Nobody here is saying that no tweets should be censored by big tech. Leave it to U2 to twist the narrative.
Since this guy got arrested, that validates suppressing tweets of facts conflicting with CDC guidance.
Since this guy got arrested, that validates suppressing links that would have informed U2 of the links between the approved covid vaccines and myocarditis. Got it.
Lol. U2 logic is awesome!
I don't know if I can say this slowly enough for someone like you to figure it out, but of course you have it all wrong.
The person who started this thread believes that any suppression of speech is political in nature if the Federal government is involved.
He says it right here:
BearGoggles said:
Unit2Sucks said:
All you've done is reinforce that you believe any nut job conservative who is restricted for misinformation has to have been restricted for political reasons.
In terms of the middle statement, it is undisputed Berenson was censored/deplatformed for political reasons. It is literally a proven fact that twitter removed him in response to Biden admin pressure. It doesn't matter if what he posted was correct or not - that's the part you can't acknowledge because it is so damaging to your tribe.
Since Tate is beloved by GOP/conservatives, any suppression of him involving a government MUST be political according to BearGoggles. So, if the FBI asked Twitter to remove his content because it is involved in his human trafficking (which is celebrated by Tucker Carlson - who has had him as a guest multiple times) - than it's political according to BG. Since this is his thread, my posts are on topic whereas you are just doing your normal content-less low-energy contrarian schtick.
He gets close to saying that, but he doesn't actually say that any suppression of speech is political in nature if the Federal government is involved. That is you pulling a U2, which is the act of changing someone's argument to support your own.
If someone is committing a federal crime using the internet and stopped from doing so by the federal government, is BG arguing that that is political action? Stop pulling U2's!
Also, there is not need to premise your argument with inane comments about saying something slowly enough for you and acting like anyone opposing your argument is stupid.
Nobody here is saying that no tweets should be censored by big tech. Leave it to U2 to twist the narrative.
Since this guy got arrested, that validates suppressing tweets of facts conflicting with CDC guidance.
Since this guy got arrested, that validates suppressing links that would have informed U2 of the links between the approved covid vaccines and myocarditis. Got it.
Lol. U2 logic is awesome!
I don't know if I can say this slowly enough for someone like you to figure it out, but of course you have it all wrong.
The person who started this thread believes that any suppression of speech is political in nature if the Federal government is involved.
He says it right here:
BearGoggles said:
Unit2Sucks said:
All you've done is reinforce that you believe any nut job conservative who is restricted for misinformation has to have been restricted for political reasons.
In terms of the middle statement, it is undisputed Berenson was censored/deplatformed for political reasons. It is literally a proven fact that twitter removed him in response to Biden admin pressure. It doesn't matter if what he posted was correct or not - that's the part you can't acknowledge because it is so damaging to your tribe.
Since Tate is beloved by GOP/conservatives, any suppression of him involving a government MUST be political according to BearGoggles. So, if the FBI asked Twitter to remove his content because it is involved in his human trafficking (which is celebrated by Tucker Carlson - who has had him as a guest multiple times) - than it's political according to BG. Since this is his thread, my posts are on topic whereas you are just doing your normal content-less low-energy contrarian schtick.
Complete strawman. Literally no one is arguing this, least of all me. The fact that the government actively censors some conservatives doesn't mean the censorship of all (supposed conservatives) is caused by the government.
And for the record, I have no idea who Tate is. But if he's involved in human trafficking/criminal activities, then he should be prosecuted. The fact that you're bringing up something like Tate shows how weak your argument is on the merits. He has nothing to do with this, which of course is what you always do.
You have now proven how disingenuous you are by claiming that any action taken by the Biden administration for any reason is de facto political.
What you fail to see, mired so deep in your partisan hackery, is that government action taken to protect our citizens can be substantive. Berenson was targeted for his remarkably false and prolific spread of misinformation which was anti public health. The fact that the GOP fell in love with the same misinformation doesn't make the removal of that misinformation political in nature. I don't expect you to ever figure it out.
As for Berenson, feel free to search for his anti semitism in relation to NY state chasidim for but one example.
Thank you for finally admitting you support government censorship of first amendment protected speech. Who is the anti-constitutional authoritarian fascist now?
Nothing Berenson posted was criminal or even arguably within the scope of speech not protected by the First Amendment. Full stop. People have the absolute right to have and announce positions that are unpopular, counter consensus, or even false. The US government has no right to limit that absent very limited exceptions that are not applicable here. "Harm" is not an exception to the First Amendment.
The point you ignore is that the government should NEVER be the party that gets to impose - under force of law or direct/indirect action (deplatforming) - what is true. The fact that you support this is incredibly dangerous and absolutely inconsistent with first amendment principles.
I think most of what the left says is false, misleading, or misinformation. When my tribe gets power, do we get to target the left for censorship and deplatforming? According to you, there's nothing wrong with that.
