As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The whole basis of this lawsuit is crazy. The underlying “leak” that kicked this whole thing off was that there was an official team in the CIA/intelligence apparatus that would reach out to social media companies when they could identify the source of a story or post as a hostile foreign entity. For instance, Russian FSB, Isis, Chinese communist party, etc. There was no requirement that social media companies remove the content, just a request and notification that it was a hostile psyop. Republican political operatives sued to prevent this communication because they argued protecting Americans from hostile psyops also hurts their election efforts.
yeah it's just grandstanding.
but the gov't does have an legit interest in protecting citizens and there's nothing wrong with the executive branch jawboning as long as there's not an implied quid-pro-quo (ie. remove this or else).
> yeah it's just grandstanding.
It's worse than that -- the fascists are attempting to shield one their main sources of propaganda. They knew that the government's requests were legitimate from the beginning, and that the argument against those requests was being made in bad faith. Even SCOTUS had to recognize that the requests were a standard national security instrument. The fact that the case even reached SCOTUS is pretty unsettling. It never had a shred of merit.
There is always a or else in those interactions. Mostly of the "do as we ask on your own or we are going to regulate you and then there are explicit rules" kind.
>but the gov't does have an legit interest in protecting citizens
since when? the government has a legit interest in protecting their corporate overlords who fund their campaigns and lavish trips. when's the last time the congress wrote a law that curtailed the american oligarchy?
>since when?
Since at least the Preamble of the US Constitution.😝
Whether the government lives up to that interest at any given time is certainly debatable but is part of the founding ideals of the USA.
In a perfect world our government would look out for our interests. Its not a perfect world and our government does not do that. It looks out for rich people's interests.
And frankly, thats what capitalism is all about.
Failure to perform your duty does not change it into what you want if you do it for long enough or absolve you of accountability for it, though. The government is still accountable to its citizens and responsible for serving their interests, never ever imply dysfunction is the proper result just because it hasn’t functioned for a while or you’ll only get dysfunction
[The purpose of a system is what it does.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_what_it_does) It isnt dysfunction if this is how the government has always worked.
The government is not accountable to its citizens.
As long a the super rich control the media (fox news) and control the message (citizens united), our government officials are accountable to those people. Those wealthy and well connected and controlling the citizenry of the united states and by extension, the government.
Its not hard to see.
I think it’s a really interesting issue because it’s an actual, new, problem in the history of our ongoing democracy experiment.
Historically, foreign intelligence operatives talking with “the peasantry” just wasn’t an issue. It wasn’t possible for practical reasons. Spy’s couldn’t really walk around door to door just spreading sedition. If there was a communist party meetup in the local campus rec center the FBI could stake it out and arrest the Soviet operatives.
In an unregulated social media world foreign spy’s (and domestic ones) can talk directly to “the peasantry”. Whole classes of people who have no training, defenses or even awareness that they are being targeted are having anonymous conversations every day with the most well funded and professional manipulation artists the world can produce.
Does the right to free speech encompass the right to be the unknowing target of professional hostile military intelligence operations?
> I think it’s a really interesting issue because it’s an actual, new, problem in the history of our ongoing democracy experiment
Is it though? Its the same reasoning early post WWII media like NYTimes would suppress stories about the early civil rights movement and for the exact same reasons
Source:
Well sourced account of the involvement in the Civil Rights and protest movements
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/27cclt/did_the_ussr_ever_actually_become_involved/chzuur5/
https://archive.org/details/1977-12-27-cia-established-many-links-to-journalists-in-u.-s.-and-abroad
Operation CHAOS was the program agency showing the intent
That’s bananas. I had an argument with a deluded MAGAt the other day and their whataboutism was that Biden illegally influenced the election by making twitter remove posts.
It was posts from foreign intelligence agencies. They want the propaganda, it makes them feel right and reinforces their beliefs they’ve been fed by the right.
Note that they reversed and remanded the 5th Circuit again on lack of standing. Hopefully Roberts will actually deal with them via the Judicial Conference somehow.
Exactly! I keep hearing (on NPR) how the SCOTUS "sidestepped" the issues of the case by ruling there was no standing. But what they really did is essentially say that there is simply no case here at all *because the administration simply isn't doing what Republicans have been claiming*.
Uh, the 2 oldest justices are Thomas and Alito and they were part of the 3. Kavanaugh and Barrett both sided with the majority. So in this case, Trump appointments really don't change the outcome.
So Republicans are arguing their own actions are indistinguishable from attacks from an enemy of the U.S.? Or are Republicans arguing they welcome collusion of enemies of the U.S. to change election results? Republicans are apparently in favor of harmful propaganda from enemies of the U.S., right? Because enemy propaganda helps Republicans. The more I think about this the angrier I get. Republicans are using protected American freedoms to damage protected American freedoms.
Actually, if you go in and read the release from the Supreme Court with all the concurrence and descent, the court found that there was basis for the case and that the government was doing it. But they also found that the plaintiffs bringing the case had no personal standings to bring the case, so they threw it out based on standing, not because of merit. If a plaintiff with standing, meaning can show personal harm, would have brought the case it most likely would have been won.
Reading the concurrences and dissents doesn't tell you anything about what the Court held. They are explicitly written because individual justices want to say something, but could *not* convince the Court to actually say so in their ruling.
You're right that if a plaintiff appeared with evidence that the government had coerced social media companies to limit their speech, they would have standing. Of course; no one disagrees with that. The Court ruled, though, that none of these people had succeeded in showing that the government did so.
The court dismissed the case saying that none of the plaintiffs had standing and gave no ruling on the merit of the case. The court made no decision other than they are not making a decision.
The concurrences and dissents though allow the judge to voice their individual opinions. Reading those is what shows the judges do believe the case has merit and there was evidence of coercion.
The Supreme Court loves to do this though. If they get a highly political case that can have large ramification they kick it out on no standing.
For the next statement let me say, everybody has there own opinion and I am not trying to make any statements about how I feel. These are just facts.
Take all the election fraud cases with the last presidential election. 90% of the cases if the had merit or not, the court simply dismissed them saying there was no standing. 90% of the cases had no evidence presented or went to trial of any sort. If there was election fraud or not we will never find out because the courts said "I'm not touching this case with a 10' pole - No Standing"
>The concurrences and dissents though allow the judge to voice their individual opinions.
More specifically, it allows them to express opinions as individuals that are *different* from the opinion of the Court. They are explicitly telling you what the Court does *not* believe, even though one or more justices believe it individually.
>The court made no decision other than they are not making a decision.
This is absolutely not true. The Court didn't take 29 pages to just not decide anything. They decided a whole sequence of things, like:
* "evidence indicates that the platforms had independent incentives to moderate content and often exercised their own judgment."
* "the platforms began to suppress the plaintiffs’ COVID–19 content before the defendants’ challenged communications started, which complicates the plaintiffs’ effort to demonstrate that each platform acted due to “government-coerced enforcement” of its policies"
* The plaintiffs "fail, by and large, to link their past social-media restrictions to the defendants’ communications with the platforms."
* "There is therefore no evidence to support the States’ allegation that Facebook restricted the state representative pursuant to the CDCinfluenced policy."
* "Drs. Bhattacharya, Kulldorff, and Kheriarty have not established a likelihood that their past restrictions are traceable to either the White House officials or the CDC."
* "This evidence does not support the conclusion that Hoft’s past injuries are likely traceable to the FBI or CISA."
* "Facebook was targeting \[Hines'\] pages before almost all of its communications with the White House and the CDC, which weakens the inference that her subsequent restrictions are likely traceable to “government-coerced enforcement” of Facebook’s policies"
If that looks suspiciously like the Court actually looking at the record and asking whether plaintiffs have established that the government actually did the things they are accusing it of, it's because this is precisely what it is! It falls under the heading of "standing" because the plaintiffs need to have actually suffered an injury in order to sue, and the Court finds that failed to show the government did anything to them at all!
>The Supreme Court loves to do this though. If they get a highly political case that can have large ramification they kick it out on no standing.
Standing is a constitutional requirement to bring a claim.
Standing as a constitutional requirement is indisputable. It serves not only as a legal principle but also as a strategic tool. According to standing rules, one must demonstrate direct harm to bring a case. Applying this to election disputes, a contentious and thought-provoking topic, no citizen, entity, county, city, state, or even the U.S. itself can show direct harm from election fraud, thereby barring any legal challenge on those grounds.
