The Court upheld many restrictions on the White House and Surgeon General’s office’s contacts with tech companies, finding that they ‘coerced’ platforms’ content decisions
WP gift article expires in 14 days.
Had they not influenced the propagation of insane bullshit, how many more Republicans would be dead right now?
Guilty for advocating for public health concerns during a pandemic? What sort of insane land has become the US
So you’re okay with it being fine for a White House administration telling tech companies what they can and can’t allow? If so, then just wait until.the next Republican gets into the White House. You may not like this because it’s against Bidens White House, but this ruling will prevent Trump from doing it as well…if he somehow got back into office…which won’t happen, but still. It’s a precedent.
We both know it won’t prevent them. They will just repackage their arguments to get the result they desire. For example, the supreme court appointments arguments.
Since I know myself as a person, Public Service Announcements and accontability on public media are complelely normal. It’s only since the rise of internet media that has been created this attitude that tech companies can’t be expected to have any responsibilties.
So, there can’t be regulations and public interests because the people opposing these things when they are needed could misuse them? It doesn’t seem like the problem is that, but just Republicans being consistently shitty and unhinged both ways. It’s not like they need precedent to be terrible anyway, they make and break whatever precedents that might suit them.
Demanding that media cuts off health misinformation during a major health crisis is exactly the sort of thing that a government should do.
One where Republicans block all Democrat court appointments, then push through their candidates at high speed when Republicans are in control.
What I can’t figure out is why the Democrats can’t use similar tactics successfully. This is how we got a Republican Supreme Court.
Somehow they were able to stonewall Obama’s nominees for over a year, then pushed through conservative appointees fast enough to give us whiplash - legal problems be damned.
Because many democratic politicians are very conservative and are in favor of things like austerity. There are more Manchins and Sinemas off in the wings, it’s just not efficient for them to out themselves if they already have someone designated to be the villain who will put a stop to any legilslation they’re not in favor of. They know that being pro-austerity is not popular with their base.
It’s critical that people use a politician’s history and where they get their funding as the real measuring stick of how they will behave in office, not simply what they say or vote for when they know it won’t matter.
https://www.opensecrets.org/ is a useful resource to research candidates and politicians. You can look up where their campaign funding comes from, get spending data of lobbying groups etc.
Neat link. I really like using https://ballotpedia.org/Main_Page when researching local candidates.
What I can’t figure out is why the Democrats can’t use similar tactics successfully.
“When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles.”
To be fair the 5th circuit aren’t judges they’re Republican political operatives
The problem seems to be that the constitution does not say what free speech is and now everyone thinks they are experts on it.
‘Coercing’ someone to not spread lies and half truths is exactly their job. These judges seem to be either incompetent or crooked. Possibly both.
I believe it does say what Congress is, though, so it should be pretty obvious that the first amendment does not apply to the executive.
The judges wrote that the FBI’s activities were “not limited to purely foreign threats," citing instances where the law enforcement agency “targeted” posts that originated inside the United States, including some that stated incorrect poll hours or mail-in voting procedures.
What does foreign threats have to do with this. The FBI deals with domestic terrorists. Does this not fall within the FBI’s jurisdiction as well?
A foreign actor’s speach isn’t constitutionally protected; that’s the relevance.
Free speech does not include subversion of the constitutional right to vote or seditious speech. The judges are clearly partisans. I’ll wager they are Republican appointees.
Wow its good this article isn’t talking about speech like that
Lying about voting locations and dates aren’t subverting the constitution? Really? So we only have the constitutional right to vote if we can figure out the real times and locations on our own, and giving false information that causes people to be unable to Vote is all just lulz?
