Biden Administration Can't Be Sued For Pressuring Social Media Companies To Remove Misinformation, SCOTUS Ruling/

[Marener]

Are you ok with one party colluding with powerful private companies to push their agenda?

Apparently you are given we just went through a trial where it was exposed Trump was doing with the National Enquirer.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The Supreme Court on Wednesday shot down a lawsuit against the Biden administration over its efforts to urge social media companies to take down alleged misinformation about Covid-19, election fraud and other topics.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/06/26/biden-admin-cant-be-sued-for-pressuring-social-medias-to-remove-misinfo-00165051

Two red states and five social media users do not have legal standing to sue various federal officials over their communications with the tech platforms, the court held in a 6-3 ruling.

The court’s majority — which consisted of three conservative justices and three liberals — said that the role of the social media companies in establishing and enforcing their content-moderation policies meant the plaintiffs weren’t directly censored by the government. The majority also noted that the social media platforms were not named as defendants in the case.

Pressuring how?

If it's "you do this or we take away your license" is one thing, it's something completely different if it's "hey, it'd be good if you could do this".

It seems like it was the latter. Therefore, perfectly legal. Everyone can do this. It's called freedom of speech.

 

[drudge X]

Wow, you have no idea what ruling was handed down today, do you? It’s cute that you think that will happen.

What the SCOTUS said was that the government can contact social media companies. Whether the social media companies listen or take action or not...that is up to them.

Nobody trust your blob so he can whine all he wants.

What do you think would happen if social media refused to do the bidding? Think it 10X over if you must.

 

[pknopp]

What do you think would happen if social media refused to do the bidding? Think it 10X over if you must.

Many did. What happened?

 

[Foolardi]

The Supreme Court on Wednesday shot down a lawsuit against the Biden administration over its efforts to urge social media companies to take down alleged misinformation about Covid-19, election fraud and other topics.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/06/26/biden-admin-cant-be-sued-for-pressuring-social-medias-to-remove-misinfo-00165051

Two red states and five social media users do not have legal standing to sue various federal officials over their communications with the tech platforms, the court held in a 6-3 ruling.

The court’s majority — which consisted of three conservative justices and three liberals — said that the role of the social media companies in establishing and enforcing their content-moderation policies meant the plaintiffs weren’t directly censored by the government. The majority also noted that the social media platforms were not named as defendants in the case.

Dagburn it.So's I guess that means no American will ever
be able to publish a book or write some Op-ed or basic
Newsprint article concerning The highest paid Government
employee {Anthony Fauci} and how he fielded { funded } a
Research project { Gain-of-Function } where a couple dozen
or more little beagles { that's a popular dog breed } had
hideous experiments done to them.
There's a Reason why The First Amendment is tops as
to our Founding.To make sure that Free Speech,man's natural
Right is never privy to Government Censorship.
.Whether Directly or Indirectly.

 

[tahuyaman]

You're saying the the Feds are not allowed to advocate for the common weal? I would think that that is their job~

Their job is not to use social media to act as their agents and censor information from the public.

 

[Slade3200]

What if they didn’t strong arm them but instead just asked them politely to hide information that was unfavorable to their administration and/or an upcoming campaign? Are you ok with one party colluding with powerful private companies to push their agenda? Zuckerberg, for example, is a card carrying liberal nut(Democrat) so I doubt he needs to be strong armed to do anything. He just needs to be told what he can do to help the Democrats.

No I would not be ok with that. I have also seen no evidence that that happened. Have you?

 

[PeterPilot]

This decision is still more evidence that constitutional governance is not allowed by SCOTUS

 

[tahuyaman]

No I would not be ok with that. I have also seen no evidence that that happened. Have you?

The leaders of both Facebook and then Twitter admitted to it in a congressional hearing.

 

[Slade3200]

The leaders of both Facebook and then Twitter admitted to it in a congressional hearing.

No they didn’t. I listed to those hearings and they said no such thing

 

[tahuyaman]

No they didn’t. I listed to those hearings and they said no such thing

Yes they did. They admitted that they were contacted by agencies of federal government and followed their directions.

 

[hadit]

Sure...when an entity with the power to destroy your business urges you to do something, it is no different than you or I asking

Nice little social media platform you got here. It'd be a shame if something bad happened to it. Just let us give you some "guidance" on how to flag posts and we'll make sure nothing goes "wrong".

 

[Slade3200]

Yes they did. They admitted that they were contacted by agencies of federal government and followed their directions.

I’m. But you said they were trying to hide information to push a political agenda. There is no evidence of that

 

[hadit]

Yes they did. They admitted that they were contacted by agencies of federal government and followed their directions.

And that's where the problem lies. No, it's not direct government censorship, but it has the same effect when the government and a company collude (remember that word?) to produce a government approved narrative. Naturally, the same people now applauding this will scream bloody murder about "censorship" when TRUMP! forges connections with social media platforms to "guide" them about how to flag and delete posts.

 

[tahuyaman]

I’m. But you said they were trying to hide information to push a political agenda. There is no evidence of that

Yes there is.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I wonder what would happen if Trump were elected and strong armed social media in similar ways?

Nonsense.

Social media aren't being 'strong armed.'

 

[tahuyaman]

Nonsense.

Social media aren't being 'strong armed.'

They didn’t need to be strong armed.

 

[Frankenstein]

They didn’t need to be strong armed.

Exactly because they capitulated

 

[tahuyaman]

Exactly because they capitulated

No. They cooperated. They didn’t need to be coerced in any way.

 

[Frankenstein]

No. They cooperated. They didn’t need to be coerced in any way.

Yes which is the same thing, they did not resist