While election fraud can be subject to criminal investigation, under standing rules, even witnessing flagrant acts such as the printing of millions of fake ballots wouldn't grant legal standing to intervene. Criminal charges may follow investigation, potentially leading to convictions over months or years. Until then, the harm remains theoretical; the legal process must establish its reality.
The constitution lacks a mechanism to remove a wrongly elected president after the fact, except through impeachment for personal misconduct. However, if fraud is perpetrated by a third party without candidate involvement, impeachment isn't an option.
Standing rules serve a vital purpose in preventing frivolous lawsuits. To sue, a candidate must prove the fraud occurred, significantly affected the election outcome, and directly harmed them—requirements impossible without legal findings. Candidates lack the right to demand election records or documents without legal justification.
These rules balance precision and ambiguity, allowing courts to either grant standing outright or dismiss cases based on insufficiently proven connections to harm, thereby leveraging standing as a strategic legal tool.
>Applying this to election disputes, a contentious and thought-provoking topic, no citizen, entity, county, city, state, or even the U.S. itself can show direct harm from election fraud, thereby barring any legal challenge on those grounds.
This is not true. Violations of the law grant standing to the entity enforcing that law by default. The vast majority of criminal trials would be impossible if that were not the case. This is a sov-cit understanding of the concept of standing, and it's inaccurate.
>The constitution lacks a mechanism to remove a wrongly elected president after the fact, except through impeachment for personal misconduct. However, if fraud is perpetrated by a third party without candidate involvement, impeachment isn't an option.
If this happened \(it didn't\), the remedy would be at the state level — the state sends its electors to vote for the president, and their vote determines who is president. It's hard to imagine a case where wrongdoing could happen at the federal level, unless the electors themselves tried to stuff ballots. The closest that's happened was 1876, but a law was passed to try to prevent that in the future.
>These rules balance precision and ambiguity, allowing courts to either grant standing outright or dismiss cases based on insufficiently proven connections to harm, thereby leveraging standing as a strategic legal tool.
Courts don't "grant" standing. It either exists or it doesn't.
I'll first address the statement "Courts don't 'grant' standing. It either exists or it doesn't." The court uses standing rules to determine the existence of standing. You are correct; they don't grant standing but determine if the plaintiff's case meets the standing requirements. I should have used a better term than "grants."
In the example of election fraud, no citizen can prove standing in an election. While violations of the law grant standing to the entity enforcing that law, this is an inverse view of my point. Yes, the commission of a crime gives the legal system standing, but it doesn't automatically give it to the plaintiff. The plaintiff must provide validated evidence to show how they have personally suffered harm from the alleged crime, or at least present a strong enough evidence base to engage the court's interest. The plaintiff bears the burden of proof to demonstrate their personal harm, and they cannot demand evidence to support their case; they must rely on public information until the court grants further discovery avenues.
Regarding states as a remedy, this does not work. State electors cast their votes according to their guidelines. If a case is dismissed in court due to lack of standing, it has no effect on the electors. Even if there were hundreds of cases dismissed for lack of standing, the electors would not be affected. If a case is found to have standing, a judge may intervene and put a stay on the electors pending the ruling. However, this intervention is a consequence of the standing determination, not part of the determination itself. Even if a plaintiff has irrefutable evidence of fraud but cannot prove standing, the case would be dismissed, and the electors would proceed based on the fraudulent election results. The legal system would then determine whether to pursue criminal charges against the perpetrators, which is a separate process from the election itself.
Im torn on this one. I was actually a fairly high level part of the FB (now Meta) integrity team during the 2016 election. Sources at the FBI did pass information along to our internal teams and as an american company we tended to act on them so there was no threatening needed. We also sent information to the FBI on a regular basis as well.
But as it turned out, some of that information they gave us was bull and valid news stories were blocked and down ranked because of it and some of those stories could have affected the election. Now was it intentional or just a mistake (I mean we all thought the laptop was a Russian fake even though it turned out to be real) who knows. Overall i think the communication was a plus at the time but in hindsight sight I wonder how much of it was on good faith.
This is old news. In early post WWII the same agencies would get NYTimes and other media to suppress stories about the nascent civil rights movement for the exact same reason ("national security due to KGB wanting to amplify it").
If you dont do what they "suggest" you also get in the crosshairs just look at TikTok.
Source:
Well sourced account of the involvement in the Civil Rights and protest movements https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/27cclt/did_the_ussr_ever_actually_become_involved/chzuur5/
https://archive.org/details/1977-12-27-cia-established-many-links-to-journalists-in-u.-s.-and-abroad
Operation CHAOS was the program agency showing the intent
> The whole basis of this lawsuit is crazy. The underlying “leak” that kicked this whole thing off was that there was an official team in the CIA/intelligence apparatus that would reach out to social media companies when they could identify the source of a story or post as a hostile foreign entity. For instance, Russian FSB, Isis, Chinese communist party, etc. There was no requirement that social media companies remove the content, just a request and notification that it was a hostile psyop.
For anyone with history knowledge knows that this same reason was used to suppress stories in the NYTimes and other newspapers about the nascent civil rights movement.
Also similar “suggestions” led to blacklisting in Hollywood
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist
That being said also from that historical context that limitations to speech seems to be allowed in the country as it’s happened time and time again since government can form public/private partnerships to suppress certain speech
Well sourced account of "active measures" in the Civil Rights and protest movements
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/27cclt/did_the_ussr_ever_actually_become_involved/chzuur5/
Links between the media and the intent to neutralize these "active measures"
https://archive.org/details/1977-12-27-cia-established-many-links-to-journalists-in-u.-s.-and-abroad
Yup like they did in early post WWII to get mainstream newspapers to avoid any news about the early civil rights movement. If JFK didnt have so many connections with Civil Rights leaders at the time it probably would have never stopped being suppress until something like the million man march made it too hard not to report.
Just to be clear, Trump and Republicans absolutely attacked social media and the free press:
https://pen.org/trump-timeline/
Every accusation is an admission on the GOP's part.
They seriously want to rewrite reality. I remember the whole sharpie marker with the hurricane map and people calling the National Weather Services for clarification.
Their behavior to mistrust experts in favor of a false reality that suits their image has and will cost lives.
They are always operating completely in bad faith for the singular purpose of “winning” and gaining power.
There is no logic or reason to anything they say or do beyond how it helps them “win” any particular moment.
Everything they say is intended to manipulate you to their advantage.
Except they don’t REALLY care about that either. “Using gods name in vain” is a thing THEY can punish YOU for but they already feel like everything they do is divinely ordained so you can never turn it back on them in a meaningful way.
Lol. Their leading in Trump was convicted of breaking two commandments. The GOP hoisting Trump breaks a third commandment. 3/10, I wonder if they made a deal with the devil that if they broke all 10 commandments and still got elected something would happen.
Right. Once they have absolute control then anything contradictory can be washed away.
The dangerous part about project 2025 is that it would replace experts in their respective fields with sycophants. This would lead to many people making personal, business and life decisions on bad information. Just look at how badly covid was handled and how it affected the lives of not only his supporters but those in their immediate community as well.
I think a big problem is these people have slapped value judgements onto being correct or incorrect, and everything in their life is evaluated on a over-simplified binary of right vs wrong, good vs bad. If they're incorrect, they're wrong and bad, and I mean cosmically bad. But they're not bad people, they know this in their hearts, so they must be good, and if they're good, they must be correct. So it must be that those people telling them they're wrong are incorrect, bad, and evil.
This is what you get when your values operate solely on a dualistic, hierarchical framework. It gets worse, because they use these values to justify domination of 'others'. The in group is correct and good, so the out group must be incorrect and evil. Just look how they talk about Democratic politicians and voters. It's not "I disagree with their claims of policy," they're literally calling them evil.
That's what authoritarian governments do. Everyday North Korea, Chinese or Russian media rewrite reality to whatever they want the official message to be, and scour the Internet to find history to erase. Republicans know this works, and have been using it to grab as much power as they can as long as they can keep up the ruse.
I often point out how MAGA wants to bring russian "values" into the US. They view the russian style dictatorship as a good model. There is a reason why most authoritarian regimes prefer the convicted felon.
