Social Media Posted July 5, 2023 Share Posted July 5, 2023 A U.S. District Court judge is temporarily preventing White House officials from meeting with tech companies about social media censorship, arguing that such actions in the past were likely First Amendment violations. The Tuesday injunction by Louisiana Judge Terry A. Doughty was in response to recent lawsuits from Louisiana and Missouri attorneys general. The suits allege that the White House coerced or "significantly encourage[d]" tech companies to suppress free speech during the COVID-19 pandemic. Doughty is barring several federal officials and agencies – including some of Biden's Cabinet members and White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre – from contacting social media companies in efforts to suppress speech. Google, Meta and Twitter were all named in the lawsuits. FULL STORY 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post riclag Posted July 5, 2023 Popular Post Share Posted July 5, 2023 Judge Doughty, who was an appointee of former US President Donald Trump, said the plaintiffs had "presented substantial evidence in support of their claims". "Evidence produced thus far depicts an almost dystopian scenario," Mr Doughty said in his ruling. He added: "During the Covid-19 pandemic, a period perhaps best characterized by widespread doubt and uncertainty, the United States Government seems to have assumed a role similar to an Orwellian 'Ministry of Truth. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-66106067# Starting to see a familiar pattern imop But have no fear America , imop bidens Doj is reviewing the ruling, according to this story 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Chomper Higgot Posted July 5, 2023 Popular Post Share Posted July 5, 2023 He’ll get overruled at appeal. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post placeholder Posted July 5, 2023 Popular Post Share Posted July 5, 2023 The right wingers went judge shopping. Judge Doughty is a proven ignoramus: "In 2021, Doughty issued a nationwide injunction against a federal mandate that health care workers be vaccinated against COVID-19.[14] His opinion includes many false and misleading claims about COVID-19 vaccines, including an incorrect suggestion that vaccines are not useful because booster shots are recommended after six months, a misleading statement that vaccines "do not prevent transmission of the disease", and the falsehood that "the virus has achieved an immune escape from COVID-19 vaccines". Doughty's opinion uncritically cited the views of a doctor known for making false claims about the vaccine.[15][16]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_A._Doughty 2 1 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Tug Posted July 5, 2023 Popular Post Share Posted July 5, 2023 2 hours ago, riclag said: Judge Doughty, who was an appointee of former US President Donald Trump, said the plaintiffs had "presented substantial evidence in support of their claims". "Evidence produced thus far depicts an almost dystopian scenario," Mr Doughty said in his ruling. He added: "During the Covid-19 pandemic, a period perhaps best characterized by widespread doubt and uncertainty, the United States Government seems to have assumed a role similar to an Orwellian 'Ministry of Truth. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-66106067# Starting to see a familiar pattern imop But have no fear America , imop bidens Doj is reviewing the ruling, according to this story It is not Biden’s DOJ it is the American DOJ as I’m sure you are well aware there are separate branches of government Joe Biden is not a gangster 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LosLobo Posted July 6, 2023 Share Posted July 6, 2023 15 hours ago, riclag said: Judge Doughty, who was an appointee of former US President Donald Trump, said the plaintiffs had "presented substantial evidence in support of their claims". "Evidence produced thus far depicts an almost dystopian scenario," Mr Doughty said in his ruling. He added: "During the Covid-19 pandemic, a period perhaps best characterized by widespread doubt and uncertainty, the United States Government seems to have assumed a role similar to an Orwellian 'Ministry of Truth. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-66106067# Starting to see a familiar pattern imop But have no fear America , imop bidens Doj is reviewing the ruling, according to this story Yet, Biden's took over from a dystopian administration which pushed a political agenda to address a public health emergency. Trump GOP politics made the USA a pariah with a disproportionate amount of deaths from COVID as compared to other first world countries. Based on statistics from other countries that had a more sensible approach similar to Biden's, possibly hundreds of thousands of US lives were unnecessarily lost during Trump's time in the WH. The bottom line is that COVID was a worldwide emergency and required action that did impinge of some freedom as most emergencies do. IMHO, most of the world's population were thankful of their government's firm positive approach. