Free speech or yelling fire in a crowded theater?

[highroller]

Why is the right in favor of false information? Oh yeah, their beliefs are mostly lies.

Their tactics certainly are

 

[Lutherf]

No. We all know that govt cannot prohibit speech. And in this discussion, it is 100% clear that govt did not prohibit speech. Facebook disallows its users from posting specific material on its website. The Biden administration is not prohibiting anyone from posting anything on even it own government website, let alone Facebooks. The Biden administration is not issuing a single directive to Facebook, , nor is it coercing Facebook into doing anything. Its not suing. Its not fining. Its not threatening to inspect, or cite, or do anything whatsoever. It is advocating, lobbying, and encouraging Facebook to apply its own TOS to fight disinformation about the nature of a public health emergency.

This is nothing whatsover like your hypothetica,l because there is no crime, or criminal sanction.

If the local health department saw a poster on the window of a local restaurant, declaring Food borne illness a fraud, a lie, a conspiracy and that poster told people that ideas behind the refrigeration of meat was nothing but a scam to sell refrigerators and freezers, your position is that the health department could not ask the restaraunt to take that poster down because it also regulates restaurants. . I disagree.

Further, you are saying that if the restaurant tried to pay for a full page advertizement, out in the local paper spreading the same message, the Health Dept could not lobby or advocate for the newspaper to refuse to print that full page ad due to the imminent public health risk to the community.

I disagree. I think the health dept has a positive duty to plead with the newspaper not to print that ad, spreading those lies.

The government, due to its regulatory authority and due to its prosecutorial authority is, by its very nature, coercive. Furthermore, if it is advocating for restrictions on free speech then it is advocating for the abridgement of free speech and that is a specifically prohibited function of government..

With regard to the health poster (anti-health poster, I suppose) the proper method of controlling the health and safety issues is to do so via the statutorily approved method of inspection. If the restaurant is abiding by all the health rules then the government really has no reason to address the issue of the poster. If government REALLY wanted to get pissy about the issue then, should the legislature approve such a measure, they could require all food service companies to post food safety rules. Applying that to Facebook, if the government had come to them and said "We want you to post COVID safety information" then that would absolutely be Constitutional. The issue of asking that COVID information that DOES NOT conform with government opinion be taken down is against the Constitution.

 

[btthegreat]

The government, due to its regulatory authority and due to its prosecutorial authority is, by its very nature, coercive. Furthermore, if it is advocating for restrictions on free speech then it is advocating for the abridgement of free speech and that is a specifically prohibited function of government..

With regard to the health poster (anti-health poster, I suppose) the proper method of controlling the health and safety issues is to do so via the statutorily approved method of inspection. If the restaurant is abiding by all the health rules then the government really has no reason to address the issue of the poster. If government REALLY wanted to get pissy about the issue then, should the legislature approve such a measure, they could require all food service companies to post food safety rules. Applying that to Facebook, if the government had come to them and said "We want you to post COVID safety information" then that would absolutely be Constitutional. The issue of asking that COVID information that DOES NOT conform with government opinion be taken down is against the Constitution.

Wrong. Govt may advocate for private parties to do or not do whatever it sees in the best public interest, to whomever it needs to advocate, including media, restaurants, or any other party on the face of this planet. . It cannot coerce or punish. The proper method for that health dept is to ask the restaurant to remove that poster because it promotes disinformation inconsistent with public health independent of what happens inside that restaurant. If the newspaper is approached to print that poster, then Govt can ask that the newspaper not to print.an article that will potentially lead to countless deaths.

Matter of fact if the health dept does not, it breaches it's duty.

Treating all behavior as coercive behavior, simply because one party has regulatory authority over the other is just plain stupid. There are remedies to coercive abuse of power, but they do require a showing of a quantum of proof larger than zero.

 

[braindrain]

Wrong. Govt may advocate for private parties to do or not do whatever it sees in the best public interest, to whomever it needs to advocate, including media, restaurants, or any other party on the face of this planet. . It cannot coerce or punish. The proper method for that health dept is to ask the restaurant to remove that poster because it promotes disinformation inconsistent with public health independent of what happens inside that restaurant. If the newspaper is approached to print that poster, then Govt can ask that the newspaper not to print.an article that will potentially lead to countless deaths.