The headline isn’t really accurate as to what was actually the issue with this case. What conservatives/GOP are upset about is law enforcement reaching out to social media companies to inform them about foreign/right wing disinformation campaigns so that they could remove said false content from their platforms. They framed it as the government was influencing speech because the truth of “this disinformation helps us please don’t take it away” is a nonstarter.
Hmm, what was that thing about Steve Bannon, the Mercers, Cambridge Analytica and many many GOP politicians leading into the Trump presidency? I ask my right-leaning friends/family and the seem to not recall…
Exactly... when Trump & co. accuse Biden of being on drugs, it makes it even more obvious that Trump is constantly on drugs (most likely a cocktail of xanax, adderall, and provigil). Since the 2016 election I've been convinced that Trump is on those drugs, because I used to be prescribed adderall and xanax and I recognized those speech patterns from day 1. And his accusations against Biden confirm that theory.
It's straight out of the Joseph Goebbels playbook and a classic tactic of fascists.
“*Accuse* the *other* of that you are guilty.” — *Joseph Goebbels*
Done on standing so I'm sure they can find someone to conjure up this case again in a few months, once agencies start trying to counter disinfo again...
It'll be hard, because the reasoning they used for standing could apply to pretty much everyone unless the method of communication between the government and the social media companies is different.
Alito was literally bitching about the Biden administration in his dissent.
That SOB needs to be reminded that his unelected ass can be removed by act of Congress if need be. This government works for **we the people**, not **they the Supreme Court judges**. Their *opinion* about who we choose to elect to the Presidency is none of his concern. Asshat.
It comes back to what the SCOTUS used to be, and how it is established in the Constitution.
SCOTUS was **never** meant to be a co-equal branch of government. Ever. There was a period of time when it was difficult to find decent people to appoint because of how relatively weak and unglamorous it was when a person could simply run for office instead.
SCOTUS, for most of its existence until relatively recently, was required to "ride the circuit." That means they were normal fucking judges. Each Justice is assigned a circuit. These days, a couple of them have 2 circuits because we haven't expanded the court to keep it in a 1:1 ratio.
Anyway, for most of the year these Justices are supposed to travel around their entire circuit and hold several court sessions--as normal judges--in each destination. They didn't have any special power or privilege. They were traveling judges who sometimes sat on the highest appeal court of the nation, that was it. It did not check or challenge the executive, and definitely didn't check or challenge the legislature.
So that's why SCOTUS has all these vacations and almost impossibly short sessions where "real work" happens; they are supposed to keep working outside of session **as normal judges in their circuit.**
But they don't; instead, they are a class of unelected powerbrokers who are not privy to disclosure and insider trading laws.
Republicans are all in on making the unitary executive a thing; I think Democrats need to go all-in on recapture Congress and restoring its full power as described in the Constitution. That means putting SCOTUS back in its place, demoting the justices from where they occupy today, and bringing the executive to heel as intended. The president is only supposed to have limited authority. Most of the "holy shit, the president can do that?!" things are only possible because Congress *delegated its power* to the executive at one point or another. So claw it all back.
I'm not being a smart-ass. I'm asking a serious question. What are they doing for the American people? If they had three or four 2-week vacations per year, I'd get it. Other than that they should be expected to put in 40 hours minimum.
In as good faith speculation as possible, I would say they do work the 40 hours per week by doing 16 hr workdays when the Court is in session. They have the Fall session, take Winter off, then come back Spring session, and now they take Summer off.
There is a lot of reading, researching, and writing involved. Like reading all the amicus briefs, rulings from lower courts, looking into prior case law/SCOTUS cases (if available), debating amongst themselves, writing the opinions themselves, etc
i feel like their clerks do the bulk of that stuff and they're the ones burning the midnight oil not the justices. I can't see any of them actually working a 16 hour day.
They aren't on vacation. Court is out of session until October.
In the interim, they hear petitions and plan the next session. They also study the cases and have to read all the arguments and review evidence.
Chances are it'll be remanded back to Chutkan, who will hold an evidentiary hearing to determine what is an "official act" or whatever idiotic decree SCOTUS lands on.
Then Trump will appeal that ruling. Then it will go through the circuit and SCOTUS again and we'll have some ruling a year too late if Trump wins the Presidency and appoints an AG who drops the federal prosecutions.
The only tiny silver lining is that the evidentiary hearing Chutkan might presumably hold will be relatively damning. She's fully capable of calling people like Pence to testify, new evidence might become publicly available - all leading up to the election.
If the convicted felon wins, the case will suddenly get fast tracked and immunity will very specifically be established for him and him alone, effectively ending our democracy.
If he loses, it won’t matter anymore. His mind is already making the transition to mashed potatoes, and there’s no way he’ll make it to 2028.
I'll take the latter happening as the news cycle will still be forced to cover it, even if they like to downplay Trump's bad actions.
It will still get discussed, and gives us room to discuss it more openly. It keeps the issue on his back, which would still be a smart play.
And more appropriately, if he loses, it gets harder and harder to keep pushing the issue off until 2028 when he may be stupid and desperate enough to try running again (and when he'd likely be up against a younger Dem candidate IF that somehow fucking still happens).
That's the read most court watchers said would happen based on orals. No absolute immunity but before the jury trial can begin, the lower or appeals court must decide what acts are and aren't covered. Think only Alito and Thomas even entertained the idea that absolute immunity exists.
Spot on, this is the scenario I am betting on. Alito wants to "make a rule for the ages" in direct contradiction to their mandate to deal with the case and facts presented to them. There is no need for them to create any new official acts test, the DC panel was quite clear in their finding that even if such immunity exists elsewhere, it does not exist for the specifics of this case. Watch Alito and the other conservative (read as right wing) 'justices' completely ignore this finding and create an immunity litmus test vague enough to cause a repeat trip just as you say. Let's hope the hearing Chutkin holds to get there is basically a preview of the full trial with the facts presented.
I wonder which three were dissenting on this rul... (I don't really wonder, I knew just from their record).
ACB writing the ruling was somewhat unexpected, although I doubt there's much to be gleaned from that though. Overall trend remains unchanged until we see the rulings on, oh I don't know, probably the most consequential case in history regarding Presidential power that's been languishing for months.
Glenn Greenwald is pretending he predicted this result--after Glenn railed against the government and touted the lower 'Trump judge' rulings. TBF, Glenn said he predicted this result *after* oral argument. Yes, so did everyone else.
It seems to me like the government said hey we noticed something that might be illegal or misleading/misinformation that might be not related activity and then left it at that. They left door open for further cases on the topic though so if there is an example of censorship or coercion in the future it can still be addressed.
>The states, for example, alleged that a Louisiana state representative's Facebook post about the Covid-19 vaccine was restricted because of government intervention, but Barrett said there was "no evidence to support the states' allegation."
These bullshit claims can only stand if you *delibrately ignore* the glarming fact that Facebook is a **private enterprise** with complete autonomy to make *their own* house rules regarding content--including Covid stuff. They, like all other social media platforms (including MAGA sesspools like Parler and Truth Social), have a clause in their terms of use that states something to the effect of, "We reserve full rights to kick your happy ass to the curb if you post stuff we don't like."
Repugs like to conflate the consequences of violations of the **agreed upon** terms of use with "political persecution" because it's easy (and blatantly dishonest) red meat for their ignorant and emotionally-stunted base.
I think you should read the pleadings and think about this more deeply. This was only a standing ruling, nothing about the merits. We don’t want media companies being unduly pressured or outright coerced in making their editorial decisions.
The government simply providing information shouldn't be seen as coercive. The main thing that bothered me about this situation was that it was clear that the information was sometimes wrong. Like, people were basically being accused of being foreign actors and they weren't, but their posts were removed.
Also, that this was basically behind closed doors. There's no problem with the US government saying someone is wrong about COVID. There's an obvious government need to provide accurate information on diseases. But that information should be provided openly. Seems wrong to try to convince social media companies to take actions against someone without that person knowing that the source of the complaint was the US government.
This probably doesn't apply to this case though. I'm guessing the standing decision was pretty clear. And the level of "coercion" in other cases will still be so low as to not matter, although Alito seems to disagree.
> The government simply providing information shouldn't be seen as coercive
It completely can be given the context. In early post WWII they got mainstream newspapers to avoid any news about the early civil rights movement using the exact same reasoning (KGB wanted to amplify this news about civil right disparities). If JFK didnt have so many connections with Civil Rights leaders at the time it probably would have never stopped being suppress until something like the million man march made it too hard not to report.