You have now proven how disingenuous you are by claiming that any action taken by the Biden administration for any reason is de facto political.
What you fail to see, mired so deep in your partisan hackery, is that government action taken to protect our citizens can be substantive. Berenson was targeted for his remarkably false and prolific spread of misinformation which was anti public health. The fact that the GOP fell in love with the same misinformation doesn't make the removal of that misinformation political in nature. I don't expect you to ever figure it out.
As for Berenson, feel free to search for his anti semitism in relation to NY state chasidim for but one example.
Thank you for finally admitting you support government censorship of first amendment protected speech. Who is the anti-constitutional authoritarian fascist now?
Nothing Berenson posted was criminal or even arguably within the scope of speech not protected by the First Amendment. Full stop. People have the absolute right to have and announce positions that are unpopular, counter consensus, or even false. The US government has no right to limit that absent very limited exceptions that are not applicable here. "Harm" is not an exception to the First Amendment.
The point you ignore is that the government should NEVER be the party that gets to impose - under force of law or direct/indirect action (deplatforming) - what is true. The fact that you support this is incredibly dangerous and absolutely inconsistent with first amendment principles.
I think most of what the left says is false, misleading, or misinformation. When my tribe gets power, do we get to target the left for censorship and deplatforming? According to you, there's nothing wrong with that.
Do you mean like with the McCarthy era? Or COINTELPRO? Or the FBI trying to get John Lennon deported? Or when the FBI targeted anti-Iraq War groups? Or torpedoed Hillary Clinton's Presidential campaign?
Yes, political interference is part of what the FBI does. Historically they have targeted the left. You are upset because for once they have targeted your side. You are hearing about it so much because your side aligns with the interests of billionaires.
I am for the full repeal and replacement of the historically corrupt FBI. Are you?
You have now proven how disingenuous you are by claiming that any action taken by the Biden administration for any reason is de facto political.
What you fail to see, mired so deep in your partisan hackery, is that government action taken to protect our citizens can be substantive. Berenson was targeted for his remarkably false and prolific spread of misinformation which was anti public health. The fact that the GOP fell in love with the same misinformation doesn't make the removal of that misinformation political in nature. I don't expect you to ever figure it out.
As for Berenson, feel free to search for his anti semitism in relation to NY state chasidim for but one example.
Thank you for finally admitting you support government censorship of first amendment protected speech. Who is the anti-constitutional authoritarian fascist now?
Nothing Berenson posted was criminal or even arguably within the scope of speech not protected by the First Amendment. Full stop. People have the absolute right to have and announce positions that are unpopular, counter consensus, or even false. The US government has no right to limit that absent very limited exceptions that are not applicable here. "Harm" is not an exception to the First Amendment.
The point you ignore is that the government should NEVER be the party that gets to impose - under force of law or direct/indirect action (deplatforming) - what is true. The fact that you support this is incredibly dangerous and absolutely inconsistent with first amendment principles.
I think most of what the left says is false, misleading, or misinformation. When my tribe gets power, do we get to target the left for censorship and deplatforming? According to you, there's nothing wrong with that.
Thanks for once again showing how disingenuous you really are. The government hasn't censored anyone and you know it. You started this thread with a claim that you still haven't been able to support.
The fact that the government is supporting private businesses in their content moderation is a vital government service and not in any way censorship. You have made the ridiculous unsupported claim that any such activity by the government must by its nature be political yet you haven't provided a single point of evidence in your favor.
Just because some dipshjt (like Tate) is beloved and lionized by conservatives doesn't mean that any restrictions on their speech is political in nature.
I'm still waiting for one of you people to note a single instance of what you consider to be political interference. If you can actually do so, I would be happy yo weigh in.
Until such time all I can do is laugh at you for naming a dumb pointless post and for the fact that your beloved GOP supports awful people like Alex Berenson, Andrew Tate and others.
You have now proven how disingenuous you are by claiming that any action taken by the Biden administration for any reason is de facto political.
What you fail to see, mired so deep in your partisan hackery, is that government action taken to protect our citizens can be substantive. Berenson was targeted for his remarkably false and prolific spread of misinformation which was anti public health. The fact that the GOP fell in love with the same misinformation doesn't make the removal of that misinformation political in nature. I don't expect you to ever figure it out.
As for Berenson, feel free to search for his anti semitism in relation to NY state chasidim for but one example.
Thank you for finally admitting you support government censorship of first amendment protected speech. Who is the anti-constitutional authoritarian fascist now?
Nothing Berenson posted was criminal or even arguably within the scope of speech not protected by the First Amendment. Full stop. People have the absolute right to have and announce positions that are unpopular, counter consensus, or even false. The US government has no right to limit that absent very limited exceptions that are not applicable here. "Harm" is not an exception to the First Amendment.
