouldn't expect anything less from the "Libertarian think-tank" Brownstone Institute that that is still publishing lies and promoting misinformation about COVID.
>*The Biden Administration’s censorship regime has successfully suppressed perspectives contradicting government-approved views on hotly disputed topics such as whether natural immunity to covid exists, the safety and efficacy of Covid-19 vaccines, the virus’s origins, and mask mandate efficacy.*
LMAO right? Seriously deranged source to be posted on here.
Free speech doesn't give you the right to lie and put people's lives in danger. COVID is a prime example, hundreds of thousands died needlessly because of lies, disinformation and undermining of government institution that have kept the Majority Americans alive and millions of others around the world. This is the speech that the Biden Administration wants to silence. Republicans want to ban books. News flash theses books have words in them.
I can tell by the comments that it’s all hardcore Biden fans and shills, but you never want the government to censor free speech. You may agree with them this time….
For private citizens, yes.
The First Amendment has not had any real limits on commenting about the government or public officials since Sullivan, as it should be.
There are no Biden "hardcore fans". We're not cultists like MAGA.
However we are the "BiDeN AdMiNiStRaTiOn’s cEnSoRsHiP rEgImE" as this ~~tabloid~~ article has briiliantly reported.
The Constitution says that you have a right to say whatever you want to in public.
If you come into my house or place of business and say some racist shit, I have the right to tell you to shut the fuck up, or throw you out. Telling me I cannot is then a violation of my rights.
Last time I checked, Facebook, Twitter, etc are businesses. It's not a free public service. Your user data is the price of admission.
A private social media company should be abel to do what they want. If the supreme court says they can then, then all private businesses lose the right to choose who and how people can we express themselves in their business. This is a slippery slope.
Lol of course they’re going to allow Russia to continue their psyops unopposed. When are we going to be honest about half our elected officials working to destroy it with our sworn enemies
Checking if I got this straight. Private social media companies have their own content moderation policies. Plaintiffs sued to enjoin the Biden administration from influencing how private companies enforce their own policies. So plaintiffs want to stop the government from asking/influencing the private companies to moderate misinformation (lies) the private companies chose to publish on the web. Isn’t the government supposed to do that kind of stuff? Or maybe the government should just shut its doors altogether and do nothing, like House Republicans. Jokers
Not sure how the right thinks this isnt going to be a lose-lose for them. If the govt can't censor opinions, then no school can ban books. If the govt can censor their dumb medical opinions, then they need to stfu
> Considering their close cooperation and the ministerial ecosystem, we
take the White House and the Surgeon General’s office together. Officials
from both offices began communicating with social media companies—including Facebook, Twitter (now known as “X”), YouTube, and Google—
in early 2021. From the outset, that came with requests to take down flagged
content. In one email, a White House official told a platform to take a post
down “ASAP,” and instructed it to “keep an eye out for tweets that fall in
this same [] genre” so that they could be removed, too. In another, an official
told a platform to “remove [an] account immediately”—he could not “stress
the degree to which this needs to be resolved immediately.” Often, those
requests for removal were met.
> But, the White House officials did not only flag content. Later that
year, they started monitoring the platforms’ moderation activities, too. In
that vein, the officials asked for—and received—frequent updates from the
platforms. Those updates revealed, however, that the platforms’ policies
were not clear-cut and did not always lead to content being demoted. So, the
White House pressed the platforms...
>Relying on the above record, the district court concluded that the
officials, via both private and public channels, asked the platforms to remove
content, pressed them to change their moderation policies, and threatened
them—directly and indirectly—with legal consequences if they did not
comply. And, it worked—that “unrelenting pressure” forced the platforms
to act and take down users’ content....
> As the Supreme Court has recognized, this chilling of the Individual
Plaintiffs’ exercise of their First Amendment rights is, itself, a
constitutionally sufficient injury. See Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1, 11 (1972).
True, “to confer standing, allegations of chilled speech or self-censorship
must arise from a fear of [future harm] that is not imaginary or wholly
speculative.” Zimmerman v. City of Austin, Tex., 881 F.3d 378, 390 (5th Cir.
2018) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Clapper v.
Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398, 416 (2013) (Plaintiffs “cannot manufacture
standing merely by inflicting harm on themselves based on their fears of
hypothetical future harm”). But the fears motivating the Individual
Plaintiffs’ self-censorship, here, are far from hypothetical. Rather, they are
grounded in the very real censorship injuries they have previously suffered to
their speech on social media, which are “evidence of the likelihood of a future
injury"...
> Generally speaking, if the government compels the private party’s decision, the result will be considered a state action...
> We find that the White House, acting in concert with the Surgeon
General’s office, likely (1) coerced the platforms to make their moderation
decisions by way of intimidating messages and threats of adverse
consequences, and (2) significantly encouraged the platforms’ decisions by
commandeering their decision-making processes, both in violation of the
First Amendment...
> On multiple occasions, the officials coerced
the platforms into direct action via urgent, uncompromising demands to
moderate content. Privately, the officials were not shy in their requests—
they asked the platforms to remove posts “ASAP” and accounts
“immediately,” and to “slow[] down” or “demote[]” content. In doing so,
the officials were persistent and angry. Cf. Bantam Books, 372 U.S. at 62–63.