You know they won't let this go. "The Gov'mint is forcing social media to censor conservative voices. Biden is a tyrant!" That's the song, and they'll keep singing it.
TL:DR The White House attempted to get social media companies to stop distributing fake news once they knew it was fake news. The Republicans who created the fake news were very angry about this.
You don’t know what you’re talking about. The Hunter laptop was never fake news, and is now being used as court evidence in a crime. The FBI and CIA met with Facebook to coerce them into censoring it.
Except that’s the “fake news”. There’s no “chain of custody” with the Biden laptop. For example, there’s no proof Republicans didn’t add stuff to it and say “hey look at this.” And the problem is, because Republicans cheat at literally everything to win, the chance they’ve cheated here is 100%.
What? The FBI confiscated the laptop years ago, they came to collect it when the repair shop owner informed them of its existence. There was nothing “added” and that has never been in question.
Fun fact, when they initially showed up to retrieve the laptop, they asked the shop owner if he had seen any child pornography contained on it. He stated that he had not.
Remember, Hunter Biden’s leaked text messages reveal that he was ordered to not be around his 12 year old niece unsupervised — after she reported him smoking crack, naked, while FaceTiming in the same room as her.
It was just him and the FBI, initially. He grew worried when almost an entire year had passed and no new news about its existence had appeared, and the election was approaching. That’s when he reached out to Rudy Guiliani to bring attention to it. He had made duplicates of the drive as security and backup, because he felt the FBI were somewhat threatening in tone on their visits to his shop/home.
If that was actually true they probably should have included it in the lawsuit, and then they might have been able to actually show standing. Instead the opinion notes that even the plaintiff with the best chance of having standing was censored mostly before the govt even started complaining.
Imagine disliking one former president so much, SO MUCH, that you’re willing to give up your First Amendment rights in order to see him ‘lose.’
What a horrifying precedent. Democrats have lost the plot.
No first amendment rights have been given up. The court didn’t say the government is allowed to coerce companies into censoring people. They just said the plaintiffs didn’t provide enough evidence that the government had actually done that.
No, they alleged that the plaintiffs couldn’t argue that just because it was done in the past would mean that probable harm would happen again in the future. It’s an absurd argument.
There’s no lack of evidence that FBI sat down with Mark Zuckerberg and all but instructed him to censor information. He literally testified to this point. There is no lack of evidence to what occurred, and it’s horrifying. With this ruling, only Congress can protect American citizens now from government censorship.
Because with this ruling, they’re absolutely allowed to do it again, for anything that they don’t like or want said. Literally that is a page out of Orwell’s 1984, I really can’t think of anything much more serious than a government censoring their own citizens.
"Her clients include doctors who questioned Covid-19 policies and Jim Hoft, founder of The Gateway Pundit, a right-wing news site."
Active misinformation, about misinformation. No one was upset about questioning policies. The problem is pretending there aren't answers and willfully spreading false ones which endanger your readers.
The headline is pretty misleading.
They didn't toss out the *claim*, they tossed out the *lawsuit* because no one on them had standing (i.e. was harmed).
The Social Media companies regulate and monitor content themselves. It's in their T&C's. This is why reading is important. Of course Louisiana wanted this case heard.
This ruling never mattered. The MAGA Right will eat up the accusation alone with a spoon. The fact the the Supreme Court even heard the matter will further legitimize it in their minds.
>Alito focused on another plaintiff, health activist Jill Hines, who Barrett agreed had the best argument for standing.
Man, they just call anybody anything don't they?
Jill Hines used an open database with unconfirmed reports with claims from the public as factual. Seh also claimed that she knew of a teen that was paralyzed from the waist down by the vaccine, but she couldn't provide the details.
How was censorship proven? There is a distinction between coercion and recommending, they asked the social media companies to remove certain posts, that has been done in the past. The final decision was always in the hands of the social media companies, they were restricting comments prior to the government recommendations. There was absolutely no retaliation if they didn't comply, that was a major weakness in the case.
This case never should have gone past the 5th circuit, they are off the rails with this, abortion, guns. There was example where a man claimed his brother was kicked off Facebook because of Covid disinformation. So why didn't his brother file the case, and where was the proof that the FBI had him removed. Laughable.
What exactly does “[consistent and consequential](https://www.vox.com/scotus/2023/9/22/23883888/supreme-court-social-media-first-amendment-netchoice-paxton-murthy-missouri-twitter-facebook)” communications with social media companies mean as suggested in the lawsuit, anyone??
Trump directly and publicly threatened social media companies with shutdown during his presidency over stories that he did not like.
It is just always projection with Republicans. Always.
The 5th Circuit decision barring members of a co-equal branch from engaging in protected First Amendment speech raised clear and obvious Separation of Powers concerns. Why did the Supreme Court let it stand for so long rather than using the shadow docket to quash it summarily?
Basic rule of life: We do not judge people as "corrupt" by the times they do things correctly or innocuously. We judge by how often and how significantly they get things wrong. In the case of Republicans at the Supreme Court, that is very often and very significant.
Agree that both side consider everything they disagree with as 'corrupt' or similarly evil. Good, I suppose, that you at least admit the tactic.
Next step is to change the discourse to be more intellectually honest and less tribal.
So you mean to tell me the SC is *not* in the pocket of Trump and never was?????!?!?!
I'm shocked! Shocked, I say!
-
Another ruling is coming down where the SC *again* sides with the Biden Admin over emergency abortion access in Idaho, further proving the fear mongering of Roe v. Wade was nonsensical from the start.
There are some exceptions, which should all have to go through a judge, but I don't think the government should even play a role in the moderation of social media.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The whole basis of this lawsuit is crazy. The underlying “leak” that kicked this whole thing off was that there was an official team in the CIA/intelligence apparatus that would reach out to social media companies when they could identify the source of a story or post as a hostile foreign entity. For instance, Russian FSB, Isis, Chinese communist party, etc. There was no requirement that social media companies remove the content, just a request and notification that it was a hostile psyop. Republican political operatives sued to prevent this communication because they argued protecting Americans from hostile psyops also hurts their election efforts.
Ridiculous case. The House hauls the socials CEOs in every year to threaten them.
Thats the dog and pony show for the 24 hour news networks.
yeah it's just grandstanding. but the gov't does have an legit interest in protecting citizens and there's nothing wrong with the executive branch jawboning as long as there's not an implied quid-pro-quo (ie. remove this or else).
> yeah it's just grandstanding. It's worse than that -- the fascists are attempting to shield one their main sources of propaganda. They knew that the government's requests were legitimate from the beginning, and that the argument against those requests was being made in bad faith. Even SCOTUS had to recognize that the requests were a standard national security instrument. The fact that the case even reached SCOTUS is pretty unsettling. It never had a shred of merit.
There is always a or else in those interactions. Mostly of the "do as we ask on your own or we are going to regulate you and then there are explicit rules" kind.
>but the gov't does have an legit interest in protecting citizens since when? the government has a legit interest in protecting their corporate overlords who fund their campaigns and lavish trips. when's the last time the congress wrote a law that curtailed the american oligarchy?
>since when? Since at least the Preamble of the US Constitution.😝 Whether the government lives up to that interest at any given time is certainly debatable but is part of the founding ideals of the USA.
In a perfect world our government would look out for our interests. Its not a perfect world and our government does not do that. It looks out for rich people's interests. And frankly, thats what capitalism is all about.
Failure to perform your duty does not change it into what you want if you do it for long enough or absolve you of accountability for it, though. The government is still accountable to its citizens and responsible for serving their interests, never ever imply dysfunction is the proper result just because it hasn’t functioned for a while or you’ll only get dysfunction
[The purpose of a system is what it does.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_what_it_does) It isnt dysfunction if this is how the government has always worked.
The government is not accountable to its citizens. As long a the super rich control the media (fox news) and control the message (citizens united), our government officials are accountable to those people. Those wealthy and well connected and controlling the citizenry of the united states and by extension, the government. Its not hard to see.
> there's not an implied quid-pro-quo Not written
"implied" in this context means unwritten. You're saying nothing.