Matter of fact if the health dept does not, it breaches it's duty.

Treating all behavior as coercive behavior, simply because one party has regulatory authority over the other is just plain stupid. There are remedies to coercive abuse of power, but they do require a showing of a quantum of proof larger than zero.

Yes I am sure that if trump gets reelected you will have no problem with his administration “asking” private businesses to do things.

How naive must one be not only to not realize the inherent coercion that goes on when a entity as powerful as the US government asks your company to do something but even worse is to not recognize that once the precedent of using this tactic set it will be used by the other side the moment they get in power.

 

[btthegreat]

Yes I am sure that if trump gets reelected you will have no problem with his administration “asking” private businesses to do things.

How naive must one be not only to not realize the inherent coercion that goes on when a entity as powerful as the US government asks your company to do something but even worse is to not recognize that once the precedent of using this tactic set it will be used by the other side the moment they get in power.

Except that's not my position. He may ask in the sense its constitutionally permitted for him to advocate and lobby businesses or people . Its also true that if he knowingly advocates for a third party to brake the law, there may be charges forthcoming as an accessory to the crime. None of this remotely translates into 'I have no problem' I am not naive, but I do know that coersion involves more than a simple request to take down a poster claiming refrigeration is a conspiracy, or a request to follow your own stated policies.

 

[Buckeyes85]

Yes I am sure that if trump gets reelected you will have no problem with his administration “asking” private businesses to do things.

How naive must one be not only to not realize the inherent coercion that goes on when a entity as powerful as the US government asks your company to do something but even worse is to not recognize that once the precedent of using this tactic set it will be used by the other side the moment they get in power.

That's an extremely weak argument.
Thousands of times daily companies do things the US Government has not asked, but ordered them not to do. And they do it anyway. Say for instance, being ordered via federal law not to discriminate based on race when renting your company's apartments, particularly when you are receiving federal dollars- and doing it anyway. Or being ordered by the federal government to return documents that don't belong to you- and keeping them anyway. Those on the right sure don't seem to be feeling very coerced by the federal government.

 

[DCCougar]

Given the choice between accepting that there is going to be some disinformation on the Internet or giving government the authority to put the seal of "truth" on things, I would reluctantly accept the former.

Sure, but I don't think that's even the issue. Contrary to the false claims that "government wants to censor speech," all "government" has done is notify private companies to say "Hey, we think you're spreading false and dangerous disinformation that violates your own rules. It would be in the public interest if you removed that stuff."

The only heavy-handedness seems to be from the screaming of the, I guess, disinformers.

 

[DCCougar]

Yes I am sure that if trump gets reelected you will have no problem with his administration “asking” private businesses to do things.

Asking is one thing, retaliating is quite another, and we KNOW Trump is big time into retaliating.

 

[braindrain]

Except that's not my position. He may ask in the sense its constitutionally permitted for him to advocate and lobby businesses or people . Its also true that if he knowingly advocates for a third party to brake the law, there may be charges forthcoming as an accessory to the crime. None of this remotely translates into 'I have no problem' I am not naive, but I do know that coersion involves more than a simple request to take down a poster claiming refrigeration is a conspiracy, or a request to follow your own stated policies.

Like I said it will be interesting to see your thoughts on this the next time a right wing admin is “asking” a business to do something for them

 

[Lutherf]

Wrong. Govt may advocate for private parties to do or not do whatever it sees in the best public interest, to whomever it needs to advocate, including media, restaurants, or any other party on the face of this planet. . It cannot coerce or punish. The proper method for that health dept is to ask the restaurant to remove that poster because it promotes disinformation inconsistent with public health independent of what happens inside that restaurant. If the newspaper is approached to print that poster, then Govt can ask that the newspaper not to print.an article that will potentially lead to countless deaths.

Matter of fact if the health dept does not, it breaches it's duty.

Treating all behavior as coercive behavior, simply because one party has regulatory authority over the other is just plain stupid. There are remedies to coercive abuse of power, but they do require a showing of a quantum of proof larger than zero.

Government can ask. The restaurant owner can tell them to **** off. At that point, should the government continue to push the issue (as happened with some of the social media companies) it's straight up coercion. Actually, it's coercion right from the beginning and the only reason nothing ever happens in such a situation is because the cost off litigating the issue isn't worth the hassle.