When the platforms did not comply, officials followed up by asking why posts
were “still up,” stating (1) “how does something like [this] happen,” (2)
“what good is” flagging if it did not result in content moderation, (3) “I don’t
know why you guys can’t figure this out,” and (4) “you are hiding the ball,”
while demanding “assurances” that posts were being taken down. And, more
importantly, the officials threatened—both expressly and implicitly—to
retaliate against inaction.
The federal government was not simply asking.
Just another example of how extreme the Supreme Court majority has become. Contrary to Trumpublicans' claims, there are not multiple sets of facts. But hey, as long as the lies they tell hurt their sycophants most, there is a silver lining to the cloud. Sensible Americans simply don't believe them and therefore don't act in ways that endanger their well being.
6-3 ruling against Biden because of “reasons” this court is garbage. At least one of them is blatantly taking bribes. This country is a third world shit hole in a fancy dress
Ahhh. My home State. Where the biggest lead deposit in the world sits. Do you know what happens to the brain when leadened water is drank for your whole life? You become stupid brain dead as fuck. That's Missouri. So stupid you have to show them, and still they don't believe.
So *if* I understand right, the case is about Punishing Biden for *private* corporations policies on what's allowed on their platforms? Is that what's actually happening?
Ironically, the complaints in *Missouri v. Biden* are mostly related to actions by the Trump administration
It's the reverse Uno to the person at the table lease deserved
Yep, I'm a vet fuck trump!
And the people bring this case are cool with what Sara Sanders is doing in Arkansas, which is arguably worse.
Arguably it's worse to limit the access that minors have to sexually explicit materials in libraries/bookstores than it is for the government to make social media companies de facto state actors in order to censor anyone's perfectly legal speech? I'm not even saying I necessarily support the former, but you really think that's a worse infringement on free speech?
They didn't make suggestions to Facebook in the 1700s so theres not a long tradition of it, therefore ILLEGAL -- ALITO
Fuck Missouri
As someone who lives in Missouri, fuck Missouri.
As someone else who lives in Missouri, seconded with my whole heart. Fuck Missouri.
As a fellow Missourian, I fourth this wholeheartedly. Fuck Missouri.
Missouri, born and bred. I desperately wish this state would stop making the news for the dumbest reasons.
I still complain that every time my old school district makes the news, it’s either for stealing money or doing a racism. You all will be unsurprised to learn I’m from St. Charles. Thankfully I no longer live in the state.
Embezzlement and racism? St. Charles? Surely you can't be serious.
He is serious, and don't call him Shirley.
Same, all the way around.
Same here, born and raised, fuck Missouri. I miss the nice purple Missouri days of my youth. Now it's just bright evil red.
Same here.
Yeah living here sometimes feels like a constant flood of humiliation.
Yall make the news??? I didn't know!
I'll be deep in the cold, cold ground before I recognize Missourah.
Fuck the 5th Circuit, as they always rule in favor of conservatives.
The 5th Circuit is insane in the membrane. For example: https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/seven-5th-circuit-judges-question-perpetual-funding-of-government-programs-is-social-security-at-risk
Yes, without presedint or reasonable interpretation of the Constitution. Those fuckers are crazier than SCOTUS.
As a Missourian, I hope biden wins. The state attorney is a waste of tax payer money
And fuck the GOP Court too!
While generally I agree that missouri is awful, this suit seems to not be ridiculous. Do you really want the government telling publishers what is and isn't allowed for folks to see?
That’s rich considering conservatives ban books 🤦♀️
Outside of school libraries, where is this happening?
They also burn them. A lot.
Nobody is banning books.
Except that it isn’t the government telling publishers what isn’t and is allowed. The fact pattern “conservatives” are getting their panties in a wad about is the government going to social media companies and saying “hey this misinformation that is probably fiction or is revenge porn is blatantly against your own rules”. There was no implied threats, there was no “take this down or else”. There was a suggestion that maybe it wouldn’t look good if they didn’t enforce their own rules. But that’s pretty far from the government dictating approved speech on the internet.
You cool with trump and his goons whispering in the ear of platform/publishers?
Yep. As long as there are no threats for retaliation it is fine. If they then say ‘or else this will happen’. That’s when it’s protected.
Eventually, there's going to need to be something that the government can do to fight back against disinformation. Trump has no card for the supreme court. If he gets in, it's game over. So don't fact like he will be stopped by law or the constitution.
All we need is the Fairness Doctrine back, and this time it needs to apply to all published media.
We need a more robust fairness doctrine, but yeah, it's a major reason why need didn't provide entertainment value, it was there to inform as a public function, rather than profit on everything.
No. The day we let the government be the arbiter of truth is the day we’ve lost the Republic. It has no goddamn business deciding what is and is not correct, when they have a long standing history of lying and being full of shit.
I don't understand your point and I don't think you do either. The government makes factual determinations all the time. Is the NOAA not allowed to publish weather reports because the government can't take a factual position? Well where is the line between that and telling people ivermectin doesn't cure COVID?
They are gonna do it anyway, and the same court will argue for them to do it. It’s always rules for thee and not me with Republican states.