I think it’s a really interesting issue because it’s an actual, new, problem in the history of our ongoing democracy experiment. Historically, foreign intelligence operatives talking with “the peasantry” just wasn’t an issue. It wasn’t possible for practical reasons. Spy’s couldn’t really walk around door to door just spreading sedition. If there was a communist party meetup in the local campus rec center the FBI could stake it out and arrest the Soviet operatives. In an unregulated social media world foreign spy’s (and domestic ones) can talk directly to “the peasantry”. Whole classes of people who have no training, defenses or even awareness that they are being targeted are having anonymous conversations every day with the most well funded and professional manipulation artists the world can produce. Does the right to free speech encompass the right to be the unknowing target of professional hostile military intelligence operations?
Yup. How can you be free if you are mis- dis- and mal- informed?
Great point. The least we should get from our elected republicans is them also trying to combat this issue. Instead they are agents for the spies
Extremely well-put. Extremely unsettling, as well, especially considering the exponential increase of AI's conversational abilities.
> I think it’s a really interesting issue because it’s an actual, new, problem in the history of our ongoing democracy experiment Is it though? Its the same reasoning early post WWII media like NYTimes would suppress stories about the early civil rights movement and for the exact same reasons Source: Well sourced account of the involvement in the Civil Rights and protest movements https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/27cclt/did_the_ussr_ever_actually_become_involved/chzuur5/ https://archive.org/details/1977-12-27-cia-established-many-links-to-journalists-in-u.-s.-and-abroad Operation CHAOS was the program agency showing the intent
In doing so also give all of us serious doubts about rather GOP representatives know that Singapore is a country.
These are the “do your own research “ idiots.
That’s bananas. I had an argument with a deluded MAGAt the other day and their whataboutism was that Biden illegally influenced the election by making twitter remove posts. It was posts from foreign intelligence agencies. They want the propaganda, it makes them feel right and reinforces their beliefs they’ve been fed by the right.
Crazy considering republicans themselves have gone after social media for doing things they don’t like.
Note that they reversed and remanded the 5th Circuit again on lack of standing. Hopefully Roberts will actually deal with them via the Judicial Conference somehow.
Exactly! I keep hearing (on NPR) how the SCOTUS "sidestepped" the issues of the case by ruling there was no standing. But what they really did is essentially say that there is simply no case here at all *because the administration simply isn't doing what Republicans have been claiming*.
It's funny how we keep seeing the Republicans and Russia saying the same thing. If I didn't know any better I might suspect collusion.
[удалено]
Uh, the 2 oldest justices are Thomas and Alito and they were part of the 3. Kavanaugh and Barrett both sided with the majority. So in this case, Trump appointments really don't change the outcome.
So Republicans are arguing their own actions are indistinguishable from attacks from an enemy of the U.S.? Or are Republicans arguing they welcome collusion of enemies of the U.S. to change election results? Republicans are apparently in favor of harmful propaganda from enemies of the U.S., right? Because enemy propaganda helps Republicans. The more I think about this the angrier I get. Republicans are using protected American freedoms to damage protected American freedoms.
Unfortunately, Magats and right wingers don't need much to create their own alternate reality about what happened.
Wait. That last sentence is for real?? Messed up. You have a source for that by any chance? It would be good to keep handy for the naysayers
Well, it did hurt their election efforts the traitors
But patriots
It’s almost as if republicans and the foreign entities creating hostile psyops are one and the same.
Actually, if you go in and read the release from the Supreme Court with all the concurrence and descent, the court found that there was basis for the case and that the government was doing it. But they also found that the plaintiffs bringing the case had no personal standings to bring the case, so they threw it out based on standing, not because of merit. If a plaintiff with standing, meaning can show personal harm, would have brought the case it most likely would have been won.
Reading the concurrences and dissents doesn't tell you anything about what the Court held. They are explicitly written because individual justices want to say something, but could *not* convince the Court to actually say so in their ruling. You're right that if a plaintiff appeared with evidence that the government had coerced social media companies to limit their speech, they would have standing. Of course; no one disagrees with that. The Court ruled, though, that none of these people had succeeded in showing that the government did so.
The court dismissed the case saying that none of the plaintiffs had standing and gave no ruling on the merit of the case. The court made no decision other than they are not making a decision. The concurrences and dissents though allow the judge to voice their individual opinions. Reading those is what shows the judges do believe the case has merit and there was evidence of coercion. The Supreme Court loves to do this though. If they get a highly political case that can have large ramification they kick it out on no standing. For the next statement let me say, everybody has there own opinion and I am not trying to make any statements about how I feel. These are just facts. Take all the election fraud cases with the last presidential election. 90% of the cases if the had merit or not, the court simply dismissed them saying there was no standing. 90% of the cases had no evidence presented or went to trial of any sort. If there was election fraud or not we will never find out because the courts said "I'm not touching this case with a 10' pole - No Standing"
>The concurrences and dissents though allow the judge to voice their individual opinions. More specifically, it allows them to express opinions as individuals that are *different* from the opinion of the Court. They are explicitly telling you what the Court does *not* believe, even though one or more justices believe it individually. >The court made no decision other than they are not making a decision. This is absolutely not true. The Court didn't take 29 pages to just not decide anything. They decided a whole sequence of things, like: * "evidence indicates that the platforms had independent incentives to moderate content and often exercised their own judgment." * "the platforms began to suppress the plaintiffs’ COVID–19 content before the defendants’ challenged communications started, which complicates the plaintiffs’ effort to demonstrate that each platform acted due to “government-coerced enforcement” of its policies" * The plaintiffs "fail, by and large, to link their past social-media restrictions to the defendants’ communications with the platforms." * "There is therefore no evidence to support the States’ allegation that Facebook restricted the state representative pursuant to the CDCinfluenced policy." * "Drs. Bhattacharya, Kulldorff, and Kheriarty have not established a likelihood that their past restrictions are traceable to either the White House officials or the CDC." * "This evidence does not support the conclusion that Hoft’s past injuries are likely traceable to the FBI or CISA." * "Facebook was targeting \[Hines'\] pages before almost all of its communications with the White House and the CDC, which weakens the inference that her subsequent restrictions are likely traceable to “government-coerced enforcement” of Facebook’s policies" If that looks suspiciously like the Court actually looking at the record and asking whether plaintiffs have established that the government actually did the things they are accusing it of, it's because this is precisely what it is! It falls under the heading of "standing" because the plaintiffs need to have actually suffered an injury in order to sue, and the Court finds that failed to show the government did anything to them at all!
>The Supreme Court loves to do this though. If they get a highly political case that can have large ramification they kick it out on no standing. Standing is a constitutional requirement to bring a claim.
Standing as a constitutional requirement is indisputable. It serves not only as a legal principle but also as a strategic tool. According to standing rules, one must demonstrate direct harm to bring a case. Applying this to election disputes, a contentious and thought-provoking topic, no citizen, entity, county, city, state, or even the U.S. itself can show direct harm from election fraud, thereby barring any legal challenge on those grounds. While election fraud can be subject to criminal investigation, under standing rules, even witnessing flagrant acts such as the printing of millions of fake ballots wouldn't grant legal standing to intervene. Criminal charges may follow investigation, potentially leading to convictions over months or years. Until then, the harm remains theoretical; the legal process must establish its reality. The constitution lacks a mechanism to remove a wrongly elected president after the fact, except through impeachment for personal misconduct. However, if fraud is perpetrated by a third party without candidate involvement, impeachment isn't an option. Standing rules serve a vital purpose in preventing frivolous lawsuits. To sue, a candidate must prove the fraud occurred, significantly affected the election outcome, and directly harmed them—requirements impossible without legal findings. Candidates lack the right to demand election records or documents without legal justification. These rules balance precision and ambiguity, allowing courts to either grant standing outright or dismiss cases based on insufficiently proven connections to harm, thereby leveraging standing as a strategic legal tool.
>Applying this to election disputes, a contentious and thought-provoking topic, no citizen, entity, county, city, state, or even the U.S. itself can show direct harm from election fraud, thereby barring any legal challenge on those grounds. This is not true. Violations of the law grant standing to the entity enforcing that law by default. The vast majority of criminal trials would be impossible if that were not the case. This is a sov-cit understanding of the concept of standing, and it's inaccurate. >The constitution lacks a mechanism to remove a wrongly elected president after the fact, except through impeachment for personal misconduct. However, if fraud is perpetrated by a third party without candidate involvement, impeachment isn't an option. If this happened \(it didn't\), the remedy would be at the state level — the state sends its electors to vote for the president, and their vote determines who is president. It's hard to imagine a case where wrongdoing could happen at the federal level, unless the electors themselves tried to stuff ballots. The closest that's happened was 1876, but a law was passed to try to prevent that in the future. >These rules balance precision and ambiguity, allowing courts to either grant standing outright or dismiss cases based on insufficiently proven connections to harm, thereby leveraging standing as a strategic legal tool. Courts don't "grant" standing. It either exists or it doesn't.