As an example, there is a book that's been out for around 50 years called The Anarchist's Cookbook. The book has all kinds of information on how to make explosives, drugs and other stuff that is generally illegal. Under your theory the government could stop publication of the book but, because of the same principles we're talking about here, it's still in publication.

 

[braindrain]

That's an extremely weak argument.
Thousands of times daily companies do things the US Government has not asked, but ordered them not to do. And they do it anyway. Say for instance, being ordered via federal law not to discriminate based on race when renting your company's apartments, particularly when you are receiving federal dollars- and doing it anyway. Or being ordered by the federal government to return documents that don't belong to you- and keeping them anyway. Those on the right sure don't seem to be feeling very coerced by the federal government.

Yes and when those companies get caught they are punished. Hardly a similar comparison.

To pretend that the federal government asking a company is an easy thing for a business to turn down is just being incredibly naive.

And I guarantee you will revise your opinion if trump gets reelected

 

[Bullseye]

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4741030-alito-white-house-social-media-dissent/

Justice Alito complains that the Biden administration is silencing free speech concerning the court's decision to rule that the plaintiffs did not have standing in the administration's attemtp to keep false health information off the internet. Several red states brought the suite wanting to end the administration's efforts to keep such info off the internet. I guess it comes down to seeing such false information as free speech or as yelling fire in a crowded theater as it could and probably has led to deaths of those who believed the false information. You tell me what you think it is and why?

Sp. are you saying that whatever the "state" say is automatically true and no criticism or alternative information should be allowed.?

 

[btthegreat]

Government can ask. The restaurant owner can tell them to **** off. At that point, should the government continue to push the issue (as happened with some of the social media companies) it's straight up coercion. Actually, it's coercion right from the beginning and the only reason nothing ever happens in such a situation is because the cost off litigating the issue isn't worth the hassle.

As an example, there is a book that's been out for around 50 years called The Anarchist's Cookbook. The book has all kinds of information on how to make explosives, drugs and other stuff that is generally illegal. Under your theory the government could stop publication of the book but, because of the same principles we're talking about here, it's still in publication.

Nope. My theory is that the govt may ask the publisher not to publish it, and do so with as much passion and eloquence at its command or the govt could ask the author to re-edit it without some of the more objectionable material. Those requests themselves represent expressions of free speech by the various interested parties. Govt is not stopping publication because govt does not have that power by making requests. It's what distinguishes a request from a legal demand (injunction) with a penalty attached which does represent an assertion of power and is coercive. Instead here its the publisher who has the authority to stop this, who decides whether or not to publish and thus it is the publisher that actually would do the stopping, It would require the granting of an injunction for Govt to stop the publication. .

I support free speech and I support the Govt contributing to that cacophony of ideas, by expressing its own disapproval or approval of specific speech. I believe govt gets to condemn all sorts of speech including hate speech, disinformation or propaganda etc. I can also condemn the publication and distribution of speech as 'irresponsible' or 'dangerous' It can do so privately or publicly. That is a good thing.

 

[Lutherf]

Nope. My theory is that the govt may ask the publisher not to publish it, and do so with as much passion and eloquence at its command or the govt could ask the author to re-edit it without some of the more objectionable material. Those requests themselves represent expressions of free speech by the various interested parties. Govt is not stopping publication because govt does not have that power by making requests. It's what distinguishes a request from a legal demand (injunction) with a penalty attached which does represent an assertion of power and is coercive. Instead here its the publisher who has the authority to stop this, who decides whether or not to publish and thus it is the publisher that actually would do the stopping, It would require the granting of an injunction for Govt to stop the publication. .

I support free speech and I support the Govt contributing to that cacophony of ideas, by expressing its own disapproval or approval of specific speech. I believe govt gets to condemn all sorts of speech including hate speech, disinformation or propaganda etc. I can also condemn the publication and distribution of speech as 'irresponsible' or 'dangerous' It can do so privately or publicly. That is a good thing.