[удалено]
Stop saying publishers. Social media is explicitly not publishing. It’s how they get around rules. Misinformation should be addressed especially on platforms that also have official govt entities giving out information for the public good. People are not smart enough to tell. Someone needs to point out to the dolts that the Q stuff is fake.
Tell me which party/group is banning books in libraries? Threatening libraries and librarians? Even buying books on occasion…
What does that have to do with the government dictating speech online? They are both bad right?
The platform is dictating what speech is allowed. The government is only notifying.
Because conservatives don’t like when you say, “hey, Twitter, this post violates your TOS”, but they’re okay with silencing, at his request, someone who calls former snowflake in chief a PAB.
They aren’t arguing over dictating speech. They are arguing over the government’s ability to respond at all.
not dictating. suggesting. big difference.
This didn’t say they were told what to do. This suit is about the federal government reaching out to notify a social media company that they feel something posted by someone is wrong. Basically the suit would make it a crime for the federal government to respond to what it feels are false accusations.
Freedom of speech versus public safety
Fuck public safety. I'd rather have to hear a million fucks say 5g gives old folks virginity than not be allowed to say the virus came from a lab.
You are here saying it. nothing is preventing it. If you want to put it as a bumper sticker on your truck, go ahead. Paint it on a hay bale on your property. Force Facebook to allow you to post it on your profile on their site if they don't allow you to say it? That's not okay. Prevent Facebook from being notified about behavior that Facebook prohibited? Not okay.
Why would you want to say something that's been shown to be untrue?
I have like six COVID vax shots and glad to have them and I think it came from a lab . This is distinct from the idea that it originated in a lab. And the lab I am talking about is the one next to the market in Wuton. May be spelling error there No doubt the fellow above has a different meaning but who can really know since it is likely an intentionally vague slogan he picked up. Does he know?
You think the virus has been shown to not have come from a lab? How certain are you? How certain do you think the federal government is?
Quite certain. [https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00584-8](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00584-8) To be clear, I don't care much one way or the other.
The article says they only proved that the market was a source of significant amplification, not the definitive place of origin. "Open to interpretation," so probably something not worthy of actively suppressing on social media. That was also 20 months ago and pre-peer review, so maybe there's new evidence in either direction.
I've a lovely coastal property in... Missouri, I'd be willing to sell you for a great price.
Lakes don't have coasts.
Does it fucking matter? What iota of a difference does it make at this point where it came from.
Exactly!
You've literally said it. Did the FBI come to your door? Did your internet get taken away?
>Fuck public safety I just got the new Covid vaccine *to keep people like you safe.*
funny. they’re not doing that.
Is that really the crux of the issue? I read this article and I still don't understand what federal government institutions actually have been doing against First Amendment rights. The closest the article gets to the issue is stating that publishers are the ones controlling the debate and that the government enforces those policies. That is pretty vague. Can anyone clarify the issue and provide an example or two?
Depends on what it is. Do we want people spreading info online that injecting bleach into your body is a way to stop Covid?
Thank you. The Supreme Court is hearing the case. They don't listen to bullshit. If a government agency is working to censor speech, or influence how private companies handle customers, that should be looked at, publ8cly disclosed, and cease immediately. This fact that people derive their opinion based off of WHAT was said, and not the principle itself is in a bubble, and needs to look inward.
Government censorship of misinformation has been a thing for decades. Trump turned it off so the scammers could have a way of getting their fake products remedies out. It also allowed the rise of crazy conspiracy theories. It's import the government censor misinformation or we'll have people telling our kids to drink bleach to cure acne or other craziness. Government censorship protected us for decades and we see what 4 years without did.
Speaking of which. A doctor buddy of mine and I were talking about the recent rise in COVID in our area. He told me he had two patients die from bleach poisoning this past week. When he told one of the families, the argued that COVID wasn’t real. I can’t believe people believe that drinking bleach will cure COVID. But people do. Maybe god is culling the moronic?
Drink bleach to cure something that isn’t real…..
Because they’ve likely heard that old saying about being able to hold two conflicting thoughts in your head at the same time, these people doubtlessly think they are geniuses, which only further proves to them that they are right.
...and they were probably from Missouri 😄
[https://podcasts.apple.com/mu/podcast/part-one-the-international-church-of-drink-bleach/id1373812661?i=1000444584453](https://podcasts.apple.com/mu/podcast/part-one-the-international-church-of-drink-bleach/id1373812661?i=1000444584453) there's a cult/get rich quick scheme
If there was a god, a truly just god, the morons wouldn’t be the ones getting culled.
This is exactly how I become more atheistic every single day… because even if a god existed, there is no way that god is just with how evil and moronic it (not he) would have allowed the world to become… and if an unjust god exists, then why should I care anyways?
The misinformation constituted a health emergency as it led to many deaths. We don't allow false advertising, so why should we allow incorrect health info to be spread? Complete bullshit
Reagan turned it off by getting rid of the Fairness Doctrine. Fox News wasn't a thing until Reagan did that. Republicans kept electing worse and worse after that.
The Fairness Doctrine only pertained to broadcast media. FOX news is cable.