The point you ignore is that the government should NEVER be the party that gets to impose - under force of law or direct/indirect action (deplatforming) - what is true. The fact that you support this is incredibly dangerous and absolutely inconsistent with first amendment principles.
I think most of what the left says is false, misleading, or misinformation. When my tribe gets power, do we get to target the left for censorship and deplatforming? According to you, there's nothing wrong with that.
Thanks for once again showing how disingenuous you really are. The government hasn't censored anyone and you know it. You started this thread with a claim that you still haven't been able to support.
The fact that the government is supporting private businesses in their content moderation is a vital government service and not in any way censorship. You have made the ridiculous unsupported claim that any such activity by the government must by its nature be political yet you haven't provided a single point of evidence in your favor.
Just because some dipshjt (like Tate) is beloved and lionized by conservatives doesn't mean that any restrictions on their speech is political in nature.
I'm still waiting for one of you people to note a single instance of what you consider to be political interference. If you can actually do so, I would be happy yo weigh in.
Until such time all I can do is laugh at you for naming a dumb pointless post and for the fact that your beloved GOP supports awful people like Alex Berenson, Andrew Tate and others.
Thanks for once again showing how disingenuous you really are. . In case your reading comprehension has improved in the last 15 minutes, here are some links:
Low energy trolling? Check. Copying language from prior post? Check. Providing any thought provoking insight or responsive information? Fail.
Still waiting to hear what conservative political positions were interfered with for political reasons by the Federal government. If a conservative voice was suppressed by a private company for spreading misinformation which is considered dangerous to the public health, that is not political in nature.
Just because only "one side" falls for the misinformation doesn't make it political either. BG claimed this was political and has provided no basis for that point of vote. As usual, you provide neither insight or valuable content.
You have now proven how disingenuous you are by claiming that any action taken by the Biden administration for any reason is de facto political.
What you fail to see, mired so deep in your partisan hackery, is that government action taken to protect our citizens can be substantive. Berenson was targeted for his remarkably false and prolific spread of misinformation which was anti public health. The fact that the GOP fell in love with the same misinformation doesn't make the removal of that misinformation political in nature. I don't expect you to ever figure it out.
As for Berenson, feel free to search for his anti semitism in relation to NY state chasidim for but one example.
Thank you for finally admitting you support government censorship of first amendment protected speech. Who is the anti-constitutional authoritarian fascist now?
Nothing Berenson posted was criminal or even arguably within the scope of speech not protected by the First Amendment. Full stop. People have the absolute right to have and announce positions that are unpopular, counter consensus, or even false. The US government has no right to limit that absent very limited exceptions that are not applicable here. "Harm" is not an exception to the First Amendment.
The point you ignore is that the government should NEVER be the party that gets to impose - under force of law or direct/indirect action (deplatforming) - what is true. The fact that you support this is incredibly dangerous and absolutely inconsistent with first amendment principles.
I think most of what the left says is false, misleading, or misinformation. When my tribe gets power, do we get to target the left for censorship and deplatforming? According to you, there's nothing wrong with that.
Do you mean like with the McCarthy era? Or COINTELPRO? Or the FBI trying to get John Lennon deported? Or when the FBI targeted anti-Iraq War groups? Or torpedoed Hillary Clinton's Presidential campaign?
Yes, political interference is part of what the FBI does. Historically they have targeted the left. You are upset because for once they have targeted your side. You are hearing about it so much because your side aligns with the interests of billionaires.
I am for the full repeal and replacement of the historically corrupt FBI. Are you?
You have now proven how disingenuous you are by claiming that any action taken by the Biden administration for any reason is de facto political.
What you fail to see, mired so deep in your partisan hackery, is that government action taken to protect our citizens can be substantive. Berenson was targeted for his remarkably false and prolific spread of misinformation which was anti public health. The fact that the GOP fell in love with the same misinformation doesn't make the removal of that misinformation political in nature. I don't expect you to ever figure it out.
As for Berenson, feel free to search for his anti semitism in relation to NY state chasidim for but one example.
Thank you for finally admitting you support government censorship of first amendment protected speech. Who is the anti-constitutional authoritarian fascist now?
Nothing Berenson posted was criminal or even arguably within the scope of speech not protected by the First Amendment. Full stop. People have the absolute right to have and announce positions that are unpopular, counter consensus, or even false. The US government has no right to limit that absent very limited exceptions that are not applicable here. "Harm" is not an exception to the First Amendment.
The point you ignore is that the government should NEVER be the party that gets to impose - under force of law or direct/indirect action (deplatforming) - what is true. The fact that you support this is incredibly dangerous and absolutely inconsistent with first amendment principles.
I think most of what the left says is false, misleading, or misinformation. When my tribe gets power, do we get to target the left for censorship and deplatforming? According to you, there's nothing wrong with that.
