SCOTUS punts that ball yet again

[Procrustes Stretched]

Harpy Eagle...

noun

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

again,
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]

again,
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).

again...

Harpy Eagle...

noun

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

 

[ReinyDays]

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

Where does the Constitution constrain government speech? ... are government employee's somehow striped of their fundamental rights? ... c.f. whistle-blower laws ...

Better ... what written law was violated by the Biden Administration urging Facebook to take down all the "kill the police" posts ... and how are average citizens harmed by restricting this rhetoric? ... who's forcing them to read Facebook? ... how are you individually harmed by Facebook being pressured to take down offensive posts? ...

See the part in the Constitution about "domestic tranquility"? ... didn't think so ...

 

[ReinyDays]

again,
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).

OMG ... you gerunded him ... God that's low ...

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

OMG ... you gerunded him ... God that's low ...

too funny

Gerund | Definition, Form & Examples

A gerund is a word like “swimming” in the sentence “I have always enjoyed swimming.” The term refers to the “-ing” form of a verb when it functions as a

www.scribbr.com

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Where does the Constitution constrain government speech?

The Constitution constrains the government from infringing on free speech.

Better ... what written law was violated by the Biden Administration urging Facebook to take down all the "kill the police" posts ... and how are average citizens harmed by restricting this rhetoric? ... who's forcing them to read Facebook? ... how are you individually harmed by Facebook being pressured to take down offensive posts? ...

See the part in the Constitution about "domestic tranquility"? ... didn't think so ...

We are not talking about post that encourage violence or murder. There are laws against those and the Govt does not need to compel a site to take them down.

This is about opinions that the current admin does not agree with.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

My problem is that it is wrong and should not be happening. it is not the Govt's job to decide what is "true" or not. I do not need a fucking nanny state keeping me safe from lies on the internet.

At least you're consistent at being wrong.

Government doesn't decide anything.

Private social media decides what to post.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

At least you're consistent at being wrong.

Government doesn't decide anything.

Private social media decides what to post.

Sure, with the help of the Govt. And since the Govt has the power to shut them down, a "urging" from the Govt to do something is very different than you or I asking them to do so.

It is not the job of the Govt to be doing this.

 

[ReinyDays]

The Constitution constrains the government from infringing on free speech.

We are not talking about post that encourage violence or murder. There are laws against those and the Govt does not need to compel a site to take them down.

[Quotations may be fouled due to my own misfortunes]

Can you post a link to the indictment we're discussing? ... and do you have a citation for these claims ... I advocated killing police in this thread, has that post been taken down yet, or must the government compel USMB to take it down? ...

I think you'll find the laws are clear ... the speech is allowed, but not the behaviors ... I can advocate for 2nd Amendment rights to nuclear weapons, but I can't go panning for plutonium along the Columbia River there in Portland ... I would be charged with 30 million counts of attempted murder ... the only difference is behavior ...

I think USMB would co-operate with any government requests .. JUST because it is generally GOOD BUSINESS to do so ... and USMB needs no other reason IMEIO ...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/26/politics/social-media-disinformation-supreme-court-ruling/index.html

“To establish standing, the plaintiffs must demonstrate a substantial risk that, in the near future, they will suffer an injury that is traceable to a government defendant and redressable by the injunction they seek,” Barrett wrote. “Because no plaintiff has carried that burden, none has standing to seek a preliminary injunction.”


Yet one more case kicked down the road on standing.

I love it!

Trump will be able to deplatform all dissenting Progressives and whoever is dumb enough to run against Republicans

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I love it!

Trump will be able to deplatform all dissenting Progressives and whoever is dumb enough to run against Republicans

and no doubt he will try his hardest to do that.

These folks never think about what will happen when the other side gets the power they give to theirs

 

[JBG]

"Not having standing" is such BS

Actually it isn't. The place to seek change in society, in general, is in the Legislature's.

 

[dblack]

Actually it isn't. The place to seek change in society, in general, is in the Legislature's.

Not if you think the legislature has overstepped it's Constitutional authority.