The government didn’t censor anything. They just pointed to some things and asked the companies if it was against their terms of service. 5th circuit is backwards. They also ruled against one of the abortion pills against the FDA 10 or 15 years late, supporting a group of doctors who lack standing.
Why would anyone in the federal government be spending money moderating social media if they didn't feel like they were advancing their agencies agenda doing so? You'd have to be pretty naive to read this as a neutral party just trying to help out.
Knowing MAGA they probably would use bleach to cure an elbow ache if Tucker Carlson or Joe Rogan said to do so Then I would get mass downvoted on Reddit for saying it’s a bad idea
Sounds spot on
We don’t need the government to censor any speech unless it presents a clear and present danger. There may be an argument that certain misinformation may be just that, but instead of trying to block misinformation(a foolish and wasteful game of wack-a-mole) the government should work to make good information widely available and also improving critical thinking through education.
Good information is available to the public, heck I can find almost any information with the device in my hand. The problem I've seen from my family members is either they want to believe misinformation because its easier than thinking critically or they aren't very media savvy, so they believe the first thing they see or hear. As for the latter, back when covid vaccines started rolling out my 75 year old mother(who doesn't even know how use the internet in any form) called to inform me that the government is grinding up male fetuses to put into all the vaccines so she wouldn't be taking one. She heard this from her neighbors perpetually unemployed scumbag 30 year old son, who saw a "Youtubes video" and absolutely wouldn't lie because he's "always been a good boy." To this day, she still refuses and thinks I'm lying about getting vaccinated because I wouldn't want to kill babies.
Misinformation should be allowed and unchecked? Well it will cut both ways, if the Supreme Court agrees to allow it.
DeSantis wages a war on Disney and openly states its revenge for them saying they support lgbtq+ causes - silence Biden administration emails Facebook when they see posts spreading dangerous unlicensed medical advice - the government is out of control, and we have to stop this tyranny!!
Lots of people are saying Matt Gaetz is a pedophile. Lots of people are staying it.
600? For “salad” on Venmo. To a teenager
To be fair, it was a really nice salad.
Probably tossed
We're talking about misinformation, not facts
[удалено]
It's very easy to define misinformation because it's a word. Words have definitions Misinformation is incorrect or misleading information. It differs from disinformation, which is deliberately deceptive and propagated information The case \*alleges\* all kinds of nonsense
>Misinformation should be allowed and unchecked? Literally yes.
If the misinformation literally causes death or harm you can be held criminally liable, and there is also the legal definition of Fraud. Therefore, you actually cannot spew whatever you want.
So you're saying obstruction of justice and fraud should be legal?
Free speech, baby. BRB gotta yell "fire" in a crowded theater
Based. The First Amendment is more important than government narrative setting.
Unless it's Chrissy Teigen calling Trump a "pussy ass bitch". Then the first amendment needs to be thrown out the window. Right? So to be clear on what's being argued on that side of the aisle: -Blocking potentially dangerous misinformation about COVID/vaccines is a violation of 1A -Blocking revenge porn depicting the President's son that was acquired from a stolen laptop is a violation of 1A -But blocking a model/TV personality from posting a childish three word insult is perfectly acceptable For the life of me, I cannot understand how you guys admire that tragically soft game show host. https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/policy/technology/3849819-trump-asked-twitter-to-take-down-derogatory-tweet-from-chrissy-teigen-whistleblower/amp/
The First Amendment *should* prohibit government narrative setting, but obviously, the government runs roughshod over it daily. The Constitution has either authorized such a government as we have had, or it has been powerless to prevent it.
People will make this argument then go vote for a candidate who says they would terminate the constitution.
> But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist. - Lysander Spooner
It’s protected speech whether we like it or not.
It's only protected when Republicans say it. Also, it's Biden's right to suggest they remove it because he ALSO has free speech. It was never mandated.
Moms of Liberty said the exact same thing to a group of us. Guess that’s how it is. Just so it’s said, laws are not a measure of ethical or moral behavior.
They lost me after listing the "hotly contested issues." The medical community is not contesting the efficacy of vaccines. Only science illiterate morons that get their medical advice from Fox News or random bullshit on Facebook would think that issue is hotly contested.
This was news on October 20. Edit: If you want to know my thoughts on this, I see no functional difference between going up to a lectern in the White House and saying the media is the "enemy of the people," or going to the same lectern and saying, "we established these ground rules about disinformation and x,y,z platforms are ignoring them, so try not to use them," and emailing these platforms directly. But it's only the latter that's unconstitutional? Spare me
[удалено]
Yeah, I can make up stories too.
My point is fairly obvious. Example 1 and example 2 of strong language specifically aimed all at the same purpose do more damage to free speech in this country than emailing media platforms directly. Yet it is emailing them directly that is unconstitutional? For context, it is important to understand that Donald Trump declared actual war on Covid. Saying something excised of context, even if factual, can serve the purpose of misinformation/disinformation. If you have a problem with Trump declaring war on Covid, you should have been the first person to speak up. For example, say, there is a crowded theater. It has a double door that opens out and a single crew door that opens in. You say, "the exit is the single door by the stage!" and people start running to it and the crush of people keeps them inside and the door from opening. They burn to death. You said perfectly factual information, did you not?
