Federal judge that issued the injunction in Missouri v. Biden denies the federal government's motions for stay, keeping the injunction

[BabyBoomer50s]

Story just broke a few hours ago

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

 

[Rightguide]

The fascist enabling behavior of the Biden Administration is a threat to the republic and the judge is acting according by shutting it down.

 

[Lazaran]

•
The injunction granted by U.S. District Court Judge Terry Doughty, WHO WAS APPOINTED BY TRUMP, says that parts of the government cannot communicate with social media companies for “the purpose of urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content ...3

That ^ same “judge “ upheld their own injunction.



BabyBoobs

 

[PaxNurgle]

The fascist enabling behavior of the Biden Administration is a threat to the republic and the judge is acting according by shutting it down.

The fascist enabling behavior of the previous administration was an even bigger threat to the republic, (though of course you, with your head in the sand, deny this) and I would hope that any non-partisan judge would shut down BOTH of them for crossing the line.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

•
The injunction granted by U.S. District Court Judge Terry Doughty, WHO WAS APPOINTED BY TRUMP, says that parts of the government cannot communicate with social media companies for “the purpose of urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content ...3

That ^ same “judge “ upheld their own injunction.



BabyBoobs

Correct. The same judge, a Trump appointee, issued the injunction and denied the request for a stay in accordance with the Free Speech Clause.

 

[Rightguide]

The government doesn't understand that it cannot violate the First Amendment.

 

[Chobham]

Excellent decision.

 

[ll74]

The government has a right to appeal and it is appealing.

 

[Rightguide]

The government has a right to appeal and it is appealing.

It might as well appeal to the incoming tide.

 

[ll74]

It might as well appeal to the incoming tide.

Good luck on your expectations.

 

[Comshaw]

While we need to do something about all the lying, the misinformation, the manufacturing of "alternate facts" I for one am very nervous about the government (run by either side) telling us what we can or can not say. All you have to do is look at the 18th Amendment to know some times the best of intentions can go wildly wrong.

I think a great start would be a nationwide regulation based on the Texas abortion vigilante law. A "truth vigilante" law. If any person, corporation or organization makes a statement that they claim as fact, anyone who wants to can sue them to require factual verification that the statement is true. A % of their net worth would be an appropriate restitution if they were found to be lying.

The difference between claiming a fact and an opinion could be differentiated by a disclaimer such as "this is my opinion, not based on anything other than what I believe".

It works for Texas. The premise for it was thought of and instituted by conservatives so it shouldn't be all that controversial or abhorrent to them.

The above is my opinion. Anyone else got any ideas, or are ya'll just going to keep pissing in each other's boot?


Comshaw

 

[Lazaran]

While we need to do something about all the lying, the misinformation, the manufacturing of "alternate facts" I for one am very nervous about the government (run by either side) telling us what we can or can not say. All you have to do is look at the 18th Amendment to know some times the best of intentions can go wildly wrong.

I think a great start would be a nationwide regulation based on the Texas abortion vigilante law. A "truth vigilante" law. If any person, corporation or organization makes a statement that they claim as fact, anyone who wants to can sue them to require factual verification that the statement is true. A % of their net worth would be an appropriate restitution if they were found to be lying.

The difference between claiming a fact and an opinion could be differentiated by a disclaimer such as "this is my opinion, not based on anything other than what I believe".

It works for Texas. The premise for it was thought of and instituted by conservatives so it shouldn't be all that controversial or abhorrent to them.

The above is my opinion. Anyone else got any ideas, or are ya'll just going to keep pissing in each other's boot?


Comshaw

•
If anything the RWCJ premised their lawsuit on had even a shred of validity, then I would agree with the ruling. - But NONE of it is true.

Obviously, social media companies should be open to lawsuits for amplifying lies and misinformation.

Algorithms and financial compensation structures that REWARD lying and the propagation of misinformation / hate are the justification for holding the social media companies liable.

Also: A lone bad actor yelling their lies and hate at the wall of their hovel with zero reward isn’t much of a threat. That same bad actor REWARDED with fortune and “fame” that was artificially generated by a mindless, soulless algorithm IS a significant threat.

I would also be fine with social media companies being able to sue anyone who knowingly posts lies, misinformation, or unsubstantiated information on their platforms and presents them as fact or supportive evidence of a conspiracy theory.

Ultimately, I do hope the government writ large gets far more involved in regulating social media. It needs to be regulated like a controlled substance. Social media only appears “benign”. People forget that there was a time when cocaine wasn’t regulated because people had a naive view regarding its negative effects.