Thanks for once again showing how disingenuous you really are. The government hasn't censored anyone and you know it. You started this thread with a claim that you still haven't been able to support.
The fact that the government is supporting private businesses in their content moderation is a vital government service and not in any way censorship. You have made the ridiculous unsupported claim that any such activity by the government must by its nature be political yet you haven't provided a single point of evidence in your favor.
Just because some dipshjt (like Tate) is beloved and lionized by conservatives doesn't mean that any restrictions on their speech is political in nature.
I'm still waiting for one of you people to note a single instance of what you consider to be political interference. If you can actually do so, I would be happy yo weigh in.
Until such time all I can do is laugh at you for naming a dumb pointless post and for the fact that your beloved GOP supports awful people like Alex Berenson, Andrew Tate and others.
The government wasn't just "supporting" content moderation in a general sense (by, for example, giving a tax credit/deduction for content moderation expenses). The government was targeting specific people and specific viewpoints/claims and putting pressure on private companies to do what the government could never do directly. Yes, by its nature, that is political.
The article I linked to contains many instances of political interference - Berenson, the Biden laptop throttling, etc. The fact that you keep asking for examples after they've been provided is silly.
The bolded statements are completely at odds with First Amendment principles.
You have exposed yourself for what you are - an authoritarian with fascist leanings - exactly what you accuse Trump of being. You have become Trump - congratulations.
Yes, people were engaged in passing out flyers on a regular basis, promoting peace. The response from the FBI was for them to be investigated by a counter terrorism unit.
Of course conservatives didn't care and because the interests of the peace promoters did not align with the billionaire class, their story is mostly untold.
What is happening in Florida, as reported by @propublica, is state-sponsored censorship and it is wrong. Our universities, students and national discourse benefit when we are free to teach and learn about racism and anti-racist ideas like CRT. https://t.co/Yq3nF1S0yX
What is happening in Florida, as reported by @propublica, is state-sponsored censorship and it is wrong. Our universities, students and national discourse benefit when we are free to teach and learn about racism and anti-racist ideas like CRT. https://t.co/Yq3nF1S0yX
What is happening in Florida, as reported by @propublica, is state-sponsored censorship and it is wrong. Our universities, students and national discourse benefit when we are free to teach and learn about racism and anti-racist ideas like CRT. https://t.co/Yq3nF1S0yX
States set public school curriculums. Are they blocking CRT in private schools?
States censoring ideas in public education is censorship and a violation of the 1st amendment. Weird you don't know basic things like that but have strong opinions about what goes on at private companies.
What is happening in Florida, as reported by @propublica, is state-sponsored censorship and it is wrong. Our universities, students and national discourse benefit when we are free to teach and learn about racism and anti-racist ideas like CRT. https://t.co/Yq3nF1S0yX
States set public school curriculums. Are they blocking CRT in private schools?
States censoring ideas in public education is censorship and a violation of the 1st amendment. Weird you don't know basic things like that but have strong opinions about what goes on at private companies.
Erwin Chemerinsky, a First Amendment expert and the dean of the law school at the University of California, Berkeley, who previewed the report, agreed. "Whenever the government regulates speech, it has to be clear about what's prohibited and what's allowed," he said. "These laws are so vague in their wording that a teacher can't tell."
Low energy trolling? Check. Copying language from prior post? Check. Providing any thought provoking insight or responsive information? Fail.
Still waiting to hear what conservative political positions were interfered with for political reasons by the Federal government. If a conservative voice was suppressed by a private company for spreading misinformation which is considered dangerous to the public health, that is not political in nature.
Just because only "one side" falls for the misinformation doesn't make it political either. BG claimed this was political and has provided no basis for that point of vote. As usual, you provide neither insight or valuable content.
First, let's deal with yet another firehose of Unit2Sucks falsehoods.
NEW: Well-funded “disinformation” monitors are secretly blacklisting + trying to defund conservative news outlets, likely costing the news companies huge ad dollars, according to sources familiar with the matter, memos, and emails obtained by @dcexaminerhttps://t.co/tZmFowseYg
Gee, a website losing advertisers because of their frequent factually incorrect stories is pissed off at those pointing out their inadequacies. Who would have thunk it?
The story is from February and you're just raising a stink now? By the way, it's not censorship. The Washington Examiner and the slipshod 10 can publish whatever they want. Advertisers have the right to choose to not be associated with it.
In Landmark Censorship Case, Judges Grill the Feds The federal government's pro-censorship arguments seemed to take a hit in a contentious, fascinating hearing in New Orleans Matt Taibbi Aug 11, 2023 Paid
NEW ORLEANS, LA On a scorching 98-degree day yesterday, just before a key hearing in the landmark Missouri v. BidenInternet censorship case, a transient grumbled about insufficient shade under a tree canopy in this city's gorgeous little park bordering the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.
