Big Blitz Posted October 21, 2023 Posted October 21, 2023 When this is over, Google needs to be destroyed. Ā 2 1
Big Blitz Posted October 21, 2023 Author Posted October 21, 2023 A federal appellate courtĀ concludedĀ Sept. 8 that multiple White House, surgeon general, FBI and CDC officials likely breached the fine line separating permissible government persuasion andĀ jawboningĀ from illicit ācoercion and significant encouragementā when they repeatedly ā and often successfully ā lobbied social-media companies āto remove disfavored content and accounts from their sites.ā Ā In short, acts of ācoerced censorshipā by the platforms since early 2021 are now attributable to the federal government. This allowsĀ First AmendmentĀ free speech claims filed by Missouri, Louisiana and several individuals to proceed against officials like Surgeon General Vivek H. Murthy and White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre. Ā The government targeted for suppression views and alleged misinformation that didnāt comport with its stance on contentious topics like the COVID-19 lab-leak theory and the efficacy of pandemic lockdowns and vaccines. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuitās ruling inĀ Missouri v. BidenĀ temporarily bars the officials from ācoerc[ing] or significantly encourag[ing] social-media companies to remove, delete, suppress, or reduce ā¦ posted social-media content containing protected free speech.ā The court delayed the ban for 10 days, giving the government a chance to file an emergency appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court. Ā Stepping back from legal nuances such as what āsignificant encouragementā means (the Fifth CircuitĀ saidĀ itās when the government āexercise[s] some active, meaningful control over the private partyās decisionā), Missouri v. Biden raises two larger points. The first is that the Supreme Court now has its hands full sorting out vital First Amendment issues affecting social-media platforms, while the second is that free-speech issues affecting the platforms are firmly entwined with the countryās political polarization. Ā Regarding the courtās internet agenda, the justices will hear arguments on Oct. 31 in two cases:Ā Lindke v. FreedĀ andĀ OāConnor-Ratcliff v. Garnier. Both involve First Amendment claims against government officials who blocked citizens from following them on the officialsā personal social-media accounts. Ā The court will address the thresholdĀ state-action question: When is an officialās ostensibly private account sufficiently used for and related to his government position and activities, like communicating with constituents, that it should be treated as a government account and trigger First Amendment concerns? IĀ assertedĀ in The Hill in May, shortly after the court agreed to hear the cases, that āthe realities of todayās communication environment necessitate affording a citizen broad First Amendment rights, unless officials use their social media accounts in a purely private-citizen manner that is devoid of job-related content and trappings.ā Ā Furthermore, the court will likely soon agree to examine two cases ā one fromĀ Florida, one fromĀ TexasĀ ā involving statutes that interfere with the editorial control and autonomy of large social-media platforms over their content-moderation practices regarding the content they host and where they host it. These twoĀ NetChoiceĀ cases (a trade association challenging both measures) carry the potential to finally give social-media platforms the same First Amendment rights over content that the court bestowed on print newspapers nearly 50 years ago inĀ Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo. Ā https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/4198285-missouri-v-biden-and-the-crossroads-of-politics-censorship-and-free-speech/amp/
Trump_is_Mentally_fit Posted October 21, 2023 Posted October 21, 2023 Oh goodie, the book burners are now screaming for free speech!Ā
JaCrispy Posted October 21, 2023 Posted October 21, 2023 (edited) 1 hour ago, Tiberius said: Oh goodie, the book burners are now screaming for free speech!Ā ^^^^ Disingenuous and hyperbolic postā¦ Ā Either you donāt understand the actual concept of ābook burningā, or youāre being intentionally dishonest for political pointsā¦Iāll let you chooseā¦ Ā If not, congrats on contributing nothing to the conversationā¦š Ā Ā Edited October 21, 2023 by JaCrispy 1
JaCrispy Posted October 21, 2023 Posted October 21, 2023 3 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: Ā Ā š 3
Big Blitz Posted October 21, 2023 Author Posted October 21, 2023 1 hour ago, Tiberius said: Oh goodie, the book burners are now screaming for free speech!Ā Ā We support free speech just the speech we approve of. Ā We will work to make sure our version of acceptable speech will be enforced by the private sector. Ā 1 1 1