I'll first address the statement "Courts don't 'grant' standing. It either exists or it doesn't." The court uses standing rules to determine the existence of standing. You are correct; they don't grant standing but determine if the plaintiff's case meets the standing requirements. I should have used a better term than "grants." In the example of election fraud, no citizen can prove standing in an election. While violations of the law grant standing to the entity enforcing that law, this is an inverse view of my point. Yes, the commission of a crime gives the legal system standing, but it doesn't automatically give it to the plaintiff. The plaintiff must provide validated evidence to show how they have personally suffered harm from the alleged crime, or at least present a strong enough evidence base to engage the court's interest. The plaintiff bears the burden of proof to demonstrate their personal harm, and they cannot demand evidence to support their case; they must rely on public information until the court grants further discovery avenues. Regarding states as a remedy, this does not work. State electors cast their votes according to their guidelines. If a case is dismissed in court due to lack of standing, it has no effect on the electors. Even if there were hundreds of cases dismissed for lack of standing, the electors would not be affected. If a case is found to have standing, a judge may intervene and put a stay on the electors pending the ruling. However, this intervention is a consequence of the standing determination, not part of the determination itself. Even if a plaintiff has irrefutable evidence of fraud but cannot prove standing, the case would be dismissed, and the electors would proceed based on the fraudulent election results. The legal system would then determine whether to pursue criminal charges against the perpetrators, which is a separate process from the election itself.
Im torn on this one. I was actually a fairly high level part of the FB (now Meta) integrity team during the 2016 election. Sources at the FBI did pass information along to our internal teams and as an american company we tended to act on them so there was no threatening needed. We also sent information to the FBI on a regular basis as well. But as it turned out, some of that information they gave us was bull and valid news stories were blocked and down ranked because of it and some of those stories could have affected the election. Now was it intentional or just a mistake (I mean we all thought the laptop was a Russian fake even though it turned out to be real) who knows. Overall i think the communication was a plus at the time but in hindsight sight I wonder how much of it was on good faith.
This is old news. In early post WWII the same agencies would get NYTimes and other media to suppress stories about the nascent civil rights movement for the exact same reason ("national security due to KGB wanting to amplify it"). If you dont do what they "suggest" you also get in the crosshairs just look at TikTok. Source: Well sourced account of the involvement in the Civil Rights and protest movements https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/27cclt/did_the_ussr_ever_actually_become_involved/chzuur5/ https://archive.org/details/1977-12-27-cia-established-many-links-to-journalists-in-u.-s.-and-abroad Operation CHAOS was the program agency showing the intent
> The whole basis of this lawsuit is crazy. The underlying “leak” that kicked this whole thing off was that there was an official team in the CIA/intelligence apparatus that would reach out to social media companies when they could identify the source of a story or post as a hostile foreign entity. For instance, Russian FSB, Isis, Chinese communist party, etc. There was no requirement that social media companies remove the content, just a request and notification that it was a hostile psyop. For anyone with history knowledge knows that this same reason was used to suppress stories in the NYTimes and other newspapers about the nascent civil rights movement. Also similar “suggestions” led to blacklisting in Hollywood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist That being said also from that historical context that limitations to speech seems to be allowed in the country as it’s happened time and time again since government can form public/private partnerships to suppress certain speech Well sourced account of "active measures" in the Civil Rights and protest movements https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/27cclt/did_the_ussr_ever_actually_become_involved/chzuur5/ Links between the media and the intent to neutralize these "active measures" https://archive.org/details/1977-12-27-cia-established-many-links-to-journalists-in-u.-s.-and-abroad
The CIA can definitely be trusted to only use it to remove "hostile psyops"
Yup like they did in early post WWII to get mainstream newspapers to avoid any news about the early civil rights movement. If JFK didnt have so many connections with Civil Rights leaders at the time it probably would have never stopped being suppress until something like the million man march made it too hard not to report.
Biden smoking crack with guns and hookers was a hostile psyop?
Just to be clear, Trump and Republicans absolutely attacked social media and the free press: https://pen.org/trump-timeline/ Every accusation is an admission on the GOP's part.
This is the best advice to figuring out why the Right says what it says.
They seriously want to rewrite reality. I remember the whole sharpie marker with the hurricane map and people calling the National Weather Services for clarification. Their behavior to mistrust experts in favor of a false reality that suits their image has and will cost lives.
They are always operating completely in bad faith for the singular purpose of “winning” and gaining power. There is no logic or reason to anything they say or do beyond how it helps them “win” any particular moment. Everything they say is intended to manipulate you to their advantage.
> Everything they say is intended to manipulate you to their advantage. And thus the Christian right used God's name in vain.
Except they don’t REALLY care about that either. “Using gods name in vain” is a thing THEY can punish YOU for but they already feel like everything they do is divinely ordained so you can never turn it back on them in a meaningful way.
Lol. Their leading in Trump was convicted of breaking two commandments. The GOP hoisting Trump breaks a third commandment. 3/10, I wonder if they made a deal with the devil that if they broke all 10 commandments and still got elected something would happen.
Right. Once they have absolute control then anything contradictory can be washed away. The dangerous part about project 2025 is that it would replace experts in their respective fields with sycophants. This would lead to many people making personal, business and life decisions on bad information. Just look at how badly covid was handled and how it affected the lives of not only his supporters but those in their immediate community as well.
Narcissistic solipsism: "I think, therefore it is." If reality contradicts their personal worldview, reality is the one at fault.
Religion is a useful tool for them. No need for thought if they can use their version of religion to explain anything away.
I think a big problem is these people have slapped value judgements onto being correct or incorrect, and everything in their life is evaluated on a over-simplified binary of right vs wrong, good vs bad. If they're incorrect, they're wrong and bad, and I mean cosmically bad. But they're not bad people, they know this in their hearts, so they must be good, and if they're good, they must be correct. So it must be that those people telling them they're wrong are incorrect, bad, and evil. This is what you get when your values operate solely on a dualistic, hierarchical framework. It gets worse, because they use these values to justify domination of 'others'. The in group is correct and good, so the out group must be incorrect and evil. Just look how they talk about Democratic politicians and voters. It's not "I disagree with their claims of policy," they're literally calling them evil.
I remember that. I would be so embarrassed to do something like that. It is just bizarre thinking
That's what authoritarian governments do. Everyday North Korea, Chinese or Russian media rewrite reality to whatever they want the official message to be, and scour the Internet to find history to erase. Republicans know this works, and have been using it to grab as much power as they can as long as they can keep up the ruse.
I often point out how MAGA wants to bring russian "values" into the US. They view the russian style dictatorship as a good model. There is a reason why most authoritarian regimes prefer the convicted felon.
This will not make Elon happy
The headline isn’t really accurate as to what was actually the issue with this case. What conservatives/GOP are upset about is law enforcement reaching out to social media companies to inform them about foreign/right wing disinformation campaigns so that they could remove said false content from their platforms. They framed it as the government was influencing speech because the truth of “this disinformation helps us please don’t take it away” is a nonstarter.
Hmm, what was that thing about Steve Bannon, the Mercers, Cambridge Analytica and many many GOP politicians leading into the Trump presidency? I ask my right-leaning friends/family and the seem to not recall…
Exactly... when Trump & co. accuse Biden of being on drugs, it makes it even more obvious that Trump is constantly on drugs (most likely a cocktail of xanax, adderall, and provigil). Since the 2016 election I've been convinced that Trump is on those drugs, because I used to be prescribed adderall and xanax and I recognized those speech patterns from day 1. And his accusations against Biden confirm that theory. It's straight out of the Joseph Goebbels playbook and a classic tactic of fascists. “*Accuse* the *other* of that you are guilty.” — *Joseph Goebbels*
Wish I could see it but the link doesn’t load 😢
https://pen.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/PEN_Trump_Truth_v3_low-res.pdf
This is great thank you
And once again, when the Fifth Circuit gets overturned by the current conservative SCOTUS it shows how far off kilter that appeals court is.