Let's try this again. The government CAN, without being coercive, go to Facebook and say, for example, "We noticed that @XYZ123 posted a bunch of stuff we think is harmful to the public. Please post our rebuttal of that assertion". That isn't a problem. Going to Facebook and saying, "We noticed that you banned XYZ123 for saying some crazy shit and we approve of you methods. By the way, @doggiecat has also said some stuff we hate and we'd appreciate you taking that down" is a whole different kettle of fish. As the government they hold a certain level of regulatory authority over Facebook; they hold a significant level of prosecutorial authority over Facebook; they hold a ton of tax authority over Facebook. As such, the "request" is unquestionably coercive.

 

[Cosmo]

I would say worse than yelling fire in a crowded theater. In a theater, you have a potential of harming a few hundred people.

Telling people that a lifesaving vaccine is dangerous has the potential of harming millions of people.

Maybe. Define "dangerous."

Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) Publications | Vaccine Safety | CDC

Read published research using the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.

www.cdc.gov

On October 29, 2021, the FDA expanded emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine to include children ages 5-11 years. Once the EUA was in place, researchers began reviewing vaccine safety data for this age group, collected through the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and v-safe. From November 3 through December 19, 2021, around 8.7 million doses of Pfizer vaccine were administered to children ages 5-11 years. During that time, VAERS received 4,249 reports of adverse events following vaccination for children in that age group, 98% of which were non-serious. There were 11 verified cases of myocarditis. Of the over 42,000 children enrolled in v-safe, 70% recorded a second dose. Local reactions (symptoms around the injection site) and systemic reactions (fever, headache, fatigue) following dose 2 of Pfizer vaccination among this age group were reported less frequently than reactions reported among children ages 12-15 years. The initial safety findings showed no unusual patterns of adverse events and that the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination continue to outweigh the risks. CDC and FDA will continue to monitor COVID-19 vaccine safety, communicate findings, and use vaccine safety data to inform vaccination recommendations.

Now, reporting this info may lead some to fear the vaccine and avoid it. Does that mean it needs to be censored?

 

[btthegreat]

Let's try this again. The government CAN, without being coercive, go to Facebook and say, for example, "We noticed that @XYZ123 posted a bunch of stuff we think is harmful to the public. Please post our rebuttal of that assertion". That isn't a problem. Going to Facebook and saying, "We noticed that you banned XYZ123 for saying some crazy shit and we approve of you methods. By the way, @doggiecat has also said some stuff we hate and we'd appreciate you taking that down" is a whole different kettle of fish. As the government they hold a certain level of regulatory authority over Facebook; they hold a significant level of prosecutorial authority over Facebook; they hold a ton of tax authority over Facebook. As such, the "request" is unquestionably coercive.

No its not a 'whole different kettle of fish'. its a perfectly reasonable opinion based request especially if its theoretically based on an application of preexisting TOS. You can try it as often as you want, but you are going to have to show more than that. Some agencies have regulatory authority over Facebook and some do not. Some agencies can prosecute crime and some cannot. It would be outside the normal scope for the AG's office, or the IRS to contact Facebook with this request for example. that's pretty 'sus' and it may carry a coercive message. Certainly you have a case if there are efforts to organise third party lawsuits subsequent to a denial of the request. But you need something more to hang your hat on than this zero you are presenting. Anyone who could coerce, is not guilty of coercing and cannot be assumed to be guilty of coercing simply because they make a request, especially if there is a clear public interest involved in making that request. its just a perfectly normal and reasonable expression of their responsiblity to protect that public interest.

 

[Glitch]

Let's try this again. The government CAN, without being coercive, go to Facebook and say, for example, "We noticed that @XYZ123 posted a bunch of stuff we think is harmful to the public. Please post our rebuttal of that assertion". That isn't a problem. Going to Facebook and saying, "We noticed that you banned XYZ123 for saying some crazy shit and we approve of you methods. By the way, @doggiecat has also said some stuff we hate and we'd appreciate you taking that down" is a whole different kettle of fish. As the government they hold a certain level of regulatory authority over Facebook; they hold a significant level of prosecutorial authority over Facebook; they hold a ton of tax authority over Facebook. As such, the "request" is unquestionably coercive.

There is a very simple solution to this.

Using your example, Facebook could deny the government's "request" then make it publicly known what the government's so-called "request" was. Nothing backfires faster on government than when they try to ban some thing. When movies or books are banned by some authority there are always millions who are willing to specifically defy those bans.