"No escape in this motherfscker today," he groused.
Inside, for the federal government, it seemed like much the same story.
Early in the afternoon, a three-judge panel met to decide whether or not to revoke a stay of Judge Terry Doughty's sweeping July 4th order barring a battery of government agencies from contacting social media companies about content moderation. Biden administration counsel Daniel Bentele Hahs Tenny was under fire from the jump.
It was hard not to feel for Tenny. Sitting across from him was a packed table of anxious plaintiffs' attorneys, including Missouri's garrulous, tornado-like former Solicitor General John Sauer the driving force behind the Missouri v. Biden legislation as well as the current officeholder, a lean, plain-spoken lawyer with Jimmy Stewart vibes named Josh Devine. Tenny, an ashen, slouching figure, was alone. In a case of major historical import, likely headed to the Supreme Court, the federal government hadn't even sent another lawyer to keep him company. Staring down at his table, he looked like Napoleon Dynamite at lunch.
Called first, Tenny read a speech. He made it through the first thirty seconds well enough, arguing that Doughty's July 4th order would leave the government "powerless" to discourage social media companies from disseminating "untrue" statements in the event of a natural disaster. Then, almost right away, he stepped in it.
"To take another example," Tenny went on. "If… a government official were to conclude that it was likely, although not certain, that posts on social media were part of a criminal conspiracy, for example regarding human trafficking… the government official would be powerless to bring those posts to the social media company's attention."
Judges Edith Brown Clement, Jennifer Walker Elrod and Don Willett listened sleepily at first, but all three snapped awake at the words "criminal conspiracy." Doughty's July 4th order specifically exempted communications about "criminal activity or criminal conspiracies," posts that "threaten the public safety," and communications about things that are "not protected free speech." Tenny's remarks more or less immediately drove into this wall of exceptions.
"So you do not believe that either of those are covered by the exception or exclusion specifically contained in the injunction?" asked Elrod.
From that moment, the proceeding couldn't have gone worse for the administration. The feds' lawyer was there to try to keep the emergency stay of Doughty's order in place, and his best shot was to keep discussion away from the ugly tales of Internet censorship already introduced in the case, and refocus judges on standing questions and other legalistic concerns. A secondary goal had to be stifling judicial curiosity about a just-filed amicus brief from Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan and other House members containing "Facebook Files" documents.
Both those dreams went up in smoke fast. All three judges seemed very interested in Internet censorship, and more ominously seemed to have both read and been irritated by exhibits in the case. Seven minutes in, Tenny was trying to argue that communications to Internet platforms by the myriad federal defendants Joe Biden, Dr. Anthony Fauci, the CDC, DHS, FBI, HHS, and others didn't rise to the level of coercion. That, he said, would be "sending a letter and sort of threatening prosecution if you don't, you know, comply with what the government wants"
Willett cut him off. "Are the recent findings and disclosures from recent US congressional proceedings properly before us to consider?"
So much for any hope that the "Facebook Files" would go unmentioned.
"I, I I take it you're talking about materials that were attached to an amicus brief," Tenny stammered. "Um, those are not part of the record, weren't before the district court. Um, you know, weren't, there's been no effort to enter those into the record in this case…"
Again judges leaned forward. "So we can't take judicial notice of findings by Congress?" prodded Elrod.
"I mean," Tenny said, "you could take…"
Before long judges were rattling off greatest hits of both the Missouri v. Biden evidence and Facebook Files material, the worst possible scenario. Elrod within minutes was referencing posts by officials like the White House's Rob Flaherty expressing frustration that content like Tucker Carlson videos or Alex Berenson articles hadn't been removed.
"What appears to be in the record are these irate messages from time to time from high ranking government officials that say, you didn't do this yet," she said. "It's like 'Jump!' and 'How High?'"
Tenny tried to reorient Elrod to the question of whether or not this constituted overt coercion. If you were coercing, he said, "You wouldn't say, 'I'm really mad.' You would just say, 'Do this or else,' and the or else would be clear." Elrod, not buying it, launched into an extraordinary counter-argument, comparing the federal government to the mob:
Quote:
If you'll excuse me, it's like if somebody is in these movies that we see with the mob or something. They don't say and spell out things, but they have these ongoing relationships, and they never actually say, "Go do this or else you are going to have this consequence." But everybody just knows…
I'm certainly not equating the federal government with anybody in illegal organized crime. But… there are certain relationships where people know things without always saying the "or else."
Willett put the mob analogy in even plainer language, saying the government's behavior was a "fairly unsubtle kind of strong-arming," as in, "That's a really nice social media platform you got there. It'd be a shame if something happened to it."
