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

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

28 comments

  2. And once again, when the Fifth Circuit gets overturned by the current conservative SCOTUS it shows how far off kilter that appeals court is.

  4. I wonder which three were dissenting on this rul… (I don’t really wonder, I knew just from their record).

    ACB writing the ruling was somewhat unexpected, although I doubt there’s much to be gleaned from that though. Overall trend remains unchanged until we see the rulings on, oh I don’t know, probably the most consequential case in history regarding Presidential power that’s been languishing for months.

  6. That was actually Trump and team that did that during his Presidency.

  7. The whole basis of this lawsuit is crazy. The underlying “leak” that kicked this whole thing off was that there was an official team in the CIA/intelligence apparatus that would reach out to social media companies when they could identify the source of a story or post as a hostile foreign entity. For instance, Russian FSB, Isis, Chinese communist party, etc. There was no requirement that social media companies remove the content, just a request and notification that it was a hostile psyop. Republican political operatives sued to prevent this communication because they argued protecting Americans from hostile psyops also hurts their election efforts. 

  9. You know they won’t let this go. “The Gov’mint is forcing social media to censor conservative voices. Biden is a tyrant!” That’s the song, and they’ll keep singing it.

  10. Generally speaking, the angrier Alito is in his dissent, the more confident I am in the ruling.

  11. Holding media accountable should be ok. It’s not the same as control

  12. There are some exceptions, which should all have to go through a judge, but I don’t think the government should even play a role in the moderation of social media.

  13. It’s okay. They’re about to make him above the law anyway.

  14. Ok but when are they ruling on presidential immunity?

  15. >The states, for example, alleged that a Louisiana state representative’s Facebook post about the Covid-19 vaccine was restricted because of government intervention, but Barrett said there was “no evidence to support the states’ allegation.”

    These bullshit claims can only stand if you *delibrately ignore* the glarming fact that Facebook is a **private enterprise** with complete autonomy to make *their own* house rules regarding content–including Covid stuff. They, like all other social media platforms (including MAGA sesspools like Parler and Truth Social), have a clause in their terms of use that states something to the effect of, “We reserve full rights to kick your happy ass to the curb if you post stuff we don’t like.”

    Repugs like to conflate the consequences of violations of the **agreed upon** terms of use with “political persecution” because it’s easy (and blatantly dishonest) red meat for their ignorant and emotionally-stunted base.

  17. Well, there goes yet another popular Supreme Court narrative. It’s almost like they aren’t even trying to be corrupt and destroy democracy.

  18. The 5th Circuit decision barring members of a co-equal branch from engaging in protected First Amendment speech raised clear and obvious Separation of Powers concerns. Why did the Supreme Court let it stand for so long rather than using the shadow docket to quash it summarily?

  19. The headline is pretty misleading.

    They didn’t toss out the *claim*, they tossed out the *lawsuit* because no one on them had standing (i.e. was harmed).

  20. This ruling never mattered. The MAGA Right will eat up the accusation alone with a spoon. The fact the the Supreme Court even heard the matter will further legitimize it in their minds.

  21. It’s good for Biden but I can see this law being abused by a Republican administration.

  22. Another Kaczmaryk/Fifth Circuit debacle where standing was granted with no regard to the law.

  23. The Social Media companies regulate and monitor content themselves. It’s in their T&C’s. This is why reading is important. Of course Louisiana wanted this case heard.

  24. How did this stupid shit not get tossed out in a lower court?

  27. “Her clients include doctors who questioned Covid-19 policies and Jim Hoft, founder of The Gateway Pundit, a right-wing news site.”

    Active misinformation, about misinformation. No one was upset about questioning policies. The problem is pretending there aren’t answers and willfully spreading false ones which endanger your readers. 

  28. >Alito focused on another plaintiff, health activist Jill Hines, who Barrett agreed had the best argument for standing.

    Man, they just call anybody anything don’t they?

Leave a Reply