If you want your message circulated as quickly as possible, get government to ban it and make that information public.

What we have here are businesses who are willing and eager to conform to any violation of our civil rights. Businesses do not give a shit about anyone's rights. They are only in business to make a profit. If they could sell their grandmother's personal information for a profit, they would in an instant. So it should not come as any surprise when business voluntarily gives up their information on their customers to the government whenever the government makes a request.

The NSA has been using smart phones to track Americans in violation of the Fourth Amendment since the 2000s, and lets not forget about the Fourth Amendment violation that is the TSA, but nobody seems to give a shit about those government violations to our constitutionally protected rights.

 

[redbeer]

Except don't we now know that a lot of the "speech" that was blocked on twitter was not false? While I haven't read the courts briefs, I have a feeling those plaintiffs must surely have cited some examples.

Yes, it's a dangerous slope, for they were censoring speech which was true, so they could spread misinformation. Allowing the federal government the "go ahead" and continue this unconstitutional debacle is destructive to our Republic. The federal government should NOT be the arbiter of truth, dictating what's truth or not......a responsibility which should NEVER be in the hands of politics.

 

[Lutherf]

No its not a 'whole different kettle of fish'. its a perfectly reasonable opinion based request especially if its theoretically based on an application of preexisting TOS. You can try it as often as you want, but you are going to have to show more than that. Some agencies have regulatory authority over Facebook and some do not. Some agencies can prosecute crime and some cannot. It would be outside the normal scope for the AG's office, or the IRS to contact Facebook with this request for example. that's pretty 'sus' and it may carry a coercive message. Certainly you have a case if there are efforts to organise third party lawsuits subsequent to a denial of the request. But you need something more to hang your hat on than this zero you are presenting. Anyone who could coerce, is not guilty of coercing and cannot be assumed to be guilty of coercing simply because they make a request, especially if there is a clear public interest involved in making that request. its just a perfectly normal and reasonable expression of their responsiblity to protect that public interest.

You seem to be equating the government with other individuals and that IS NOT the case because government holds a whole lot more power than individuals do. Think of how that works on a forum like this. If another user tells you to get bent then there it's just a tiny issue. If a moderator tells you to get bent it''s a bigger issue. If a moderator, acting in their official capacity, tells you to get bent then you're more likely to see that as an even more serious risk. You're somewhat more likely to modify your response to someone if you know that person can make changes that directly effect what you're doing. That concept, when applied to government, works both ways. When one person takes issue with a government decision government usually doesn't give a damn. When a group of people take issue government is more likely to notice and when a group with the backing of the media takes issue then government is more likely to address the matter because now the group has power to make political change. Unlike individuals, government holds an inherent power to make change and that power can even be exercised through one person in the government. That's why government requests are inherently coercive.

 

[butterfly]

The federal government shouldn’t be able to establish a ministry of truth to help censor internet content.

Way, way back in the day patent medicines were sold claiming to cure everything from cancer to psychosis. They probably did make the person feel better being full of alcohol and narcotics. However, it was deemed appropriate that such claims could be monitored and outlawed. How is this different. It's as American as apple pie.

 

[vanceen]

Sure, but I don't think that's even the issue. Contrary to the false claims that "government wants to censor speech," all "government" has done is notify private companies to say "Hey, we think you're spreading false and dangerous disinformation that violates your own rules. It would be in the public interest if you removed that stuff."

The only heavy-handedness seems to be from the screaming of the, I guess, disinformers.

Sure, I was addressing the broader issue more than this particular case.

Having said that, I'm not comfortable with government even requesting private organizations to publish or not publish things, in most cases. A "request" from the government is a request from an entity with the power to ruin your life. Most of the time, the requests might be perfectly benign and reasonable. But as I said before, government is composed of individual humans, some of whom will not be able to resist using their power to benefit themselves or their agenda.

I'm all for government gathering and publishing information that it regards to be both true and in the public's interest. I'm not too happy about government taking steps to change what's published by private organizations, even if it's just requests. There might be exception involving, for example, national security, but these should be exceptional.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Way, way back in the day patent medicines were sold claiming to cure everything from cancer to psychosis. They probably did make the person feel better being full of alcohol and narcotics. However, it was deemed appropriate that such claims could be monitored and outlawed. How is this different. It's as American as apple pie.