We now know enough about social media’s negative effects to regulate it more aggressively.

IMHO

 

[Comshaw]

•
If anything the RWCJ premised their lawsuit on had even a shred of validity, then I would agree with the ruling. - But NONE of it is true.

Obviously, social media companies should be open to lawsuits for amplifying lies and misinformation.

Algorithms and financial compensation structures that REWARD lying and the propagation of misinformation / hate are the justification for holding the social media companies liable.

Also: A lone bad actor yelling their lies and hate at the wall of their hovel with zero reward isn’t much of a threat. That same bad actor REWARDED with fortune and “fame” that was artificially generated by a mindless, soulless algorithm IS a significant threat.

I would also be fine with social media companies being able to sue anyone who knowingly posts lies, misinformation, or unsubstantiated information on their platforms and presents them as fact or supportive evidence of a conspiracy theory.

Ultimately, I do hope the government writ large gets far more involved in regulating social media. It needs to be regulated like a controlled substance. Social media only appears “benign”. People forget that there was a time when cocaine wasn’t regulated because people had a naive view regarding its negative effects.

We now know enough about social media’s negative effects to regulate it more aggressively.

IMHO

The bolded part of your statement is dangerous in the extreme. If ever there was a "slippery slope" argument to be had, that statement is a great example. It doesn't matter if it's from the conservative side or the liberal one, ANY TIME the government begins to control what can or can not be said, it's dangerous. And it is dangerous because it always depends on who is in control. What happens when the pendulum swings and the conservatives are in control and have been given the power to control social media? It doesn't matter which side holds the reins NO ONE should have that power. As I said, look at the 18th Amendment and try to understand that sometimes even those who believe they are righteous in their beliefs are wrong.

Comshaw

 

[Lazaran]

The bolded part of your statement is dangerous in the extreme. If ever there was a "slippery slope" argument to be had, that statement is a great example. It doesn't matter if it's from the conservative side or the liberal one, ANY TIME the government begins to control what can or can not be said, it's dangerous. And it is dangerous because it always depends on who is in control. What happens when the pendulum swings and the conservatives are in control and have been given the power to control social media? It doesn't matter which side holds the reins NO ONE should have that power. As I said, look at the 18th Amendment and try to understand that sometimes even those who believe they are righteous in their beliefs are wrong.

Comshaw

•
Except the government DIDN’T try to “control what can or cannot be said”.

That ^ kinda negates the whole bullshit gaslighting narrative.

I won’t be surprised if the rapey, corrupt orange traitor and the “republican” MAGAt cabal retake total control of government because enough people bought into their various bullshit gaslighting narratives and either voted for them, voted “third party”, or didn’t vote at all in protest of “both’ major parties.

JFC

SAD!!!

 

[Comshaw]

•
Except the government DIDN’T try to “control what can or cannot be said”.

That ^ kinda negates the whole bullshit gaslighting narrative.

I won’t be surprised if the rapey, corrupt orange traitor and the “republican” MAGAt cabal retake total control of government because enough people bought into their various bullshit gaslighting narratives and either voted for them, voted “third party”, or didn’t vote at all in protest of “both’ major parties.

JFC

SAD!!!

Jeezus dude, you need to chill with that rapey orange traitor bullshit. That's grade school level insults. I would think you could come up with something better, sharper, more mature. And the part I bolded wasn't about the GOVERNMENT controlling what we say, but your desire that they should, IE: "Ultimately, I do hope the government writ large gets far more involved in regulating social media."

That's dangerous coming from anyone from either side. Social media content regulation IS speech regulation and a danger to us all. Of course those who advocate it don't see it that way. They never do. Even as they slap people in jail for expressing an opinion they are shouting, "It's not about free speech, it's about "yada yada." In the final analysis, it is always about shutting someone up, curtailing free speech. One of the things I always argue and always will is this: you MUST give what you demand. You want to express your opinion? Then shut the fuck up and allow EVERYONE to do the same. Anything else is dangerous bullshit.

I understand we need to curtail disinformation, lying, and manufacturing from thin air things that never were nor never will be. But there has to be a better way than trying to silence voices. What happens when the other side come to shut you up? You gunna say that's okay too? Yeah.
Comshaw

 

[Bn2f]

Ah yes! Finally the “You can’t scream fire in a crowded theater” maxim gets the conservative 2.0 update.

