The court overturned an injunction that would have limited contacts between government officials and social media companies on a wide range of issues.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday threw out claims that the Biden administration unlawfully coerced social media companies into removing contentious content.

In reaching its conclusion, the court overturned an injunction that would have limited contacts between government officials and social media companies on a wide range of issues if allowed to go into effect. The Supreme Court had previously put the injunction on hold.

The court on a 6-3 vote found that plaintiffs did not have standing to sue.

61 points

The administration argued it sought to mitigate online misinformation hazards. Plaintiffs claimed platforms suppressed conservative-leaning speech under government pressure

“Conservative voices are being silenced!”

– No, just hate speech and misinformation.

“So you admit it!”

permalink
report
reply
1 point

But when conservatives are in power it suddenly is a non-issue even leftwing voices get censored.

permalink
report
parent
reply
29 points

6-3… I WONDER WHO THE 3 WERE.

transparent assholes

permalink
report
reply
21 points

Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

The Three Stooges, the unfunny version.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Guaranteed it was.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

At least they got this one right

permalink
report
reply
3 points

Weird. Why did the Vatican want this?

permalink
report
reply
5 points

They wish to continue claiming that Mother Theresa was actually a good person

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points

To anyone supporting the administration in doing this, do you seriously think this is and will always be about actual misinformation, and not pro-palestine speech and similar things? Cut the partisanship please. The government involving itself in the censorship of speech is absolutely a problem.

permalink
report
reply
14 points

From what I can tell this isn’t about actually forcing actions about misinformation, it’s contacting the platforms. Not allowing the government to say “Hey, Facebook, this misinformation looks like it could make an ongoing public health issue worse.” is a boon to misinformation peddlers. Of course Facebook should have every right to say “lol, that’s how we make the big bucks” and do nothing, but that communication should be possible and regular.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-9 points

The state saying “you know you really should do something about this” is inherently coercive.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

For individuals, particularly those without piles of cash, you’re probably right.

For large corporations and the owner class, though? Eh, that’s not so true. Being able to fund an army of lawyers means knowing exactly when you can tell the government to get fucked and being able to fight about it if the government wants to.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

I think bi-partisan challenging of opinion pieces containing verifiable falsehoods is a pretty healthy idea for the public.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

do you seriously think this is and will always be about actual misinformation, and not pro-palestine speech and similar things?

No. That’s why the Supreme Court exists. If it wasn’t about actual misinformation and just removing speech the administration didn’t like then the Supreme Court could reverse the action. This is literally how the government is supposed to work.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Putting short-term partisan gain ahead of defending the principals of a free society is a terrible mistake

permalink
report
parent
reply

News

!news@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

Community stats

  • 15K

    Monthly active users

  • 19K

    Posts

  • 493K

    Comments