A making a false advertising claim for a product is vastly different than stating on social media that Hunter Biden’s laptop content is ‘real’ (not Russian misinformation) or that COVID-19 likely originated from (US funded) gain of function research in China.

 

[Visbek]

It could be a fine line, but the court chose to avoid the issue....

Or, not.

The majority opinion pointed out that the plaintiffs did not, in fact, prove that they were directly harmed by the communications. E.g. several of the plaintiffs complained about being moderated by Twitter and LinkedIn, but the only evidence they claimed of government interference was communications with Facebook -- which is a completely separate company.

Or: Plaintiffs blamed the government for censorship, but their posts were subject to moderator action before the government started communicating with any government entities. Moderation actions also continued long after those communications stopped, and the communications were discussed in public.

At best, the activists behind this case picked the wrong plaintiffs (and the wrong defendants). At worst, the plaintiffs et al are asking the court to indulge in the kind of conspiracy theorizing rampant on the right these days, which treat all social media companies as a homogenous mass, which is not how the law or causality works.

Either way, if a plaintiff doesn't have standing? Then they don't have standing. The SCOTUS cannot just take cases from any rando who's mad about getting suspended from Facebook. The plaintiffs need to prove first that they have a valid case, and they failed to do so.

 

[maxparrish]

This is not as good a post. . . Facebook can decline to loan its megaphone to specific speakers as they speak, or it can allow the use of that megaphone of theirs. . It can consult or cooperate with whoever it pleases, or refuse to consult with whoever it pleases, about the use of its megaphone including govt. It can write rules, and decide to change its rules and it can consult or cooperate whoever it pleases about those rules including govt . ....

Govt agencies have a long history of asking for the cooperation of media before it lends out its megaphone, usually involving law enforcement or community safety issues. Advocacy is not coercion. ....Advocacy is not intimidation.

Or, not.

The majority opinion pointed out that the plaintiffs did not, in fact, prove that they were directly harmed by the communications. E.g. several of the plaintiffs complained about being moderated by Twitter and LinkedIn, but the only evidence they claimed of government interference was communications with Facebook -- which is a completely separate company. ...

Either way, if a plaintiff doesn't have standing? Then they don't have standing. The SCOTUS cannot just take cases from any rando who's mad about getting suspended from Facebook. The plaintiffs need to prove first that they have a valid case, and they failed to do so.

There is, of course, a vast difference in making a simple request or sending information to an outlet as opposed to a campaign of active suppression. That it was far more the latter than the former shouldn't be in dispute. Moreover @Visbek ('s) defense of standing is how, as I said, the court avoided the issue - a common tactic of the court when it chooses to avoid ruling on the central question.

Regardless of the issue of standing, what actually occurred was grossly unconstitutional coercion - a shameless violation of the first amendment. In 2021 the white house began its campaign to coerce Facebook when their officials started sending letters requesting answers to white house concerns. It started with questions like “Can you also give us a sense of the misinformation that might be falling outside of your removal polices?

When the White House did not get the answers it wanted, its questions quickly turned to virtual demands, often warning of potential consequences. Accusing Facebook of "hiding the ball.” the White House said it was “gravely concerned that [Facebook] is one of the top drivers of vaccine hesitancy,” and he demanded to know how Facebook was trying to solve the problem. In the white house officials' words, “we want to know that you’re trying, ... and we want to know that you’re not playing a shell game with us when we ask you what is going on.” And when unsatisfied with FACEBOOK answers, White House officials would (Slavitt) warn “internally we have been considering our options on what to do about it.”

Facebook's groveling and apologetic response to this and other White house missives, and changes in policy to increasingly censor users, was never enough to please the White House and pressure escalated to governmental public campaign of attacks on Facebook.