 

[Lazaran]

Jeezus dude, you need to chill with that rapey orange traitor bullshit. That's grade school level insults. I would think you could come up with something better, sharper, more mature. And the part I bolded wasn't about the GOVERNMENT controlling what we say, but your desire that they should, IE: "Ultimately, I do hope the government writ large gets far more involved in regulating social media."

That's dangerous coming from anyone from either side. Social media content regulation IS speech regulation and a danger to us all. Of course those who advocate it don't see it that way. They never do. Even as they slap people in jail for expressing an opinion they are shouting, "It's not about free speech, it's about "yada yada." In the final analysis, it is always about shutting someone up, curtailing free speech. One of the things I always argue and always will is this: you MUST give what you demand. You want to express your opinion? Then shut the fuck up and allow EVERYONE to do the same. Anything else is dangerous bullshit.

I understand we need to curtail disinformation, lying, and manufacturing from thin air things that never were nor never will be. But there has to be a better way than trying to silence voices. What happens when the other side come to shut you up? You gunna say that's okay too? Yeah.
Comshaw

•
I call the rapey, corrupt orange traitor like I see it.

Deal with it or don’t.



And once again: THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT TRY TO “CONTROL WHAT CAN OR CANNOT BE SAID”.



The entire premise for this thread, and the basis for the “judge’s” bullshit ruling IS BASED ON A LIE.



Now IF you can produce EVIDENCE that “the government” DID try to “control what can or cannot be said”, which led to this bullshit lawsuit and subsequent bullshit ruling, I am willing to consider it. So far the RWCJ “members” have FAILED to provide said EVIDENCE.



Also: If I ever spread dangerous lies and misinformation/ disinformation, I would be delusional and arrogant AF to expect to be allowed to continue without consequence. - People still can’t yell FIRE!!! in a crowded theater. Apparently SOME people are advocating changing that basic limitation on the 1A.

 

[Lazaran]

Ah yes! Finally the “You can’t scream fire in a crowded theater” maxim gets the conservative 2.0 update.

•
Exactly.

See also:

The 14th amendment.

The Second Amendment.

JFC

SAD!!!

 

[Plasmaball]

The fascist enabling behavior of the Biden Administration is a threat to the republic and the judge is acting according by shutting it down.

Why wasn't this an issue for gateway when Trump did it?

 

[Plasmaball]

The government doesn't understand that it cannot violate the First Amendment.

At what point did the gourmand something be taken down?
Trump nor Biden demanded.

 

[Bn2f]

What this judge AND the many dumfucks here mean to complain about is this example of WH coercion:

 

[Bn2f]

What this judge AND the many dumfucks here mean to complain about is this example of WH coercion:

PUSSY ASS BITCHES ALL OF YOU!

 

[Lazaran]

What this judge AND the many dumfucks here mean to complain about is this example of WH coercion:

•
That ^ will NEVER get old.

Chrissy Teigen for the all-time WIN!!!

 

[Comshaw]

•
I call the rapey, corrupt orange traitor like I see it.

Deal with it or don’t.



And once again: THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT TRY TO “CONTROL WHAT CAN OR CANNOT BE SAID”.



The entire premise for this thread, and the basis for the “judge’s” bullshit ruling IS BASED ON A LIE.



Now IF you can produce EVIDENCE that “the government” DID try to “control what can or cannot be said”, which led to this bullshit lawsuit and subsequent bullshit ruling, I am willing to consider it. So far the RWCJ “members” have FAILED to provide said EVIDENCE.



Also: If I ever spread dangerous lies and misinformation/ disinformation, I would be delusional and arrogant AF to expect to be allowed to continue without consequence. - People still can’t yell FIRE!!! in a crowded theater. Apparently SOME people are advocating changing that basic limitation on the 1A.

As far as using your childish insults, please, be my guest. All it does is make you feel superior while reducing your perceived intelligence and maturity in the eyes of everyone that reads it.

So you're going with the same thing you bitch about when used by the other side: misdirection. I never said the government has (as of yet) tried to control what we say. I did say that neither side should. If you have a cognitive problem with differentiating between "should" and "does" you might want to get some help for that.


However, on what I quoted from you I did comment you advocated for moderating free speech and your quote bears that out. Which by the way you conveniently decided to ignore in your reply to concentrate on something I never said.

As far as your "yelling fire" analogy, that is true. HOWEVER, that particular thing MUST be carefully weighed so as not to scoop up opinions along with the lies. So again I will ask, what happens when the other side, the side of government you are opposed to is the one who gets to make the distinction between what is a lie and what is an opinion? Will you be comfortable with that? I think not.

Comshaw