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenl Posted July 6, 2023 Share Posted July 6, 2023 (edited) While I disagree wit the ruling, it is still news. No matter the source. Edited July 6, 2023 by Pink Mist Replied to post removed 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pink Mist Posted July 6, 2023 Share Posted July 6, 2023 A post discussing the OP as not news for Thailand had been removed. This OP is in the World News forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bamnutsak Posted July 6, 2023 Share Posted July 6, 2023 23 hours ago, Social Media said: A U.S. District Court judge is temporarily preventing White House officials from meeting with tech companies about social media censorship, arguing that such actions in the past were likely First Amendment violations. This seems unconstitutional. Is Congress also so restricted? The Trump administration told Facebook and Twitter to remove posts that call for tearing down statues https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-protests-facebook-twitter-youtube-statues-2020-6 Stung By Twitter, Trump Signs Executive Order To Weaken Social Media Companies https://www.npr.org/2020/05/28/863932758/stung-by-twitter-trump-signs-executive-order-to-weaken-social-media-companies Yes, the Trump White House Demanded Twitter Remove Chrissy Teigen’s Tweet Calling Trump a *********** https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/02/chrissy-teigen-donald-trump-tweet-removed 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post SunnyinBangrak Posted July 6, 2023 Popular Post Share Posted July 6, 2023 On 7/5/2023 at 9:50 AM, Social Media said: . The suits allege that the White House coerced or "significantly encourage[d]" tech companies to suppress free speech during the COVID-19 pandemic Looks like an earmark of fascistic behavior. The damage done to "credible sources" by stamping on discussion of "conspiracy theories" such as the lableak theory, vaccine mandates and efficiency and gain of function research is immense. Hopefully L's will be taken and future political discussion will allow both sides to speak. 1 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bamnutsak Posted July 6, 2023 Share Posted July 6, 2023 Who's First Amendment right was "violated" by the government? After a brief scan this looks pretty flimsy. https://casetext.com/case/missouri-v-biden-4 But legal scholars I respect say the White House and Biden Admin officials may have gone too far in coercing the social media companies. And that SCOTUS would uphold this 6:3. And that would set some precedent/limits on what the Government can do re: affecting social media. The specter of fascism seems a bit hysterical. I mean there were many many outlets for free speech re: COVID, vaccines, masks. etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrJ2U Posted July 6, 2023 Share Posted July 6, 2023 Who takes FOX news as a reliable and impartial news source? Just garbage . 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billd766 Posted July 6, 2023 Share Posted July 6, 2023 21 hours ago, riclag said: Judge Doughty, who was an appointee of former US President Donald Trump, said the plaintiffs had "presented substantial evidence in support of their claims". "Evidence produced thus far depicts an almost dystopian scenario," Mr Doughty said in his ruling. He added: "During the Covid-19 pandemic, a period perhaps best characterized by widespread doubt and uncertainty, the United States Government seems to have assumed a role similar to an Orwellian 'Ministry of Truth. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-66106067# Starting to see a familiar pattern imop But have no fear America , imop bidens Doj is reviewing the ruling, according to this story https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_A._Doughty Terry Alvin Doughty (born January 16, 1959) is the Chief United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. Nominated by President Donald Trump, Doughty previously served in the Fifth Judicial District Court in Louisiana. Weaponisation of the DoJ, anyone? 4 hours ago, stevenl said: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billd766 Posted July 6, 2023 Share Posted July 6, 2023 4 hours ago, stevenl said: While I disagree wit the ruling, it is still news. No matter the source. Even from Fox "News"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riclag Posted July 6, 2023 Share Posted July 6, 2023 (edited) 5 hours ago, SunnyinBangrak said: Looks like an earmark of fascistic behavior. The damage done to "credible sources" by stamping on discussion of "conspiracy theories" such as the lableak theory, vaccine mandates and efficiency and gain of function research is immense. Hopefully L's will be taken and future political discussion will allow both sides to speak. “General Bailey and General Landry filed their motion for preliminary injunction on March 6, 2023, citing more than 1,400 facts showing that top officials in the federal government coerced and colluded with big tech social media companies to violate Americans’ right to free speech. In the order, the Court recognized the States’ evidence of unconscionable federal censorship activities. The judge specifically found:” The article goes on to list a (12) bullet points! Extremely damaging evidence of corruption and censorship. https://www.ago.mo.gov/home/news/2023/07/05/missouri-attorney-general-andrew-bailey-obtains-court-order-blocking-the-biden-administration-from-violating-first-amendment Edited July 6, 2023 by riclag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KhunLA Posted July 6, 2023 Share Posted July 6, 2023 IMHO ... also the 14th Amendment for mandating covid vaccines. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
