Supreme Court allows for disinformation to be removed from Social Media

NEW: Jonathan Turley shreds the Supreme Court's decision to allow the U.S. government to demand the removal of 'misinformation' on social media.
The Supreme Court ruled that the government’s communications with social media giants about removing Covid-19 "misinformation" did not violate the First Amendment.
"This is one of the most fundamental issues that we are facing."
"It's been called Orwellian by lower court judges. And what the court is saying is that we won't hear you on this issue 'cause you're not the right litigants."
"I testified about this in Congress, that they have made a mockery of the limits of the First Amendment by doing indirectly what they're barred from doing directly."
 
So are Democrats still whining about expanding SCOTUS, or does that take a break until the next “wrong” decision because they ruled in favor of Fascism this time?
 
Good on them. Stop allowing the Ruskies from brainwashing folks on this board. Hey Race where you going to get your opinions and rebuttals going forward???
This has no effect on EverettChris. That man is so dumb he couldn’t read those posts anyway.
I wondered why you didn't provide a link. So I went to read up on the story. You left key details out.
US supreme court allows government to request removal of misinformation on social media
With this administration and DOJ, it’s a given your company will be harassed by Government Goons if you don’t comply with their requests.
Ain’t Fascism awesome!
There's been harassment of various sorts for years
 
Good on them. Stop allowing the Ruskies from brainwashing folks on this board. Hey Race where you going to get your opinions and rebuttals going forward???
This has no effect on EverettChris. That man is so dumb he couldn’t read those posts anyway.
Once again the Supreme Court decides that the American people have no standing to sue over federal government actions. So, who does? No official decision allowing the censorship but a de facto decision allowing censorship. Apparently, no one has legal recourse to object to the the censorship. I get the leftard twinks on the Court approve of the censorship, but Roberts, Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett are beyond being disappointments.
When you assume the very thing you were required to prove, i.e., censorship, the argument gets so much easier to make.
You were invited to drop out of law school, weren't you, Gasbag?
We didn't assume anything. You should read up on Hunter's laptop. You should read up on the governments interaction with Facebook and Twitter. That's why we have trials, to prove the facts as alleged. When you assume the facts are false, then you don't need a trial which is what happened.
 
Oh, what a give away. Did you hear that, did you hear that, eh? That's what I'm on about -- did you see him repressing me, you saw it didn't you?
 
So are Democrats still whining about expanding SCOTUS, or does that take a break until the next “wrong” decision because they ruled in favor of Fascism this time?
This was expected red meat served up on Wednesday to offset what is coming on Friday on a couple of cases. DefiantL's is gonna have a busy weekend.
 
Good on them. Stop allowing the Ruskies from brainwashing folks on this board. Hey Race where you going to get your opinions and rebuttals going forward???
This has no effect on EverettChris. That man is so dumb he couldn’t read those posts anyway.
Once again the Supreme Court decides that the American people have no standing to sue over federal government actions. So, who does? No official decision allowing the censorship but a de facto decision allowing censorship. Apparently, no one has legal recourse to object to the the censorship. I get the leftard twinks on the Court approve of the censorship, but Roberts, Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett are beyond being disappointments.
When you assume the very thing you were required to prove, i.e., censorship, the argument gets so much easier to make.
You were invited to drop out of law school, weren't you, Gasbag?
We didn't assume anything. You should read up on Hunter's laptop. You should read up on the governments interaction with Facebook and Twitter. That's why we have trials, to prove the facts as alleged. When you assume the facts are false, then you don't need a trial which is what happened.
Except trials in the Southern District of New York, those ones are always fixed and rigged.
 
So are Democrats still whining about expanding SCOTUS, or does that take a break until the next “wrong” decision because they ruled in favor of Fascism this time?
Wanna know how its disinformation? Because we have idiots like Sledog that repeat what they hear on Twitter and when I ask follow up questions, he has no clue about the subject. Which leads me to believe he and Race can't form their own opinions, theyre reliant on other people to tell them what to think!!
 
The “Legal Expenses” Clown Show wasn’t in federal court, Einstein. The DOJ and FEC found nothing to prosecute at the federal level.
So, the Biden DOJ sent in Micheal Colangelo to piece together a case to avoid the statute of limitation for a state crime by making up a federal conviction that never happened in the real world.
Why are you here, Dumbshit?
 
So are Democrats still whining about expanding SCOTUS, or does that take a break until the next “wrong” decision because they ruled in favor of Fascism this time?
Wanna know how its disinformation? Because we have idiots like Sledog that repeat what they hear on Twitter and when I ask follow up questions, he has no clue about the subject. Which leads me to believe he and Race can't form their own opinions, theyre reliant on other people to tell them what to think!!
You calling someone an idiot is rich
You have yet to refute anything I've posted
Attacking the source is a white flag
It's proven that we were right and government boot lickers like you were wrong
Slither away boy
 
Last edited:
But the plaintiffs “cannot manufacture standing merely by inflicting harm on themselves [self-censorship] based on their fears of hypothetical future harm that is not certainly impending."
Translation: Amy says we can't hand you an injunction just because you're a Right Wing fraidy cat.
 
Last edited:
So are Democrats still whining about expanding SCOTUS, or does that take a break until the next “wrong” decision because they ruled in favor of Fascism this time?
Wanna know how its disinformation? Because we have idiots like Sledog that repeat what they hear on Twitter and when I ask follow up questions, he has no clue about the subject. Which leads me to believe he and Race can't form their own opinions, theyre reliant on other people to tell them what to think!!
You calling someone an idiot is rich
You have yet to refute anything I've posted
Attacking the source is a white flag
It's proven that we were right and government boot lickers like you were wrong
Slither away boy
No no no, i'll go straight to the Twitter/X source directly and dispute THEIR opinions. Why go through a middleman like yourself who isn't doing the thinking.
 
Simple, Trump had a hand in this himself. Pressuring the FED and Jerome Powell to reverse course on raising interest rates 7-8 years ago and lowering them instead in a hot economy is part of that 9.1 % increase. Biden's policies themselves aren't to blame. Blame the previous 10 -15 years of free money.

I don't want to talk advanced topics with you. It'll take too long, you'll go to this guy's X account and wait for the rebutal so you can pose it as your own thought.
 
Back
Top