SCOTUS punts that ball yet again

[Harpy Eagle]

Nobody decides what is true.

That is what the Govt is doing. They are deeming things to be untrue and "urging" sites to take them down.

Do try to keep up

 

[Harpy Eagle]

"someone to do something" doesn't quite cut it.

Be specific. The law does and is.

The Govt has the power to punish a site that will not take down what they "urge" them to do, thus it becomes more than just a simple request.

In a way it is no different than someone in a position of power urging a subordinate to have sex with them.

 

[Crepitus]

That is what the Govt is doing. They are deeming things to be untrue and "urging" sites to take them down.

Do try to keep up

Like what?

 

[ReinyDays]

"someone to do something" doesn't quite cut it.

Be specific. The law does and is.

I haven't seen the word "indictment" yet ... my reaction to these government suggestions is to give them teh mailing address of the closest courthouse where I can be sued ... 108 E 8th Ave, Eugene, Oregon, 97401 ... let me know what you want to do, and I'll check out what forms you'll need to fill out and how much the court costs are ... if you're nice, the county sheriff's office might provide civil service for free, they delight in such visitations with me, and they know exactly where I live ...

 

[dblack]

"Not having standing" is such BS

Robert's seems like a political coward to me. More charitably, he probably thinks of it as avoiding "legislating from the bench", but in my view he's just sidestepping the important decisions.

His decision on ACA was particularly frustrating. He basically laid out the equivalence between the insurance mandate, and a tax incentive. And he was right. They're essentially the same thing - an attempt to use the tax code to coerce behavior. And, in my view, rather obviously an abuse of the taxation power. But instead of striking it down on those grounds, and thus undermining a huge chunk of the power Congress has claimed for itself, he pussed out and said "well, we've been doing that for a long time, so I guess it's ok".

 

[ReinyDays]

Like what?

Anti-vax rhetoric is what the OP is about ... Harpies being a silly eagle ... the OP is the counter-example to his claims ... of course the executive branch has the power, and see here how the courts stop them from using that power ... as designed ...

Whoremonger Trump's administration is a textbook study on how an abuse of power is thwarted ... there's still Muslims in this country advocating against prostitution ...

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I haven't seen the word "indictment" yet ... my reaction to these government suggestions is to give them teh mailing address of the closest courthouse where I can be sued

No one is being sued

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Anti-vax rhetoric is what the OP is about ... Harpies being a silly eagle ... the OP is the counter-example to his claims

First off it can be about anything the Govt wants to target.

Second ,can you explain how I am a counter-example to my claims?

Thanks

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The Govt has the power to punish a site that will not take down what they "urge" them to do, thus it becomes more than just a simple request.

In a way it is no different than someone in a position of power urging a subordinate to have sex with them.

Many say "no" which is why there are so few lawsuits.

This is about the government doing their job. Try and keep up by reading and trying to comprehend your own links.

"Of immediate significance, the decision means that the Department of Homeland Security may continue to flag posts to social media companies such as Facebook and X that it believes may be the work of foreign agents seeking to disrupt this year’s presidential race."

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

First off it can be about anything the Govt wants to target.

Second ,can you explain how I am a counter-example to my claims?

Thanks

Fake News Alert

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Many say "no" which is why there are so few lawsuits.

This is about the government doing their job. Try and keep up by reading and trying to comprehend your own links.

"Of immediate significance, the decision means that the Department of Homeland Security may continue to flag posts to social media companies such as Facebook and X that it believes may be the work of foreign agents seeking to disrupt this year’s presidential race."

Your faith in the Govt to only do the right thing is not shared by me.

Will you have this blind trust in Admin to not abuse this power should Trump happen to win?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Your faith in the Govt to only do the right thing...

Is not a reality.

Stop making shit up -- again.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Fake News Alert

It is not fake news. They did this with post about COVID and now they say they are doing it for election integrity.

Do you honestly believe the Biden admin is going to be urging X to take down a post from a " foreign agent" that is critical of Trump?

If so I have some nice ocean front property in Kansas for sale

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Will you have this blind trust in Admin to not abuse...

Again...

Stop making shit up. Stop projecting. Get a life. Move on. Leave behind the device your typing away on.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

It is not fake news. They did this with post about COVID and now they say they are doing it for election integrity.

Do you honestly believe the Biden admin is going to be urging X to take down a post from a " foreign agent" that is critical of Trump?

If so I have some nice ocean front property in Kansas for sale

Harp away you declawed loser

 

[ReinyDays]

First off it can be about anything the Govt wants to target.

Right ... and also things the government is forced to target ... like Jim Crow ... don't be fooled, Alabama wants segregation back, and they target "liberal" businesses who disagree ...

Second ,can you explain how I am a counter-example to my claims?

Other than the prima facia evidence? ... probably not, you will not listen to any explanation that's different form your narrow-minded opinions ... if you're not being harmed, your lawsuit will be dismissed ... because of standing ... simple ...

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Other than the prima facia evidence? ... probably not, you will not listen to any explanation that's different form your narrow-minded opinions ... if you're not being harmed, your lawsuit will be dismissed ... because of standing ... simple ...

When the Govt oversteps is constitutional constraints, every citizen is harmed.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Harp away you declawed loser

I have touched a nerve with our resident nanny state supporter.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I have touched a nerve with our resident nanny state supporter.

verb: harp; 3rd person present: harps; past tense: harped; past participle: harped; gerund or present participle: harping

1. 1.
   talk or write persistently and tediously on (a particular topic).

 

[Harpy Eagle]

verb: harp; 3rd person present: harps; past tense: harped; past participle: harped; gerund or present participle: harping

1. 1.
   talk or write persistently and tediously on (a particular topic).

Harpy Eagle...

noun

1. a large crested eagle of tropical rainforests, often preying on monkeys.