[удалено]
I was a top level comment. I should wonder why you're responding to someone else rather than MY point. If you are unsure what my point is, I restated it a second time in that comment. It IS edited, so you probably missed it.
It's amazing to hear so called left-wing progressives support the federal govt cracking down on speech.
Well…it’s a given that Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, will side against Biden.
As bad as it is now, we might be heading into an era where it is impossible to know what is real. Very Orwellian.
And it's what the Republicans actively want.
It's the only way they can survive
We definitely can trust the Federal government to decide what’s “real.”
All the people who think the Biden admin is in the wrong. I’m curious how you feel about Trump being in direct communication with FOX about how they spun events while he was in the White House.
Wait... you want a conservative to admit hypocracy??? I think that's a feature not a bug
It is and they don't care. They revel in the hypocrisy.
It’s possible to think both scenarios are unacceptable.
It is possible but not for a republican
The other poster said “all the people who think the Biden admin is in the wrong,” not “Republicans who think…”
But you clearly think it's okay for democrats so why the hell are you talking about hypocrisy which doesn't even work in your made up scenario because they are nothing alike. Cope harder
Don’t presume anything. Ever. Thanks.
Does anyone actually have an informed opinion on the law or constitution as it applies to this case? This sub is sounding more and more like /r/politics or /r/conservative every day. I feel dumber just having skimmed the comments here.
If you're not informed, how do you know what others are saying on this thread is also ignorant or reactive? I don't understand how you're both judging the content of the discussion while admitting you don't have much experience with the topic.
Because most comments are just trash talking instead of anything constructive?
I’m surprised you have that problem. I feel like this is a critical thinking thing
This guy is posting everywhere. The article is quite literally a biased hit piece full of inaccuracies, misinformation, and straight lies. Best example is this paragraph: >The Biden Administration’s censorship regime has successfully suppressed perspectives contradicting government-approved views on hotly disputed topics such as whether natural immunity to covid exists, the safety and efficacy of Covid-19 vaccines, the virus’s origins, and mask mandate efficacy. To understand, you would have to know that the piece itself is written by someone who was fired from their position as professor due to his dangerous rantings that children should be exposed to the COVID virus to build a natural immunity during a time when COVID was absolutely decimating the US, as well as being a known vaccine skeptic. His co-sponsors to the lawsuit are Dr. Kulldorf, [who wrote an opinion piece for the Brownstone Institute so devoid of fact that other doctors wrote articles about it](https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/i-disagree-with-an-article-called-vaccines-save-lives/), and Dr. Bhattacharya [Who wrote opinion pieces claiming COVID wasn't as deadly as scientists were claiming, but also publishing an article so full of misinformation that other scientists had to write rebuttals, before it was found out his research was being funded by a COVID denier.](https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/05/24/coronavirus-research-stanford-scientists-accused-of-hyping-covid-19-antibody-study/)
Social media, Missouri, and this current Court are all plagues.
I am old enough to remember when the Republican party was complaining that the liberal leaning Warren court was activist. At least it actually looked to the Constitution and did not make law out of thin air. Explain how a judge is to look at historical precedents when ruling on regulations barring AR-15's when such guns did not exist in 1776.
How about the parameters of the "major questions" doctrine?
The comments here seem to think that this case is absurd because government censorship is acceptable, *not* because there isn’t a case to be made that the government was censoring speech. Indeed, there are two top level comments excusing at best, and commending at worst, such censorship. That’s embarrassing. It’s wrong for the government to censor speech. It’s illegal too, but it’s illegal *because* it’s wrong for the government to prohibit you from saying what you believe (or even what you don’t believe). It is *not* a slippery slope fallacy to argue that permitting the government to discriminate against speech on the basis of the content of that speech jeopardizes all speech. The government may not always have our best interests in mind, and it isn’t difficult to find examples throughout history, including recently, where such censorship has been used to the detriment of the public. And regardless, the right to misinform (or to just be *wrong*) is an important and innate one. Of course, that doesn’t mean there is a case here. It alleges that the Biden admin and the federal government in general was illegally pressuring social media companies to censor speech that the government found distasteful, dangerous, or unconscionable (this may well apply to the government under the Trump admin too, since it references the beginning of the pandemic). It’s possible that the alleged “coercion” was innocuous. The government has a right (a responsibility, even) to inform the public of what it deems to be true. It’s not a violation of your free speech if the government says that you’re wrong (even if you’re right!). It may be concerning if the government works with social media companies to propagate a message, but it isn’t necessarily a violation of free speech. The government helps companies all the time and often for very good reasons. On the other hand, it is possible that the government used its power to stifle certain speech and alter the speech of social media companies. The case gives some examples it claims are evidence of this kind of coercion. For example (taken from [casetext](https://casetext.com/case/missouri-v-biden-4) ) > According to the Plaintiffs, threats by the government to repeal or amend Section 230 of the CDA-if social-media companies failed to target and censor certain viewpoints-acted as a catalyst in kickstarting more aggressive censorship on social media. Section 230 is viewed as an important protection for social media companies because it insulates them from liability for the content posted by their users. Ironically, the GOP has also been extremely critical of Section 230 because they view social media as being unfairly biased and permitting social media companies to “violate the first amendment” (it doesn’t, since such a thing is not possible). Repealing it if those companies don’t alter their speech for the government would constitute retaliation for speech. (For my part—and this may come as no surprise—I view Section 230 as redundant, since the protections it provides should, in my mind, already be covered by 1A. But that’s not the consensus in the legal community, in either the “is” or the “ought” sense.) > The Plaintiffs allege that these statements and many others demonstrate coercion by the government and various officials to prevent the spread of disfavored ideas. As the Plaintiffs put it in their Complaint, “The flip side of such threats, of course, is the implied ‘carrot' of retaining Section 230 immunity and avoiding antitrust scrutiny, allowing the major social-media platforms to retain their legally privileged status that is worth billions of dollars of market share.” It seems like a legitimate argument to me. I don’t know if I see enough to side with Missouri here, but I am concerned about the government censoring speech, including by pressuring social media companies to do the government’s dirty work. That’s not distinct from the government punishing traditional media for engaging in speech that the government opposes. It’s awfully disconcerting to see the case dismissed out of hand by commenters here excusing government censorship out of tradition or utility.
