Judge bars Biden administration from working with social media companies on 'protected speech'

[ttwtt78640]

What? The injunction says NOTHING about what actions the social media takes... It is EXCEEDINGLY clear it would violate the injunction....

If no action was taken then how would the judge know (be informed) that such a report was made?

 

[trouble13]

Because you clearly have NOT read the injunction...

I can't tell if your unwilling or unable to articulate your objection. In either case I am moving on from you. Goodbye.

 

[BlueTex]

If no action was taken then how would the judge know (be informed) that such a report was made?

The POSTER is INFORMED when a post is reported. Do you not use social media?

But you raise an interesting point related to standing. How did the plaintiffs know that it was the gubermint that reported their posts?

 

[BlueTex]

I can't tell if your unwilling or unable to articulate your objection. In either case I am moving on from you. Goodbye.

No worries, you can read the bitch slapping down of this injunction in the coming weeks

 

[ttwtt78640]

The POSTER is INFORMED when a post is reported. Do you not use social media?

Nonsense. We’re you informed that I reported one of your DP posts?

Can You See Who Reports You on Facebook?

A Facebook page can be the face of your business online, visible to everyone with a Facebook account and responsible for projecting a professional image. As a result, making sure your page abides by Facebook's rules and terms is a necessity to avoid your page being deleted or worse. Facebook...

smallbusiness.chron.com

But you raise an interesting point related to standing. How did the plaintiffs know that it was the gubermint that reported their posts?

I have no idea, but the following link seems to:

On Facebook, using a portal called the Content Request System, The Intercept reported, government officials from DHS as well as law enforcement officers can directly submit reports about posts that were deemed subversive or suspicious. Though it is unclear when the portal was created or what criteria must be met for a post to be removed, The Intercept reported posts about COVID-19, the withdrawal from Afghanistan, and the war in Ukraine were targeted.

Facebook has a special portal for government officials to request user content be throttled or suppressed for vaguely defined disinformation, report says

The Intercept reported Monday that social media companies are collaborating with the Department of Homeland Security's initiative against misinformation.

www.businessinsider.com

Did you read the (154 page?) decision from the judge?

 

[BlueTex]

Nonsense. We’re you informed that I reported one of your DP posts?

Can You See Who Reports You on Facebook?

A Facebook page can be the face of your business online, visible to everyone with a Facebook account and responsible for projecting a professional image. As a result, making sure your page abides by Facebook's rules and terms is a necessity to avoid your page being deleted or worse. Facebook...

smallbusiness.chron.com

I have no idea, but the following link seems to:



Did you read the (154 page?) decision from the judge?

Yeah, I read the fantasy fiction... Anything in particular you find persuasive? Did you give up defending the overly broad language in the injunction? Getting nervous it's going to be trashed?

 

[SuperDS77]

As usual, the Republicans have it ass backwards.

It isn't "right leaning speech" being sequestered.

It just happens that right wingers tend to post more disgusting and dangerous lies.

What is "right wing" about lying about vaccines? Nothing. The left wing used to be the champion, in that sport, and very recently so. Not anymore.

What is "conservative" about spreading lies about elections? Nothing.

Ass backwards, I tell ya.

As usual, you are totally missing the point.

This about prevent the government from actively restricting free speech. "Prior restraint".

Lies are bad. Misinformation is bad.

 

[Galactic Spin]

As usual, you are totally missing the point.

This about prevent the government from actively restricting free speech. "Prior restraint".

Lies are bad. Misinformation is bad.

No it isn't. That's absurd. The government didn't restrict anything. This is about right wingers pretending that conservative speech is being attacked.

 

[SuperDS77]

No it isn't. That's absurd. The government didn't restrict anything. This is about right wingers pretending that conservative speech is being attacked.

If that is the case, then what is the problem with the ruling? why appeal?

"
outlined 10 actions that agencies and officials are prohibited from taking, including “specifically flagging content or posts on social-media platforms and/or forwarding such to social-media companies urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner for removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech.”


The order applies to communication with social media companies that “include Facebook/Meta, Twitter, YouTube/Google, WhatsApp, Instagram, WeChat, TikTok,” as well as a number of other online platforms."

 

[Galactic Spin]

If that is the case, then what is the problem with the ruling? why appeal?

Because the ruling is garbage, as is the complaint. Obviously.

There is nothing conservative about the speech being sequestered.

 

[SuperDS77]

Because the ruling is garbage, as is the complaint. Obviously.

There is nothing conservative about the speech being sequestered.

Again, this is about prior restraint, not any particular content.

Apparently the Biden administration does not want to be restricted in this manner. Not shocking.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

View attachment 67455322

Yup.

Judge Jagoff is about to get handed his balls. He deserves to lose his license for his wanton violation of the 1st Amendment.

 

[Glitch]

You know the remedy to that? Get some rich douchebag to buy a company so you can hear lies and insane garbage. The rich douchebag can ignore the the government when it asks him to stop killing people. Everyone wins. Except the people shoving Ivermectin up their ass, I suppose.