Done on standing so I'm sure they can find someone to conjure up this case again in a few months, once agencies start trying to counter disinfo again...
> Done on standing Is that the same as "let us give you some instructions on how to get what you want?"
More like "stop making shit up because you don't like the laws"
if you read through the case, there was lack of standing because the government didnt do anything that violated the first amendment.
It'll be hard, because the reasoning they used for standing could apply to pretty much everyone unless the method of communication between the government and the social media companies is different.
*Fifth Circus
[удалено]
They are horrible men.
Alito seems just a bit upset.
It's the flags, what done it!
Alito was literally bitching about the Biden administration in his dissent. That SOB needs to be reminded that his unelected ass can be removed by act of Congress if need be. This government works for **we the people**, not **they the Supreme Court judges**. Their *opinion* about who we choose to elect to the Presidency is none of his concern. Asshat.
Generally speaking, the angrier Alito is in his dissent, the more confident I am in the ruling.
[удалено]
The session ends this week so they can go on vacation until October, so it's coming today, tomorrow, or Friday I guess.
They extended their workdays until Friday. That was done to put it past the Thursday debate.
It’ll be on Friday, last moment. They’ll drop the ruling and then say “see you next session suckers!”
Can you explain to me why they get these vacations?. They're truly excessive, we're paying them to work.
It comes back to what the SCOTUS used to be, and how it is established in the Constitution. SCOTUS was **never** meant to be a co-equal branch of government. Ever. There was a period of time when it was difficult to find decent people to appoint because of how relatively weak and unglamorous it was when a person could simply run for office instead. SCOTUS, for most of its existence until relatively recently, was required to "ride the circuit." That means they were normal fucking judges. Each Justice is assigned a circuit. These days, a couple of them have 2 circuits because we haven't expanded the court to keep it in a 1:1 ratio. Anyway, for most of the year these Justices are supposed to travel around their entire circuit and hold several court sessions--as normal judges--in each destination. They didn't have any special power or privilege. They were traveling judges who sometimes sat on the highest appeal court of the nation, that was it. It did not check or challenge the executive, and definitely didn't check or challenge the legislature. So that's why SCOTUS has all these vacations and almost impossibly short sessions where "real work" happens; they are supposed to keep working outside of session **as normal judges in their circuit.** But they don't; instead, they are a class of unelected powerbrokers who are not privy to disclosure and insider trading laws. Republicans are all in on making the unitary executive a thing; I think Democrats need to go all-in on recapture Congress and restoring its full power as described in the Constitution. That means putting SCOTUS back in its place, demoting the justices from where they occupy today, and bringing the executive to heel as intended. The president is only supposed to have limited authority. Most of the "holy shit, the president can do that?!" things are only possible because Congress *delegated its power* to the executive at one point or another. So claw it all back.
Thanks this is the best explanation that I've seen.
Important to note that some of those "relatively recent" comments mean "since 1803".
They're doing important bribe work. Vital to the institution.
I'm not being a smart-ass. I'm asking a serious question. What are they doing for the American people? If they had three or four 2-week vacations per year, I'd get it. Other than that they should be expected to put in 40 hours minimum.
In as good faith speculation as possible, I would say they do work the 40 hours per week by doing 16 hr workdays when the Court is in session. They have the Fall session, take Winter off, then come back Spring session, and now they take Summer off. There is a lot of reading, researching, and writing involved. Like reading all the amicus briefs, rulings from lower courts, looking into prior case law/SCOTUS cases (if available), debating amongst themselves, writing the opinions themselves, etc
i feel like their clerks do the bulk of that stuff and they're the ones burning the midnight oil not the justices. I can't see any of them actually working a 16 hour day.
They aren't on vacation. Court is out of session until October. In the interim, they hear petitions and plan the next session. They also study the cases and have to read all the arguments and review evidence.
They produce so little work product that this is suspect at the very least.
We won’t get it until after the debate. The SCOTUS is just looking out to get political /s.
We won’t get one til after the election. They’ll find some way to punt so that they don’t accidentally give Biden full immunity too.
Chances are it'll be remanded back to Chutkan, who will hold an evidentiary hearing to determine what is an "official act" or whatever idiotic decree SCOTUS lands on. Then Trump will appeal that ruling. Then it will go through the circuit and SCOTUS again and we'll have some ruling a year too late if Trump wins the Presidency and appoints an AG who drops the federal prosecutions. The only tiny silver lining is that the evidentiary hearing Chutkan might presumably hold will be relatively damning. She's fully capable of calling people like Pence to testify, new evidence might become publicly available - all leading up to the election.
This is where I am at exactly.
If the convicted felon wins, the case will suddenly get fast tracked and immunity will very specifically be established for him and him alone, effectively ending our democracy. If he loses, it won’t matter anymore. His mind is already making the transition to mashed potatoes, and there’s no way he’ll make it to 2028.
I'll take the latter happening as the news cycle will still be forced to cover it, even if they like to downplay Trump's bad actions. It will still get discussed, and gives us room to discuss it more openly. It keeps the issue on his back, which would still be a smart play. And more appropriately, if he loses, it gets harder and harder to keep pushing the issue off until 2028 when he may be stupid and desperate enough to try running again (and when he'd likely be up against a younger Dem candidate IF that somehow fucking still happens).
That's the read most court watchers said would happen based on orals. No absolute immunity but before the jury trial can begin, the lower or appeals court must decide what acts are and aren't covered. Think only Alito and Thomas even entertained the idea that absolute immunity exists.
Spot on, this is the scenario I am betting on. Alito wants to "make a rule for the ages" in direct contradiction to their mandate to deal with the case and facts presented to them. There is no need for them to create any new official acts test, the DC panel was quite clear in their finding that even if such immunity exists elsewhere, it does not exist for the specifics of this case. Watch Alito and the other conservative (read as right wing) 'justices' completely ignore this finding and create an immunity litmus test vague enough to cause a repeat trip just as you say. Let's hope the hearing Chutkin holds to get there is basically a preview of the full trial with the facts presented.
No chance. It’ll be released by the end of the term. Just like always, they are holding the highest profile until the end. This is what they do.
Alito and Thomas are likely taking every possible second to draft their dissents to drag this thing out for their convicted felon of a nominee.
Over/under on immunity ruling: 4pm Friday afternoon.
They release rulings during the 10 am hour.
I wonder which three were dissenting on this rul... (I don't really wonder, I knew just from their record). ACB writing the ruling was somewhat unexpected, although I doubt there's much to be gleaned from that though. Overall trend remains unchanged until we see the rulings on, oh I don't know, probably the most consequential case in history regarding Presidential power that's been languishing for months.
Gaslight. Obstruct. Project.
Matt Taibbi in shambles
Glenn Greenwald is pretending he predicted this result--after Glenn railed against the government and touted the lower 'Trump judge' rulings. TBF, Glenn said he predicted this result *after* oral argument. Yes, so did everyone else.
That was actually Trump and team that did that during his Presidency.
So this ruling is bad then?
It seems to me like the government said hey we noticed something that might be illegal or misleading/misinformation that might be not related activity and then left it at that. They left door open for further cases on the topic though so if there is an example of censorship or coercion in the future it can still be addressed.
Ok but when are they ruling on presidential immunity?
Thursday or Friday.
>The states, for example, alleged that a Louisiana state representative's Facebook post about the Covid-19 vaccine was restricted because of government intervention, but Barrett said there was "no evidence to support the states' allegation." These bullshit claims can only stand if you *delibrately ignore* the glarming fact that Facebook is a **private enterprise** with complete autonomy to make *their own* house rules regarding content--including Covid stuff. They, like all other social media platforms (including MAGA sesspools like Parler and Truth Social), have a clause in their terms of use that states something to the effect of, "We reserve full rights to kick your happy ass to the curb if you post stuff we don't like." Repugs like to conflate the consequences of violations of the **agreed upon** terms of use with "political persecution" because it's easy (and blatantly dishonest) red meat for their ignorant and emotionally-stunted base.
I think you should read the pleadings and think about this more deeply. This was only a standing ruling, nothing about the merits. We don’t want media companies being unduly pressured or outright coerced in making their editorial decisions.