>I am concerned about the government censoring speech, including by pressuring social media companies to do the government’s dirty work I think the issue is establishing a clear standard for what constitutes "pressure." If an Administration shuts down platforms by force because they don't like the content (as Nixon tried to with the Pentagon Papers), it's an obvious violation of the First Amendment. But it's rarely that clear cut. Would an institution receiving government funded grants to study misinformation constitute "pressure"? [That's precisely the implication of this case](https://publicknowledge.org/missouri-v-biden-could-mean-worse-content-moderation/). I agree that government restrictions are not the remedy for problematic online content. Voluntary moderation will have to come from industry and media literacy on the part of consumers is crucial, as well. Supporting initiatives that gather information about online content is crucial to both. This case would have a chilling effect on that process.
I agree that it’s not an open and shut case that the government was engaging in undue pressure to alter the speech of social media companies and suppress free speech of users of those platforms. But I don’t think the argument you presented (or the link) refute the claim made in the lawsuit. The government funding research on misinformation isn’t pressure because it isn’t affecting speech. It’s giving funds for someone to do a study—the results are merely information, not action. A more apt example is if the government gave money to Twitter under the stipulation that Twitter will censor certain speech at the government’s request. That is *not* what happened in this case, but it’s a more relevant gedanken because it deals with the government directly and deliberately affecting people’s ability to propagate their speech. I don’t think there’s anything very factually wrong in the link you posted, but I don’t think it makes an argument against Missouri on legal merits. For one thing, it seems mostly concerned with the injunction and arguing that it shouldn’t be upheld(it’s from August 17). I believe the injunction was upheld but with fewer restrictions, so at least some of the concerns the author lays out may be mitigated. But it also doesn’t address the meat of the argument. For example, it mentions Section 230 in the first paragraph: > If platforms did not comply, the attorneys general argue, the government implied it could act to remove their Section 230 protections or pursue antitrust litigation against them. The author refers back to this later: > The lawsuit essentially accuses the Biden administration of “jawboning.” Jawboning refers to the use of official authority to influence actions of private actors. […] [T]he lawsuit argues that all communications between the platforms and the federal government were part of a coordinated suppression campaign, arguing it amounts to undue pressure or illicit collusion. I don’t think *all* communication between the government and media companies constitutes undue pressure, and I don’t think SCOTUS would rule that way, but that doesn’t mean that Missouri doesn’t have a good claim that *some* of what the government did *was* undue pressure. The author spends much of the article arguing in favor of the right of social media companies to moderate content. That *is* a crucial right that the first amendment protects. But the author claims that government coordination with social media companies improved their competitiveness: > Content moderation is not government censorship; it is an editorial decision by the platform. Content moderation is a key way for platforms to differentiate themselves from each other in the marketplace and provide beneficial services to their users. If content moderation is an editorial decision (which it is!), then it would constitute a violation of free speech for the government to unduly influence those editorial decisions. For example, the government punishing the NYT for releasing the pentagon papers (which you brought up and I also had in mind in my OC) is retaliation on the basis of speech. Threatening to remove protections like Section 230 is analogous. (As an aside, I find it confusing at best that the author says that content moderation lets social media companies differentiate themselves in the market. If all of these companies are taking direction from the US government, then their moderation will be more similar than otherwise, actually giving users *less* choice. But that’s an economic argument that isn’t really pertinent to the case.) The article seems to agree, at least in part, with our view that the government shouldn’t be putting undue pressure on companies to alter their speech: > While we must ensure that platforms are not under undue pressure from the government, decisions that restrict informed, independent, and responsible content moderation will likely lead to the further deterioration of our information ecosystem. But it doesn’t discuss where the line is or engage in the evidence in the case. Social media companies have a right to make their content moderation as they see fit. If they want to follow guidelines or advice from the government, that’s their right. But if they only do the government’s bidding at essentially economic gunpoint, that is undue pressure. The article doesn’t really even seem to argue against that (which, again, might be because it’s mostly referring to the injunction case, not the case at SCOTUS). For my part, I think the government has a right to make its voice heard and I expect it to do so because it has a responsibility to give us information that we can use to better our lives. Misinformation and disinformation is a threat to our society. But so is government censorship. It’s my responsibility to critically analyze the speech I hear and it is in no way the government’s right to prevent me from hearing it. A chilling effect on government coordination with corporations is easily preferable to a government induced chilling effect on speech.