BillStime Posted October 21, 2023 Posted October 21, 2023 2 hours ago, Tiberius said: Oh goodie, the book burners are now screaming for free speech!Ā 100%Ā
BillStime Posted October 21, 2023 Posted October 21, 2023 Funny how these idiots didnāt mind Trump doing the same exact thing for four years and even signed an EOĀ Ā Stung By Twitter, Trump Signs Executive Orders To Weaken Social Media Companies
Big Blitz Posted October 21, 2023 Author Posted October 21, 2023 8 minutes ago, BillStime said: Funny how these idiots didnāt mind Trump doing the same exact thing for four years and even signed an EOĀ Ā Stung By Twitter, Trump Signs Executive Orders To Weaken Social Media Companies Ā This is not the same you really are a freaking moron. Ā Ā Somehowā¦ā¦Trump. Ā 1 1 1
BillStime Posted October 21, 2023 Posted October 21, 2023 1 hour ago, Big Blitz said: Ā This is not the same you really are a freaking moron. Ā Ā Somehowā¦ā¦Trump. Ā Oh - itās practically the same damn thing CovidiotĀ 1
JaCrispy Posted October 22, 2023 Posted October 22, 2023 (edited) 1 hour ago, BillStime said: Funny how these idiots didnāt mind Trump doing the same exact thing for four years and even signed an EOĀ Ā Stung By Twitter, Trump Signs Executive Orders To Weaken Social Media Companies I think you copied the wrong linkā¦Itās title is also very misleadingā¦ Ā The article it cites has Trump quoted as saying he wants to prevent social media from censoring speechā¦ Ā Therefore, if you are against ābook burningā (as you claim) it seems you would support thatā¦ Ā Iām for all speech being out there, even if I disagree with itā¦Do you agree? Ā Ā Edited October 22, 2023 by JaCrispy 1
L Ron Burgundy Posted October 22, 2023 Posted October 22, 2023 26 minutes ago, JaCrispy said: I think you copied the wrong linkā¦Itās title is also very misleadingā¦ Ā The article it cites has Trump quoted as saying he wants to prevent social media from censoring speechā¦ Ā Therefore, if you are against ābook burningā (as you claim) it seems you would support thatā¦ Ā Iām for all speech being out there, even if I disagree with itā¦Do you agree? Ā Ā There's a segment of our population that wants full freedom of speech for one reason.Ā Ā So they can lie incessantly and rile up the village idiots.Ā A few years ago I would not have cared and said the truth will win out.Ā The past 6 years have shown that sentiment as naive.Ā Ā Ā I dont know the remedy to this.Ā I've seen some fact checking on Twitter but mostly it's on its way to becoming 8chan.Ā Ā
BillStime Posted October 22, 2023 Posted October 22, 2023 1 hour ago, JaCrispy said: I think you copied the wrong linkā¦Itās title is also very misleadingā¦ Ā The article it cites has Trump quoted as saying he wants to prevent social media from censoring speechā¦ Ā Therefore, if you are against ābook burningā (as you claim) it seems you would support thatā¦ Ā Iām for all speech being out there, even if I disagree with itā¦Do you agree? Ā Ā So Trump signs an EO because he got fact checked. And Twitter Kept Entire āDatabaseā of Republican Requests to Censor Posts Ā Theyāre both playing the same fn game Ā
John from Riverside Posted October 22, 2023 Posted October 22, 2023 I always thought the both sides have been doing this for a long time Ā And I really hate both side arguments but itās true 1
BillStime Posted October 22, 2023 Posted October 22, 2023 5 minutes ago, John from Riverside said: I always thought the both sides have been doing this for a long time Ā And I really hate both side arguments but itās true But one party - as you can see from the above - is desperate for ANYTHING to go their way. Ā Itās been a rough going for themā¦ just visit billsfans if you want to see the truly deranged.Ā
Joe Ferguson forever Posted October 22, 2023 Posted October 22, 2023 I''m finding some of these posts true laugh out loud. Ā Could be 13 miles biking, someone passed me a joint or the stellas. Ā not sure which... Ā Ā
Big Blitz Posted October 22, 2023 Author Posted October 22, 2023 5 hours ago, JaCrispy said: I think you copied the wrong linkā¦Itās title is also very misleadingā¦ Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Heās deliberately trying to be misleading.Ā Ā Iām not sure he even knows the subject matter Ā of the topic - Biden colluded with Big Tech to suppress the āconspiracy theoristsā about Covid - which was essentially political opposition. Ā Ā Low info Bill and any other low info leftist trash likely knows this - thatās why heās trying to derail the thread with his usual ābut Trump sucksā garbage. Ā Ā Ā 1
L Ron Burgundy Posted October 22, 2023 Posted October 22, 2023 5 hours ago, BillStime said: But one party - as you can see from the above - is desperate for ANYTHING to go their way. Ā Itās been a rough going for themā¦ just visit billsfans if you want to see the truly deranged.Ā I dont get why if they post there why still post here?Ā They love echo chambers just stay there.Ā Ā 1
Recommended Posts