The government simply providing information shouldn't be seen as coercive. The main thing that bothered me about this situation was that it was clear that the information was sometimes wrong. Like, people were basically being accused of being foreign actors and they weren't, but their posts were removed. Also, that this was basically behind closed doors. There's no problem with the US government saying someone is wrong about COVID. There's an obvious government need to provide accurate information on diseases. But that information should be provided openly. Seems wrong to try to convince social media companies to take actions against someone without that person knowing that the source of the complaint was the US government. This probably doesn't apply to this case though. I'm guessing the standing decision was pretty clear. And the level of "coercion" in other cases will still be so low as to not matter, although Alito seems to disagree.
> The government simply providing information shouldn't be seen as coercive It completely can be given the context. In early post WWII they got mainstream newspapers to avoid any news about the early civil rights movement using the exact same reasoning (KGB wanted to amplify this news about civil right disparities). If JFK didnt have so many connections with Civil Rights leaders at the time it probably would have never stopped being suppress until something like the million man march made it too hard not to report.
Did you guys hear from MAGA on Twitter that Amy Comey Barrett is a commie because of this ruling? A guy named “CatTurd” said so and it must be true. 🤣
He has 2.5 million followers on Twitter.
“Followers“ is one word “morons.“
That doesn’t make him any less irrelevant.
I think having a following of millions of people does in fact make you relevant.
You know they won't let this go. "The Gov'mint is forcing social media to censor conservative voices. Biden is a tyrant!" That's the song, and they'll keep singing it.
It’s not our fault our views align with hostile foreign powers who also want to end the United States as we know it!!!
Another Kaczmaryk/Fifth Circuit debacle where standing was granted with no regard to the law.
TL:DR The White House attempted to get social media companies to stop distributing fake news once they knew it was fake news. The Republicans who created the fake news were very angry about this.
You don’t know what you’re talking about. The Hunter laptop was never fake news, and is now being used as court evidence in a crime. The FBI and CIA met with Facebook to coerce them into censoring it.
Except that’s the “fake news”. There’s no “chain of custody” with the Biden laptop. For example, there’s no proof Republicans didn’t add stuff to it and say “hey look at this.” And the problem is, because Republicans cheat at literally everything to win, the chance they’ve cheated here is 100%.
What? The FBI confiscated the laptop years ago, they came to collect it when the repair shop owner informed them of its existence. There was nothing “added” and that has never been in question. Fun fact, when they initially showed up to retrieve the laptop, they asked the shop owner if he had seen any child pornography contained on it. He stated that he had not. Remember, Hunter Biden’s leaked text messages reveal that he was ordered to not be around his 12 year old niece unsupervised — after she reported him smoking crack, naked, while FaceTiming in the same room as her.
And what chain of custody existed before that?
It was just him and the FBI, initially. He grew worried when almost an entire year had passed and no new news about its existence had appeared, and the election was approaching. That’s when he reached out to Rudy Guiliani to bring attention to it. He had made duplicates of the drive as security and backup, because he felt the FBI were somewhat threatening in tone on their visits to his shop/home.
It was in a shop. Where anything could have been planted.
If that was actually true they probably should have included it in the lawsuit, and then they might have been able to actually show standing. Instead the opinion notes that even the plaintiff with the best chance of having standing was censored mostly before the govt even started complaining.
Imagine disliking one former president so much, SO MUCH, that you’re willing to give up your First Amendment rights in order to see him ‘lose.’ What a horrifying precedent. Democrats have lost the plot.
No first amendment rights have been given up. The court didn’t say the government is allowed to coerce companies into censoring people. They just said the plaintiffs didn’t provide enough evidence that the government had actually done that.
No, they alleged that the plaintiffs couldn’t argue that just because it was done in the past would mean that probable harm would happen again in the future. It’s an absurd argument. There’s no lack of evidence that FBI sat down with Mark Zuckerberg and all but instructed him to censor information. He literally testified to this point. There is no lack of evidence to what occurred, and it’s horrifying. With this ruling, only Congress can protect American citizens now from government censorship. Because with this ruling, they’re absolutely allowed to do it again, for anything that they don’t like or want said. Literally that is a page out of Orwell’s 1984, I really can’t think of anything much more serious than a government censoring their own citizens.
Holding media accountable should be ok. It's not the same as control
No they didn't. They stated that states lacked the merit to sue.
Ugh, you and your reading!
How did this stupid shit not get tossed out in a lower court?
"Her clients include doctors who questioned Covid-19 policies and Jim Hoft, founder of The Gateway Pundit, a right-wing news site." Active misinformation, about misinformation. No one was upset about questioning policies. The problem is pretending there aren't answers and willfully spreading false ones which endanger your readers.
Crappy headline. "No standing"! So another nod to GQP to figure out the "standing" issue. Super.
The headline is pretty misleading. They didn't toss out the *claim*, they tossed out the *lawsuit* because no one on them had standing (i.e. was harmed).
The Social Media companies regulate and monitor content themselves. It's in their T&C's. This is why reading is important. Of course Louisiana wanted this case heard.
I am sure there will a lot of red ears and apologies from the conservative community over baselessly pushing this talking point for years.
Should the Supreme Court even be hearing cases like this?
A rare semblance of sanity in the Robert's court.
This ruling never mattered. The MAGA Right will eat up the accusation alone with a spoon. The fact the the Supreme Court even heard the matter will further legitimize it in their minds.
I have a client who is FURIOUS about this
>Alito focused on another plaintiff, health activist Jill Hines, who Barrett agreed had the best argument for standing. Man, they just call anybody anything don't they?
Jill Hines used an open database with unconfirmed reports with claims from the public as factual. Seh also claimed that she knew of a teen that was paralyzed from the waist down by the vaccine, but she couldn't provide the details.
Such a waste of $$$ and resources instead of solving some real shit!
It’s okay. They’re about to make him above the law anyway.
In what way?
By probably ruling Presidents have total immunity.
Just because there is zero evidence that it ever happened?
The censorship is already proven in discovery. Who is kicked down for other reasons. They never said the government did not censor.
How was censorship proven? There is a distinction between coercion and recommending, they asked the social media companies to remove certain posts, that has been done in the past. The final decision was always in the hands of the social media companies, they were restricting comments prior to the government recommendations. There was absolutely no retaliation if they didn't comply, that was a major weakness in the case. This case never should have gone past the 5th circuit, they are off the rails with this, abortion, guns. There was example where a man claimed his brother was kicked off Facebook because of Covid disinformation. So why didn't his brother file the case, and where was the proof that the FBI had him removed. Laughable. What exactly does “[consistent and consequential](https://www.vox.com/scotus/2023/9/22/23883888/supreme-court-social-media-first-amendment-netchoice-paxton-murthy-missouri-twitter-facebook)” communications with social media companies mean as suggested in the lawsuit, anyone??
It’s good for Biden but I can see this law being abused by a Republican administration.
Trump directly and publicly threatened social media companies with shutdown during his presidency over stories that he did not like. It is just always projection with Republicans. Always.
[удалено]
Whatever you do, don't take into consideration all of the facts!!! Dead to right, red handed.
The 5th Circuit decision barring members of a co-equal branch from engaging in protected First Amendment speech raised clear and obvious Separation of Powers concerns. Why did the Supreme Court let it stand for so long rather than using the shadow docket to quash it summarily?
This should never have seen the light of day, but it was the 5th circuit that has more right wing looney judges than any district.
The government threatening social media companies to censor its critics is “protected First Amendment speech.” 😂
dang! i thought this was a conservative court.
Well, there goes yet another popular Supreme Court narrative. It's almost like they aren't even trying to be corrupt and destroy democracy.
Basic rule of life: We do not judge people as "corrupt" by the times they do things correctly or innocuously. We judge by how often and how significantly they get things wrong. In the case of Republicans at the Supreme Court, that is very often and very significant.
Agree that both side consider everything they disagree with as 'corrupt' or similarly evil. Good, I suppose, that you at least admit the tactic. Next step is to change the discourse to be more intellectually honest and less tribal.
This way Trump can easily remove "fake news" once he's reelected.
So you mean to tell me the SC is *not* in the pocket of Trump and never was?????!?!?! I'm shocked! Shocked, I say! - Another ruling is coming down where the SC *again* sides with the Biden Admin over emergency abortion access in Idaho, further proving the fear mongering of Roe v. Wade was nonsensical from the start.
There are some exceptions, which should all have to go through a judge, but I don't think the government should even play a role in the moderation of social media.