In the court gallery a few clerks winced at one another at certain points of Tenny's address, the way people do at boxing matches when someone walks into a face shot. The effect got worse when Tenny walked off and a furious Sauer addressed the judges. While Tenny rambled and spoke in generalities, the loquacious, bespectacled Sauer who appears descended from some ancient God of rage tore into the government's arguments with ferocity and specificity. Judges tried at various points to challenge him, but he kept hurling cites back so fast the queries got lost.
"I would direct the court's attention to pages 70 to 75 and 80 to 86 of the District court's opinion," he'd say, "where he makes specific findings resulting in the conclusion that CISA and the Election Integrity Partnership were, quote, 'completely intertwined…'"
Missouri v. Biden is fast becoming the vehicle through which a diverse series of recent disclosures about government censorship, including the Twitter Files reports, is likely to be litigated at a national level. What was pooh-poohed as conspiracy theory even a year ago is now a cat-hair away from being addressed and potentially proscribed by the country's highest court. For the issue to get there at all would in itself represent an incredible journey, but signs continue to accumulate that a rare major judicial reprimand of the intelligence and enforcement communities could actually happen, and soon, too.
It would be a mistake to read too much into hearings like yesterday's. One never knows how judges will rule, even when they appear to show emotion and inclination in court. Sometimes, they're playing devil's advocate. The appellate panel, charged with deciding whether or not to reinstate Doughty's sweeping order, could easily surprise those who attended and rule against the plaintiffs. Either way, an answer is expected soon. Attorneys present gave estimates ranging from a few weeks to two months for the panel to rule on yesterday's issue.
A crucial fact of this case, however, is that Doughty's July 4th order has created a motivation for both sides to push forward to the Supreme Court as soon as possible. Doughty's ruling, which described the current Internet censorship regime as "arguably… the most massive attack against free speech in United States' history," essentially said that the damage from current government-influenced content moderation schemes may be so extreme that they must be completely enjoined until courts can determine how bad they are. That ruling was a major victory for the plaintiffs, and if the July 14th stay by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals remains in place, the plaintiffs will almost certainly appeal right away to a higher court in hopes of restoring their big win.
If the plaintiffs prevail, on the other hand, Doughty's order will go back in force and the government will essentially be barred from meddling in the speech landscape. The administration has already argued on paper that this can't be tolerated for any length of time, as any inability to pursue these "initiatives to prevent grave harm to the American people and our democratic processes," causes the state "irreparable harm." A more cynical interpretation might be that the "irreparable harm" is the prospect of the administration going without nuclear opinion-managing tools heading into an election year. Either way, a loss on the stay question will similarly motivate the administration to push for immediate Supreme Court consideration.
Since subscribers to this site have indirectly played a part in this affair material both from the Twitter Files and from site articles have been cited in case docs Racket will follow this case to the end. Wouldn't it be something if that ending was a Supreme Court ruling?
Welp, I got barred from covering a Ron DeSantis event in Harlan — one of three of his events I planned to cover today — with absolutely no explanation as to why. pic.twitter.com/YvL0N9E9Oe
.@joerogan says the culture shifted, and now the left embraces war, censorship, big pharma, and authoritarianism:
"If you stop looking in terms of red and blue — look at the actions. Whether it's war, suppression of free speech, or mandatory pharmacological interventions. That… pic.twitter.com/1hlg38I7cB
In Landmark Censorship Case, Judges Grill the Feds The federal government's pro-censorship arguments seemed to take a hit in a contentious, fascinating hearing in New Orleans Matt Taibbi Aug 11, 2023 Paid
NEW ORLEANS, LA On a scorching 98-degree day yesterday, just before a key hearing in the landmark Missouri v. BidenInternet censorship case, a transient grumbled about insufficient shade under a tree canopy in this city's gorgeous little park bordering the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.
"No escape in this motherfscker today," he groused.
Inside, for the federal government, it seemed like much the same story.
Early in the afternoon, a three-judge panel met to decide whether or not to revoke a stay of Judge Terry Doughty's sweeping July 4th order barring a battery of government agencies from contacting social media companies about content moderation. Biden administration counsel Daniel Bentele Hahs Tenny was under fire from the jump.
It was hard not to feel for Tenny. Sitting across from him was a packed table of anxious plaintiffs' attorneys, including Missouri's garrulous, tornado-like former Solicitor General John Sauer the driving force behind the Missouri v. Biden legislation as well as the current officeholder, a lean, plain-spoken lawyer with Jimmy Stewart vibes named Josh Devine. Tenny, an ashen, slouching figure, was alone. In a case of major historical import, likely headed to the Supreme Court, the federal government hadn't even sent another lawyer to keep him company. Staring down at his table, he looked like Napoleon Dynamite at lunch.
Called first, Tenny read a speech. He made it through the first thirty seconds well enough, arguing that Doughty's July 4th order would leave the government "powerless" to discourage social media companies from disseminating "untrue" statements in the event of a natural disaster. Then, almost right away, he stepped in it.