placeholder Posted July 6, 2023 Share Posted July 6, 2023 7 minutes ago, riclag said: “General Bailey and General Landry filed their motion for preliminary injunction on March 6, 2023, citing more than 1,400 facts showing that top officials in the federal government coerced and colluded with big tech social media companies to violate Americans’ right to free speech. In the order, the Court recognized the States’ evidence of unconscionable federal censorship activities. The judge specifically found:” The article goes on to list a (12) bullet points! Extremely damaging evidence of corruption and censorship. https://www.ago.mo.gov/home/news/2023/07/05/missouri-attorney-general-andrew-bailey-obtains-court-order-blocking-the-biden-administration-from-violating-first-amendment Justice Doughty accepts all kinds of misinformation as damaging. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenl Posted July 6, 2023 Share Posted July 6, 2023 4 hours ago, billd766 said: Even from Fox "News"? The source decides to publish yes or no, but the source didn't change the news itself. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billd766 Posted July 6, 2023 Share Posted July 6, 2023 1 minute ago, stevenl said: The source decides to publish yes or no, but the source didn't change the news itself. However Fox "News" many times has changed the news. Normally when I clock onto Fox they want me to disable my Ad blocker so that they can feed me adverts. Don't they understand the purpose of an Ad blocker? So generally I skip any Fox "news" story. If I want a fairy story there are plenty on the internet 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleftheros Posted July 6, 2023 Share Posted July 6, 2023 3 hours ago, KhunLA said: IMHO ... also the 14th Amendment for mandating covid vaccines. ... also the UN's Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights, Articles 3.2, 5, 6.1 and 6.2, for starters 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bkk Brian Posted July 6, 2023 Share Posted July 6, 2023 23 minutes ago, Eleftheros said: ... also the UN's Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights, Articles 3.2, 5, 6.1 and 6.2, for starters How do those articles affect the special policies the same UN put in place for the covid emergency? COVID-19 and Human Rights: We are all in this together https://unsdg.un.org/resources/covid-19-and-human-rights-we-are-all-together pdf download https://unsdg.un.org/download/2094/30683 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pink Mist Posted July 7, 2023 Share Posted July 7, 2023 A post on moderation and a reply have been removed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post herfiehandbag Posted July 7, 2023 Popular Post Share Posted July 7, 2023 The open politicisation of the Judiciary is probably the biggest single actual threat to democracy in the United States. It seems to allow for judges, at all levels from district court benches to the Supreme Court to be appointed on the basis of their political leanings, and in cases which may have political implications, it seems that there is a catalogue of suitable judges to be chosen from. Heaven knows I have reservations about the selection process for the judiciary in the UK, but open, brazen political partisanship does not form one of the criteria! 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heybruce Posted July 7, 2023 Share Posted July 7, 2023 On 7/5/2023 at 11:03 PM, SunnyinBangrak said: Looks like an earmark of fascistic behavior. The damage done to "credible sources" by stamping on discussion of "conspiracy theories" such as the lableak theory, vaccine mandates and efficiency and gain of function research is immense. Hopefully L's will be taken and future political discussion will allow both sides to speak. Restricting the dissemination of misinformation and disinformation is fascist? Adolf Hitler promoted many lies about Jewish people, and the Nazi party produced a film comparing Jewish people to rats. Would it have been fascist to restrict their views? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riclag Posted July 7, 2023 Share Posted July 7, 2023 (edited) 4 hours ago, heybruce said: Restricting the dissemination of misinformation and disinformation is fascist? Adolf Hitler promoted many lies about Jewish people, and the Nazi party produced a film comparing Jewish people to rats. Would it have been fascist to restrict their views? The free speech amendment clause doesn’t mention the far lefts words that they use to censor speech that they don’t like such as ,misinformation & disinformation ,that are used by them to restrict and deny speech and expression! https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment American citizens have the right to engage in free debate about the significant issues affecting the country. The government officials dont have the right to censor free speech ! That is truly fascist! https://www.theverge.com/2023/7/4/23783822/free-speech-ruling-missouri-v-biden-dhs-fbi-cisa Edited July 7, 2023 by riclag 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heybruce Posted July 7, 2023 Share Posted July 7, 2023 8 hours ago, riclag said: The free speech amendment clause doesn’t mention the far lefts words that they use to censor speech that they don’t like such as ,misinformation & disinformation ,that are used by them to restrict and deny speech and expression! https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment American citizens have the right to engage in free debate about the significant issues affecting the country. The government officials dont have the right to censor free speech ! That is truly fascist! https://www.theverge.com/2023/7/4/23783822/free-speech-ruling-missouri-v-biden-dhs-fbi-cisa I give you a source no less than the great orange one: "“It is not ‘freedom of the press’ when newspapers and others are allowed to say and write whatever they want even if it is completely false!” Donald Trump tweeted on Sunday." https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/does-the-first-amendment-protect-deliberate-lies/496004/ In this case I agree with Trump, it's not free speech when someone is disseminating information that they know, or should know, is false. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post riclag Posted July 10, 2023 Popular Post Share Posted July 10, 2023 The court just denied the feds, stay.Free Speech lives and is protected from a tyrannical government who tried to censor speech and honest debate ! 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freedomnow Posted July 10, 2023 Share Posted July 10, 2023 On 7/5/2023 at 10:49 AM, riclag said: Judge Doughty, who was an appointee of former US President Donald Trump, said the plaintiffs had "presented substantial evidence in support of their claims". "Evidence produced thus far depicts an almost dystopian scenario," Mr Doughty said in his ruling. He added: "During the Covid-19 pandemic, a period perhaps best characterized by widespread doubt and uncertainty, the United States Government seems to have assumed a role similar to an Orwellian 'Ministry of Truth. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-66106067# Starting to see a familiar pattern imop But have no fear America , imop bidens Doj is reviewing the ruling, according to this story What can I say, it was pervasive globally..even on this forum. Amazing how fast the coin turned to this global suppression of alternate opinions on anything covid. YT is funny - you get channels trumpeting they get censored by YT - then down to next level - THEY censor comments (nothing covid-themed BTW) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KhunLA Posted July 11, 2023 Share Posted July 11, 2023 4 hours ago, riclag said: The court just denied the feds, stay.Free Speech lives and is protected from a tyrannical government who tried to censor speech and honest debate ! If only that was true. Throw them an irrelevant bone, to give them that impression. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bamnutsak Posted July 11, 2023 Share Posted July 11, 2023 On 7/7/2023 at 6:18 PM, riclag said: American citizens have the right to engage in free debate about the significant issues affecting the country. Yes, but social media companies have the right to censor material. Social media companies have their own rules. Social media companies are not the Government. The First Amendment says the Government cannot limit free speech. The flimsy base of this case/argument is that the Government brought undue pressure on social media companies to remove certain posts. The social media companies were under no requirement to do so. If they chose to make editorial decisions that's well within their "rights". Evidently there are "exceptions"... The criticisms were echoed in the government’s Thursday night request for a stay. “The potential breadth of the entities and employees covered by the injunction combined with the injunction’s sweeping substantive scope will chill a wide range of lawful government conduct relating to Defendants’ law enforcement responsibilities, obligations to protect the national security, and prerogative to speak on matters of public concern,” the government’s motion said. The lawsuit’s plaintiffs countered with a weekend filing opposing a stay. Among the arguments are that the July 4 injunction carves out exemptions allowing officials to contact social media companies about postings involving criminal activity or public safety threats; national security threats; election-related issues including voter suppression attempts, voting infrastructure threats and illegal campaign contributions; and saying officials can continue “exercising permissible public government speech promoting government policies or views on matters of public concern.” https://apnews.com/article/social-media-protected-speech-lawsuit-injunction-c582abe6c79e72943a35776e6b5fc746 How did this case end up in Western Louisiana? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now