Current Events > MAGA judge bars Biden admin from contacting social media sites about content

(+) Yeah! (+)

A federal judge on Tuesday blocked key Biden administration agencies and officials from meeting and communicating with social media companies about protected speech, in an extraordinary injunction in an ongoing case that could have profound effects on the First Amendment.

The injunction came in response to a lawsuit brought by Republican attorneys general in Louisiana and Missouri, who allege that government officials went too far in their efforts to encourage social media companies to address posts that they worried could contribute to vaccine hesitancy during the pandemic or upend elections. The Trump-appointed judges move could upend years of efforts to enhance coordination between the government and social media companies.

The injunction was a victory for the state attorneys general, who have accused the Biden administration of enabling a sprawling federal Censorship Enterprise to encourage tech giants to remove politically unfavorable viewpoints and speakers, and for conservatives whove accused the government of suppressing their speech. In their filings, the attorneys general alleged the actions amount to the most egregious violations of the First Amendment in the history of the United States of America.

The judge, Terry A. Doughty, has yet to make a final ruling in the case, but in the injunction, he wrote that the Republican attorneys general have produced evidence of a massive effort by Defendants, from the White House to federal agencies, to suppress speech based on its content.

The ruling could have critical implications for tech companies, which regularly communicate with government officials, especially during elections and emergencies, such as the coronavirus pandemic.

In his order, the judge made some exceptions for communications between the government officials and the companies, including to warn them of national security threats, criminal activity or voter suppression.

Hard to imagine this order sticking if its simply companies acting on their own in the case of twitter. Sure candidates should never be able to mandate any censorship, but the Biden team never forced twitter to do so. So how would this work legally?

Hard to imagine this order sticking if its simply companies acting on their own in the case of twitter. Sure candidates should never be able to mandate any censorship, but the Biden team never forced twitter to do so. So how would this work legally?

Ignoring the title of this thread, this ruling is a GOOD thing

I guess we collectively gave up when info came out the government was already illegally accessing and recording everything and nobody gave a damn.

Ignoring the title of this thread, this ruling is a GOOD thing

Ignoring the title of this thread, this ruling is a GOOD thing

https://www.justsecurity.org/87155/restricting-the-government-from-speaking-to-tech-companies-will-spread-disinformation-and-harm-democracy/

Ignoring the title of this thread, this ruling is a GOOD thing

I dont care why they are doing it, in general its a good thing and should set a precedent.

• Covid vaccines helped save many lives, prevented many more from severe illness.

• Donald trump lost the 2020 election, Biden won.

• Removing Hunter Biden dick pics is well within terms of service and should have been removed.

• Donald Trump's administration also asked for and frequently were granted removal of material from Twitter.

I dont care why they are doing it, in general its a good thing and should set a precedent.

I dont care why they are doing it, in general its a good thing and should set a precedent.

Seems to me everything the Biden admin was communicating with social media companies about falls under the exceptions that were carved out.

I have never said one word in support of trump.

With the massive amounts of government overreach into our personal data, I dont like anything that makes that easier. With the information they already have it allows targeted fishing expeditions where they can then claim to have discovered or received information from cooperating sources.

Its BS in my opinion.

Sorry I only saw your quote (absolute statement), I wasn't referring Trump. So anything that allows government to even contact social media sites with a request is "too far" in your opinion?

Ignoring the title of this thread, this ruling is a GOOD thing

Have you ever had an opinion that wasn't terrible?

I dont think you have a lot of room to talk

Any ruling that enables free speech is a good thing no matter if you like the source

Why do right-wingers want to be lied to and treated like morons?

I dont think you have a lot of room to talk