« ALEA Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: BREAKING: Supreme Court tosses out claim Biden administration coerced social media companies to remove content

By: Cactus Flower in ALEA | Recommend this post (0)
Wed, 26 Jun 24 5:25 PM | 19 view(s)
Boardmark this board | The Trust Matrix
Msg. 53378 of 54959
(This msg. is a reply to 53376 by clo2)

Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

My view is that social media companies should provide governments with the ability to control conversations as they wish according to local law.

There's a cost to that in authoritarian states. But it isn't the role of social media companies to overrule governments. That would make them the long arm of the US government.

We have a load of new problems caused by social media. Someone has to manage them. There really isn't anybody else to do so.




» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
BREAKING: Supreme Court tosses out claim Biden administration coerced social media companies to remove content
By: clo2
in ALEA
Wed, 26 Jun 24 4:35 PM
Msg. 53376 of 54959

Notice Amy wrote for the majority.

BREAKING: Supreme Court tosses out claim Biden administration coerced social media companies to remove content

The Supreme Court threw out claims that the Biden administration unlawfully coerced social media companies into removing contentious content. In reaching its conclusion, the court overturned an injunction that would have limited contacts between government officials and social media companies on a wide range of issues if all

The court on a 6-3 vote found that plaintiffs did not have standing to sue.

Writing for the majority, conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett said the plaintiffs, Republican attorneys general in Louisiana and Missouri, along with five social media users, had failed to show they had suffered harm at the hands of specific government officials.

She noted that social media platforms routinely moderated content even before the alleged coercion happened.

"In fact, the platforms, acting independently, had strengthened their pre-existing content moderation policies before the government defendants got involved," she added.

While the evidence shows government officials "played a role" in moderation choices, that is not enough to justify a sweeping injunction, Barrett wrote.

The plaintiffs also failed to show that previous examples of content moderation could be linked to the communications government officials had with the platforms, she added.

Justice Samuel Alito dissented, joined by two other conservatives, Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Neil Gorsuch.

Alito suggested the dispute was "one of the most important free speech cases to reach this court in years."owed to go into effect.

The majority "permits the successful campaign of coercion in this case to stand as an attractive model for future officials who want to control what the people say, hear and think," he added.

The plaintiffs filed the underlying lawsuit alleging that U.S. government officials went too far in putting pressure on platforms to moderate content. The individual plaintiffs include Covid lockdown opponents and Jim Hoft, the owner of the right-wing website Gateway Pundit.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-tosses-claim-biden-administration-coerced-social-media-c-rcna151356?


« ALEA Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next