Better yet - Arrest and confine any government official who violates the law by asking others to censor speech. Starting with the impeachment of Biden for blatantly violating the First Amendment.

 

[SuperDS77]

Misinformation is subjective, and just as much protected speech as any offensive language or slur. That is the whole purpose behind protecting free speech. It is not to protect the speech with which with agree, because that speech doesn't need protecting. The First Amendment exists to protect the speech with which we disagree.

No government agency should be telling any private company what they are allowed to publish or cannot publish. It does not matter if it is a blatant lie, propaganda, or misinformation, it is still protected against government interference. It should also be protected against corporate puppets who do the illegal bidding of government.

It is still somewhat shocking that these sentiments, with which I agree, are somehow controversial to many.

 

[BlueTex]

It is still somewhat shocking that these sentiments, with which I agree, are somehow controversial to many.

LOL… Even more shocking is the unashamed ignorance of the law and the constitution on display…

 

[SuperDS77]

LOL… Even more shocking is the unashamed ignorance of the law and the constitution on display…

Do share...

 

[BlueTex]

Again, this is about prior restraint, not any particular content.

Apparently the Biden administration does not want to be restricted in this manner. Not shocking.

I guess if you have no idea what you are talking about its best to go all in

 

[BlueTex]

Do share...

Ive shared plenty already in this thread.. Ill just wait for the bitch slapping on appeal

 

[SuperDS77]

Ive shared plenty already in this thread.. Ill just wait for the bitch slapping on appeal

Your main beef seems to be that this is overly broad.

The injunction covers every employee of the DOJ. Can NONE of them report a tweet or post now?

Not in their governmental capacity. Would that not be the distinction? Seems common sense.

So you haven't actually read the injunction?

Let me help...

View attachment 67455361

Based on your legal knowledge, wouldn't that include EVERY employee of of the Department of Homeland Security?

The injunction applies to EVERY employee and prohibits them from reporting any content. Do you think that might be viewed as a bit broad? Just to recap that is EVERY employee of DHS, DOJ, CISA, CDC, Census Bureau, Health and Human Services, NIAID, FBI and the State Department... That's a couple of hundred thousand employees at least....

So what? No employee of the government should, IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITY (which is logically inferred) be reporting content.

Additionally, the ruling also has exceptions for criminal activity.

"The preliminary injunction, however, does not restrict Biden administration officials from communicating with social media companies on postings involving criminal activity, national security threats, or criminal efforts to suppress voting, provide illegal campaign contributions, cyber-attacks against election infrastructure, or foreign attempts to influence elections."

 

[Galactic Spin]

Again, this is about prior restraint, not any particular content.

Well that's adorable, since both the plaintiff and the sympathetic judge specifically commented on bias toward conservative speech.

Who are you trying to fool?

 

[SuperDS77]

Well that's adorable, since both the plaintiff and the sympathetic judge specifically commented on bias toward conservative speech.

Who are you trying to fool?

Does not change the fact that this is about prior restraint.

Of course it was conservative leaning speech. Duh!

 

[Galactic Spin]

Does not change the fact that this is about prior restraint.

It absolutely foes, since it was the entire substance of the complaint and cited by the judge to support his decision.

Get this garbage out of here.

 

[Bok Tuklo]

Better yet - Arrest and confine any government official who violates the law by asking others to censor speech. Starting with the impeachment of Biden for blatantly violating the First Amendment.

That’s absurd. It’s not against the law. Hell, the government can yank a broadcast license if it wanted.

You think the government asking companies to stop getting people killed is new? The company can say no. I mean, Fox definitely wanted people dead with their vaccine paranoia. Killed their audience but their call.

 

[Glitch]

That’s absurd. It’s not against the law. Hell, the government can yank a broadcast license if it wanted.

You think the government asking companies to stop getting people killed is new? The company can say no. I mean, Fox definitely wanted people dead with their vaccine paranoia. Killed their audience but their call.

It is against the law, the Supreme Law of the Land. Revoking a broadcast license is not censorship. Prohibiting them from ever publishing, or removing what has already been published, THAT is censorship. Revoking a broadcast license is equivalent to removing someone's soap-box. No platform was ever guaranteed by the First Amendment, only that government was prohibited from suppressing or censoring speech.

As far as who wanted people dead, that would be those promoting a very dangerous and untested vaccine. The vaccine ended up killing more people than those who never got the vaccine. The misinformation in this particular case was being spread by the CDC and government about the effectiveness and safety of the vaccine, as we discovered later.

 

[Bok Tuklo]

As far as who wanted people dead, that would be those promoting a very dangerous and untested vaccine. The vaccine ended up killing more people than those who never got the vaccine. The misinformation in this particular case was being spread by the CDC and government about the effectiveness and safety of the vaccine, as we discovered later.