"To take another example," Tenny went on. "If… a government official were to conclude that it was likely, although not certain, that posts on social media were part of a criminal conspiracy, for example regarding human trafficking… the government official would be powerless to bring those posts to the social media company's attention."
Judges Edith Brown Clement, Jennifer Walker Elrod and Don Willett listened sleepily at first, but all three snapped awake at the words "criminal conspiracy." Doughty's July 4th order specifically exempted communications about "criminal activity or criminal conspiracies," posts that "threaten the public safety," and communications about things that are "not protected free speech." Tenny's remarks more or less immediately drove into this wall of exceptions.
"So you do not believe that either of those are covered by the exception or exclusion specifically contained in the injunction?" asked Elrod.
From that moment, the proceeding couldn't have gone worse for the administration. The feds' lawyer was there to try to keep the emergency stay of Doughty's order in place, and his best shot was to keep discussion away from the ugly tales of Internet censorship already introduced in the case, and refocus judges on standing questions and other legalistic concerns. A secondary goal had to be stifling judicial curiosity about a just-filed amicus brief from Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan and other House members containing "Facebook Files" documents.
Both those dreams went up in smoke fast. All three judges seemed very interested in Internet censorship, and more ominously seemed to have both read and been irritated by exhibits in the case. Seven minutes in, Tenny was trying to argue that communications to Internet platforms by the myriad federal defendants Joe Biden, Dr. Anthony Fauci, the CDC, DHS, FBI, HHS, and others didn't rise to the level of coercion. That, he said, would be "sending a letter and sort of threatening prosecution if you don't, you know, comply with what the government wants"
Willett cut him off. "Are the recent findings and disclosures from recent US congressional proceedings properly before us to consider?"
So much for any hope that the "Facebook Files" would go unmentioned.
"I, I I take it you're talking about materials that were attached to an amicus brief," Tenny stammered. "Um, those are not part of the record, weren't before the district court. Um, you know, weren't, there's been no effort to enter those into the record in this case…"
Again judges leaned forward. "So we can't take judicial notice of findings by Congress?" prodded Elrod.
"I mean," Tenny said, "you could take…"
Before long judges were rattling off greatest hits of both the Missouri v. Biden evidence and Facebook Files material, the worst possible scenario. Elrod within minutes was referencing posts by officials like the White House's Rob Flaherty expressing frustration that content like Tucker Carlson videos or Alex Berenson articles hadn't been removed.
"What appears to be in the record are these irate messages from time to time from high ranking government officials that say, you didn't do this yet," she said. "It's like 'Jump!' and 'How High?'"
Tenny tried to reorient Elrod to the question of whether or not this constituted overt coercion. If you were coercing, he said, "You wouldn't say, 'I'm really mad.' You would just say, 'Do this or else,' and the or else would be clear." Elrod, not buying it, launched into an extraordinary counter-argument, comparing the federal government to the mob:
Quote:
If you'll excuse me, it's like if somebody is in these movies that we see with the mob or something. They don't say and spell out things, but they have these ongoing relationships, and they never actually say, "Go do this or else you are going to have this consequence." But everybody just knows…
I'm certainly not equating the federal government with anybody in illegal organized crime. But… there are certain relationships where people know things without always saying the "or else."
Willett put the mob analogy in even plainer language, saying the government's behavior was a "fairly unsubtle kind of strong-arming," as in, "That's a really nice social media platform you got there. It'd be a shame if something happened to it."
In the court gallery a few clerks winced at one another at certain points of Tenny's address, the way people do at boxing matches when someone walks into a face shot. The effect got worse when Tenny walked off and a furious Sauer addressed the judges. While Tenny rambled and spoke in generalities, the loquacious, bespectacled Sauer who appears descended from some ancient God of rage tore into the government's arguments with ferocity and specificity. Judges tried at various points to challenge him, but he kept hurling cites back so fast the queries got lost.
"I would direct the court's attention to pages 70 to 75 and 80 to 86 of the District court's opinion," he'd say, "where he makes specific findings resulting in the conclusion that CISA and the Election Integrity Partnership were, quote, 'completely intertwined…'"
Missouri v. Biden is fast becoming the vehicle through which a diverse series of recent disclosures about government censorship, including the Twitter Files reports, is likely to be litigated at a national level. What was pooh-poohed as conspiracy theory even a year ago is now a cat-hair away from being addressed and potentially proscribed by the country's highest court. For the issue to get there at all would in itself represent an incredible journey, but signs continue to accumulate that a rare major judicial reprimand of the intelligence and enforcement communities could actually happen, and soon, too.
