The court overturned an injunction that would have limited contacts between government officials and social media companies on a wide range of issues.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday threw out claims that the Biden administration unlawfully coerced social media companies into removing contentious content.
In reaching its conclusion, the court overturned an injunction that would have limited contacts between government officials and social media companies on a wide range of issues if allowed to go into effect. The Supreme Court had previously put the injunction on hold.
The court on a 6-3 vote found that plaintiffs did not have standing to sue.
The administration argued it sought to mitigate online misinformation hazards. Plaintiffs claimed platforms suppressed conservative-leaning speech under government pressure
“Conservative voices are being silenced!”
– No, just hate speech and misinformation.
“So you admit it!”
6-3… I WONDER WHO THE 3 WERE.
transparent assholes
Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch
The Three Stooges, the unfunny version.
Guaranteed it was.
At least they got this one right
Weird. Why did the Vatican want this?
They wish to continue claiming that Mother Theresa was actually a good person
To anyone supporting the administration in doing this, do you seriously think this is and will always be about actual misinformation, and not pro-palestine speech and similar things? Cut the partisanship please. The government involving itself in the censorship of speech is absolutely a problem.
From what I can tell this isn’t about actually forcing actions about misinformation, it’s contacting the platforms. Not allowing the government to say “Hey, Facebook, this misinformation looks like it could make an ongoing public health issue worse.” is a boon to misinformation peddlers. Of course Facebook should have every right to say “lol, that’s how we make the big bucks” and do nothing, but that communication should be possible and regular.
The state saying “you know you really should do something about this” is inherently coercive.
For individuals, particularly those without piles of cash, you’re probably right.
For large corporations and the owner class, though? Eh, that’s not so true. Being able to fund an army of lawyers means knowing exactly when you can tell the government to get fucked and being able to fight about it if the government wants to.
The tiktok legislation might have them sweating in a case like this.
Exactly. Some politicians basically admitted that the tiktok ban is actually about suppressing criticism of Israel.
I think bi-partisan challenging of opinion pieces containing verifiable falsehoods is a pretty healthy idea for the public.
do you seriously think this is and will always be about actual misinformation, and not pro-palestine speech and similar things?
No. That’s why the Supreme Court exists. If it wasn’t about actual misinformation and just removing speech the administration didn’t like then the Supreme Court could reverse the action. This is literally how the government is supposed to work.
Putting short-term partisan gain ahead of defending the principals of a free society is a terrible mistake
I don’t know if I would call this ruling a mistake since I’m not an expert in matters of standing, but I regret that the court will not act against a serious threat to free speech. Members of both parties have made statements directed at social media companies which I consider well over the line between a request and a threat.
bOtH sIdEs!!!