I cannot adequately sum the events, but I can refer you to at least pages 5 through 15 of Alito's dissent which chronicles in detail a portion of these events and leaves no doubt as to governments coercion. In concluding that section of his dissent he wrote:

What these events show is that top federal officials continuously and persistently hectored Facebook to crack down on what the officials saw as unhelpful social media posts, including not only posts that they thought were false or misleading but also stories that they did not claim to be literally false but nevertheless (they)wanted obscured. And Facebook’s reactions to these efforts were not what one would expect from ..._an independent news source or a journalistic entity dedicated to holding the Government accountable for its actions. Instead, Facebook’s responses resembled that of a subservient entity determined to stay in the good graces of a powerful taskmaster. Facebook told White House officials that it would “work . . . to gain your trust.” . When criticized, Facebook representatives whimpered that they “thought we were doing a better job” but promised to do more going forward. Id., at 9371. They pleaded to know how they could “get back to a good place” with the White House. And when denounced as “killing people,” Facebook responded by expressing a desire to “work together collaboratively” with its accuser. 9 The picture is clear.​

 

[Visbek]

There is, of course, a vast difference in making a simple request or sending information to an outlet as opposed to a campaign of active suppression. That it was far more the latter than the former shouldn't be in dispute.

No, it definitely should be in dispute, because it's a bunch of right-wing bullshit.

Moreover @Visbek ('s) defense of standing is how, as I said, the court avoided the issue - a common tactic of the court when it chooses to avoid ruling on the central question.

Or, the most conservative court in a generation found that the plaintiffs lacked standing. What a concept.

Regardless of the issue of standing, what actually occurred was grossly unconstitutional coercion...

And yet, multiple plaintiffs couldn't prove that they were injured as a result of the government's action.

In 2021 the white house began its campaign to coerce Facebook when their officials started sending letters requesting answers to white house concerns. It started with questions like “Can you also give us a sense of the misinformation that might be falling outside of your removal polices?

I hate to break this to you, but: Yeah, that's legal.

Facebook was (and is) not straightforward about many of their moderation policies. Asking them to clarify it, while coordinating on identifying misinformation, is not coercive.

When the White House did not get the answers it wanted, its questions quickly turned to virtual demands

Riiight

, often warning of potential consequences. Accusing Facebook of "hiding the ball.” the White House said it was “gravely concerned that [Facebook] is one of the top drivers of vaccine hesitancy,”

OMG they're concerned!!! Clearly that's not like, oh, President Trump threatening to yank NBC's broadcast license because he didn't like their coverage.[/quote]

How about [url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2019/04/10/ted-cruz-threatens-regulate-facebook-twitter-over-alleged-bias/3423095002/]Republicans threatening social media platforms with antitrust actions and fraud lawsuits, when they booted Trump after the 1/6 insurrection?[/quote] You good with that?

And when unsatisfied with FACEBOOK answers, White House officials would (Slavitt) warn “internally we have been considering our options on what to do about it.”

Holy shit, they were CONSIDERING OPTIONS!!!

Sorry not sorry, but that isn't even remotely threatening. If this is the best you can come up with, then you have absolutely no idea what government coercion is really like.

I can refer you to at least pages 5 through 15 of Alito's dissent...

And I can refer you to pages 1 through 29 of the majority opinion.

Alito is full of shit. He claims that government "could" yank §230 or file an antitrust suit -- but did not say the Biden administration ever actually threatened to do so. (Ironically, it's Republicans who want to kill §230.)

Ironically, it's Republicans who publicly threatened social media companies with these consequences for their moderation decisions. Funny how he never mentioned that, huh?

Meanwhile, Facebook is notoriously unwilling to explain and consistently enforce its moderation policies, and got chewed out for it in private not from the President, or VP, or Chief of Staff, or head of the FCC, but... by a pair of low-level White House staffers. Ooo scary

Alito can't even cite a single communication telling Facebook what to do about Jill Hines -- who, again, Facebook was scrutinizing before the White House started communicating with them.

In fact, all Alito talks about is Facebook -- but again, many of the plaintiffs were referring to moderation actions that happened on other platforms. Kind seems like a screaming oversight, no?

Let's get real. The plaintiffs are hopped up on conspiracy theories, falsely asserting that emails to Facebook prove a Vast Left Wing Conspiracy To Strangle Expression. They failed to prove their case. So has "Gym" Jordan's kangaroo committee.

And if Alito couldn't convince the most conservative SCOTUS in decades to the Righteousness Of His Cause, do you really think his opinion are going to convince me?