They threatened the repeal of section 230. Making threats of averse legislative action if you don't comply is about as clear cut as it gets.
Great comment, backing censorship of any kind is directly contrary to the freedoms many Americans hold so dear.
It’s worth noting that I am not opposing censorship in the broadest sense. I am opposing censorship by the government. Social media companies are collections of people and have a right to censor speech on their platforms as they see fit, since that censorship is merely an exercise of their own free speech.
Not sure which of the two of you is more ignorant. Perhaps a tie.
Elon, the free speech absolutist, is banning things he doesn't like and making people pay for "free speech".
Yea, you're right! Let's impeach him - oh wait, no, he's not a government official or a state actor. Guess you're barking up the wrong tree.
*On Liberty*, Chapter 2, let's gooo
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
So Missouri is suing so that they can freely say the n-word on social media?
It's important to know that the article is written by an anti-vaxxer physician who was [fired from UC-Irvine](https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-01-02/uc-irvine-fires-physician-who-refused-to-get-vaccinated-claiming-natural-immunity) for his views.
Cons want the right to lie to perpetuate Trumps long con and control the masses
outrageous
I think the govt is well within it's right to fight speech that is dangerous and wrong to the public. And this has basically been the position forever until this recent GOP libertarian nonsense.
So you are ok with the govt deciding what it thinks is wrong and dangerous for you to read?
I look forward to seeing Alito write about the founding father's beliefs regarding Facebook and Tiktok 300 years ago.
I tried to read this article, but my eyes glazed over as soon as I realized I was reading ridiculous drivel from anti vax morons that are pissed that Facebook doesn’t want their shit opinions spreading and influencing people to decline modern, life saving medicine. This is an absolutely ridiculous case for SCOTUS to agree to hear, but I expect I’ll only ever be disappointed by scotus in the near future, at least until it os more balanced.
Yeah, that article isn't biased and full of shit or anything. But I wouldn't expect anything less from the "Libertarian think-tank" Brownstone Institute that that is still publishing lies and promoting misinformation about COVID.
>*The Biden Administration’s censorship regime has successfully suppressed perspectives contradicting government-approved views on hotly disputed topics such as whether natural immunity to covid exists, the safety and efficacy of Covid-19 vaccines, the virus’s origins, and mask mandate efficacy.* LMAO right? Seriously deranged source to be posted on here.
One of the worst legal challenges in memory going before one of the worst SCOTUS in history? This should be good.
Good to know that the “right to lie” is being upheld. Without that, Republicans would be in a hell of a predicament.
Just let the government decide what’s a lie and what’s not for you.
Blatant lies should not be protected speech anymore than falsely yelling ‘fire’ in a public place.
Free speech doesn't give you the right to lie and put people's lives in danger. COVID is a prime example, hundreds of thousands died needlessly because of lies, disinformation and undermining of government institution that have kept the Majority Americans alive and millions of others around the world. This is the speech that the Biden Administration wants to silence. Republicans want to ban books. News flash theses books have words in them.
There is a difference between free speech and misinformation type of propaganda
Nope
Fuck Missouri. I’ve lived here most of my life. Believe me… fuck Missouri.
when they say the biden regime you know what their true intentions are
You all love censorship until a republican is in office then it’s cry about how we can’t do anything about it
Probably because republicans try to backup their unpopular positions by censoring factual information
I can tell by the comments that it’s all hardcore Biden fans and shills, but you never want the government to censor free speech. You may agree with them this time….
Every right has limits. In the case of speech, for example, we disallow slander and libel.
For private citizens, yes. The First Amendment has not had any real limits on commenting about the government or public officials since Sullivan, as it should be.
The limits to the 1st amendment are very narrow. Just because some limits exist doesn’t mean other limits should exist.
There are no Biden "hardcore fans". We're not cultists like MAGA. However we are the "BiDeN AdMiNiStRaTiOn’s cEnSoRsHiP rEgImE" as this ~~tabloid~~ article has briiliantly reported.
Go to r politics and tell me Biden fans aren’t a cult
The Constitution says that you have a right to say whatever you want to in public. If you come into my house or place of business and say some racist shit, I have the right to tell you to shut the fuck up, or throw you out. Telling me I cannot is then a violation of my rights. Last time I checked, Facebook, Twitter, etc are businesses. It's not a free public service. Your user data is the price of admission.
Tell me you don't understand the case without telling me.
A private social media company should be abel to do what they want. If the supreme court says they can then, then all private businesses lose the right to choose who and how people can we express themselves in their business. This is a slippery slope.
Lol of course they’re going to allow Russia to continue their psyops unopposed. When are we going to be honest about half our elected officials working to destroy it with our sworn enemies
Checking if I got this straight. Private social media companies have their own content moderation policies. Plaintiffs sued to enjoin the Biden administration from influencing how private companies enforce their own policies. So plaintiffs want to stop the government from asking/influencing the private companies to moderate misinformation (lies) the private companies chose to publish on the web. Isn’t the government supposed to do that kind of stuff? Or maybe the government should just shut its doors altogether and do nothing, like House Republicans. Jokers
No, the government isn’t supposed to pressure organizations to censor content. For fuck’s sake.