It would be a mistake to read too much into hearings like yesterday's. One never knows how judges will rule, even when they appear to show emotion and inclination in court. Sometimes, they're playing devil's advocate. The appellate panel, charged with deciding whether or not to reinstate Doughty's sweeping order, could easily surprise those who attended and rule against the plaintiffs. Either way, an answer is expected soon. Attorneys present gave estimates ranging from a few weeks to two months for the panel to rule on yesterday's issue.
A crucial fact of this case, however, is that Doughty's July 4th order has created a motivation for both sides to push forward to the Supreme Court as soon as possible. Doughty's ruling, which described the current Internet censorship regime as "arguably… the most massive attack against free speech in United States' history," essentially said that the damage from current government-influenced content moderation schemes may be so extreme that they must be completely enjoined until courts can determine how bad they are. That ruling was a major victory for the plaintiffs, and if the July 14th stay by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals remains in place, the plaintiffs will almost certainly appeal right away to a higher court in hopes of restoring their big win.
If the plaintiffs prevail, on the other hand, Doughty's order will go back in force and the government will essentially be barred from meddling in the speech landscape. The administration has already argued on paper that this can't be tolerated for any length of time, as any inability to pursue these "initiatives to prevent grave harm to the American people and our democratic processes," causes the state "irreparable harm." A more cynical interpretation might be that the "irreparable harm" is the prospect of the administration going without nuclear opinion-managing tools heading into an election year. Either way, a loss on the stay question will similarly motivate the administration to push for immediate Supreme Court consideration.
Since subscribers to this site have indirectly played a part in this affair material both from the Twitter Files and from site articles have been cited in case docs Racket will follow this case to the end. Wouldn't it be something if that ending was a Supreme Court ruling?
The fascist anti-First Amendment Biden Administration got ruled against yet again in their appeal to the Fifth Circuit to please, please let us have anything that we don't like removed from social media.
We landed a massive win against the Biden Administration yesterday for its blatant censorship of free speech on social media platforms.
Some notable quotes from the Court’s order ->
— Attorney General Andrew Bailey (@AGAndrewBailey) September 9, 2023
D’Antuono led Detroit FBI field office during Whitmer fednapping hoax—promoted to lead DC FBI field office in October 2020. Led J6 criminal investigation including sending agents to Mar-a-Lago raid. He retired a few weeks after GOP took House https://t.co/wN8nPgnlnq
What's your point? 9 others have been found guilty.
Did you know that Richard Trask, the FBI agent who helped frame the guys for the Whitmer Kidnapping Hoax was fired by the FBI for assaulting his wife after a visit to a swinger's party?
What's your point? 9 others have been found guilty.
Did you know that Richard Trask, the FBI agent who helped frame the guys for the Whitmer Kidnapping Hoax was fired by the FBI for assaulting his wife after a visit to a swinger's party?
Did you know that Richard Trask's firing and assaulting his wife doesn't change the fact that after a trial and consideration of the evidence, 9 people were found guilty in the Whitmer Kidnapping case?
What's your point? 9 others have been found guilty.
Did you know that Richard Trask, the FBI agent who helped frame the guys for the Whitmer Kidnapping Hoax was fired by the FBI for assaulting his wife after a visit to a swinger's party?
Did you know that Richard Trask's firing and assaulting his wife doesn't change the fact that after a trial and consideration of the evidence, 9 people were found guilty in the Whitmer Kidnapping case?
So many incriminating texts in the Whitmer fednapping hoax but this is still my favorite:
And this was related to a separate FBI plan to entrap a disabled Vietnam veteran in Virginia to do the same for Gov. Ralph Northam. pic.twitter.com/A12oebagQV
This was pretty on point too. A government created private entity leviathan to suppress speech. & Video supporting it
Reminder: Here's a supercut of DHS officials & advisors doing the "Foreign To Domestic Switcheroo" between the 2016 and 2020 elections, as referenced in the clip above: pic.twitter.com/RQY70aKs3h
"Our bill would basically make it illegal for the FBI or Department of Homeland Security or the White House or the CDC…to meet with anybody in the media—not just internet companies—but anybody in the legacy media as well or the print media…if they were found to be meeting to… pic.twitter.com/Olu9t2TSfN
"Our bill would basically make it illegal for the FBI or Department of Homeland Security or the White House or the CDC…to meet with anybody in the media—not just internet companies—but anybody in the legacy media as well or the print media…if they were found to be meeting to… pic.twitter.com/Olu9t2TSfN
US Dept. of Homeland Security officials insist they didn't demand censorship, but they did. And now, newly released emails suggest they demanded the censorship of whole "narratives," just like CTIL's military contractors did, and thus interfered in the 2020 election. pic.twitter.com/AnFZu6RhQm
Sue the Bastards: Federalist, Daily Wire Take the State Department to Court Updated, with NewsGuard's response about whether it engages in "blacklisting," as well as this image of what the public is entitled to see about GEC awards:https://t.co/66E5xAbQt7pic.twitter.com/TyLxFg1yzc