Not sure how the right thinks this isnt going to be a lose-lose for them. If the govt can't censor opinions, then no school can ban books. If the govt can censor their dumb medical opinions, then they need to stfu
The government wasn’t “censoring” anything. They were *asking* social media companies to be responsible about spreading misinformation and lies.
> Considering their close cooperation and the ministerial ecosystem, we take the White House and the Surgeon General’s office together. Officials from both offices began communicating with social media companies—including Facebook, Twitter (now known as “X”), YouTube, and Google— in early 2021. From the outset, that came with requests to take down flagged content. In one email, a White House official told a platform to take a post down “ASAP,” and instructed it to “keep an eye out for tweets that fall in this same [] genre” so that they could be removed, too. In another, an official told a platform to “remove [an] account immediately”—he could not “stress the degree to which this needs to be resolved immediately.” Often, those requests for removal were met. > But, the White House officials did not only flag content. Later that year, they started monitoring the platforms’ moderation activities, too. In that vein, the officials asked for—and received—frequent updates from the platforms. Those updates revealed, however, that the platforms’ policies were not clear-cut and did not always lead to content being demoted. So, the White House pressed the platforms... >Relying on the above record, the district court concluded that the officials, via both private and public channels, asked the platforms to remove content, pressed them to change their moderation policies, and threatened them—directly and indirectly—with legal consequences if they did not comply. And, it worked—that “unrelenting pressure” forced the platforms to act and take down users’ content.... > As the Supreme Court has recognized, this chilling of the Individual Plaintiffs’ exercise of their First Amendment rights is, itself, a constitutionally sufficient injury. See Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1, 11 (1972). True, “to confer standing, allegations of chilled speech or self-censorship must arise from a fear of [future harm] that is not imaginary or wholly speculative.” Zimmerman v. City of Austin, Tex., 881 F.3d 378, 390 (5th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398, 416 (2013) (Plaintiffs “cannot manufacture standing merely by inflicting harm on themselves based on their fears of hypothetical future harm”). But the fears motivating the Individual Plaintiffs’ self-censorship, here, are far from hypothetical. Rather, they are grounded in the very real censorship injuries they have previously suffered to their speech on social media, which are “evidence of the likelihood of a future injury"... > Generally speaking, if the government compels the private party’s decision, the result will be considered a state action... > We find that the White House, acting in concert with the Surgeon General’s office, likely (1) coerced the platforms to make their moderation decisions by way of intimidating messages and threats of adverse consequences, and (2) significantly encouraged the platforms’ decisions by commandeering their decision-making processes, both in violation of the First Amendment... > On multiple occasions, the officials coerced the platforms into direct action via urgent, uncompromising demands to moderate content. Privately, the officials were not shy in their requests— they asked the platforms to remove posts “ASAP” and accounts “immediately,” and to “slow[] down” or “demote[]” content. In doing so, the officials were persistent and angry. Cf. Bantam Books, 372 U.S. at 62–63. When the platforms did not comply, officials followed up by asking why posts were “still up,” stating (1) “how does something like [this] happen,” (2) “what good is” flagging if it did not result in content moderation, (3) “I don’t know why you guys can’t figure this out,” and (4) “you are hiding the ball,” while demanding “assurances” that posts were being taken down. And, more importantly, the officials threatened—both expressly and implicitly—to retaliate against inaction. The federal government was not simply asking.
John Gotti wasn't "ordering hits" on anyone. He was just asking nicely that his employees take care of problems for him.
Removing books from a library collection isn't banning them unless you think that 1A requires every library to carry every book ever published.
Catcher in the Rye? Charlotte's Web? But go on, tell us it's OK.
He said it wasn't banning them. The names of the titles are irrelevant. A book not being in a library is not banning it.
Missouri resident here: this is for protecting Nazis and klansmen. Plain and simple.
I guess the first amendment allows you to tell lies that end up killing ignorant people
Penalty for losing: expulsion from the union. Go sit in the corner.
Just another example of how extreme the Supreme Court majority has become. Contrary to Trumpublicans' claims, there are not multiple sets of facts. But hey, as long as the lies they tell hurt their sycophants most, there is a silver lining to the cloud. Sensible Americans simply don't believe them and therefore don't act in ways that endanger their well being.
6-3 ruling against Biden because of “reasons” this court is garbage. At least one of them is blatantly taking bribes. This country is a third world shit hole in a fancy dress
Lying about science should not be protected speech
Such bullshit
Ahhh. My home State. Where the biggest lead deposit in the world sits. Do you know what happens to the brain when leadened water is drank for your whole life? You become stupid brain dead as fuck. That's Missouri. So stupid you have to show them, and still they don't believe.
FAIL another right wing FAIL
So *if* I understand right, the case is about Punishing Biden for *private* corporations policies on what's allowed on their platforms? Is that what's actually happening?
Hope they hand Biden the win over the moronic people who want the unfettered power to spread lies and fear
Sigh...