Judge Says White House Can’t Get Out Of Lawsuit Over Pressuring Social Media To Moderate
from the bad-things-afoot dept
Well, this is unfortunate. Back in May of last year we wrote about how Missouri and Louisiana had sued the Biden administration, claiming “censorship” over social media based on a bunch of convoluted and nonsensical claims, most of which were about events that happened during the Trump administration.
We noted that, when viewed in the most forgiving light, the best we could make of the ridiculously poorly plead account was that they were trying to make a jawboning argument, saying that some of the administrations comments (mostly about reforming or repealing Section 230) acted as a de facto threat to social media to get those companies to silence speech. As we’ve gone into great detail about before, the Biden administration has, at times, gone stupidly close to the 1st Amendment line, but we hadn’t seen how they’d gone past it. And the initial complaint was so poorly done, and so focused on being a political document (it was brought by then Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt, who happily used it to grandstand on his way to being elected a US Senator last year, which is his current job), that it didn’t come close to making this argument coherently.
Also, what’s weird about the argument is that Republicans over the last few years have been angrier about Section 230, and have been louder about their threats to repeal it.
Even worse, many of the examples the complaint claimed were proof of “censorship” by the Biden administration were issues like the false claims that it tried to censor the story about the Hunter Biden laptop (which even the Twitter Files confirmed was not blocked by Twitter on behalf of any request from either the government or the Biden campaign, which wasn’t even the government anyway). The complaint also talked about Twitter’s decision to block sharing regarding the (now considered more credible) “lab leak” theory, though again, that happened during the Trump administration, not the Biden one. (Update: it turns out this argument is even dumber than I thought since it was Facebook, not Twitter who banned discussions about a “lab leak” theory).
Throughout the Fall last year, then AG/Senatorial candidate Schmitt used the case to release extremely misleading and misrepresented documents to bolster the still unproven claim of the Biden administration conspiring with social media companies to silence speech. Indeed some journalists even fell for it.
Still, as more and more papers were filed in the case, which now has a docket with well over 200 entries, it meant that perhaps the states would be able to drag the case out. And… that’s exactly what’s happened.
The district court judge, Terry Doughty, a Trump-appointed judge who somewhat famously blocked President Biden’s COVID vaccine mandate for healthcare workers, has now written a bonkers, ridiculous, laughable ruling that basically would represent a massive change in 1st Amendment doctrine if allowed to stand.
The ruling starts out badly, and then gets progressively more unhinged, taking conspiracy theories and nonsense claims that have been rejected in basically every other court, and saying “yup, sure, that sounds reasonable.”
Much of the ruling focuses on whether or not the two states even have standing to bring these claims. The court says they do, because they have “adequately” argued “injury-in-fact.” The reasons why are, frankly, boring and not worth getting into. This is also true of a few private plaintiffs who are involved in the lawsuit: in this case some well known peddlers of misleading information who were banned from Twitter, which they insist happened because of the Biden administration.
The White House pointed out (reasonably) that those still don’t qualify for standing because Twitter’s private moderation actions are not traceable to the White House because the White House had nothing to do with them. Here, the court gets, well, stupid. The judge more or less accepts conspiracy theory nonsense that the White House pressured Twitter to silence voices:
Here, however, Plaintiffs have alleged the full picture: a cohesive and coercive campaign by the Biden Administration and all of the Agency Defendants to threaten and persuade social media companies to more avidly censor so-called “misinformation.” Thus, while the Changizi plaintiffs may have left gaps in their pleadings, Plaintiffs in the current case have not. Plaintiffs have alleged, as described in detail above, a “ramping up” in censorship that directly coincides with the deboosting, shadow-banning, and account suspensions that are the subject of the Amended Complaint. And these are not mere generalizations: Plaintiffs made specific allegations showing a link between Defendants’ statements and the social-media companies’ censorship activities. While Plaintiffs acknowledge that some censorship existed before Defendants made the statements that are the subject of this case, they also allege in detail an increase in censorship, which is tied temporally to the Defendants’ actions. Thus, Plaintiffs here provide the allegations that may have been missing in the Changizi complaint.
Further, the Defendants’ reliance on Hart v. Facebook Inc., No. 22-CV-00737-CRB, 2022 WL 1427507 (N.D. Cal. May 5, 2022), is also misplaced. As in the above cases, the plaintiffs in Hart sought redress for censorship of their viewpoints on social-media platforms like Twitter and Facebook. However, the Hart court found that the plaintiff’s allegations were simply too “vague” and “implausible” to fairly connect the government officials to the actions of the social-media companies. Id. at 5. But as this Court has repeatedly noted, Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint simply cannot be characterized as “vague.” Instead, Plaintiffs have carefully laid out the alleged scheme of censorship and how Defendants are specifically connected to and involved with it.
This reads like motivated reasoning by a judge very, very interested in justifying a result rather than showing any actual coercion.
Having said that the plaintiffs have standing, the court moves on to the 1st Amendment claims, and in a move not surprising given what’s said above, suggests that they’re legit. But does so in a weird way. After first running through the various precedents regarding jawboning, including the very recent 9th Circuit ruling that said government flagging content to Twitter is not coercive, Judge Doughty says the Biden administration’s public statements, which included no actual threats or hints at threats, were coercive!
Here, Plaintiffs have clearly alleged that Defendants attempted to convince social-media companies to censor certain viewpoints. For example, Plaintiffs allege that Psaki demanded the censorship of the “Disinformation Dozen” and publicly demanded faster censorship of “harmful posts” on Facebook. Further, the Complaint alleges threats, some thinly veiled and some blatant, made by Defendants in an attempt to effectuate its censorship program. One such alleged threat is that the Surgeon General issued a formal “Request for Information” to social-media platforms as an implied threat of future regulation to pressure them to increase censorship. Another alleged threat is the DHS’s publishing of repeated terrorism advisory bulletins indicating that “misinformation” and “disinformation” on social-media platforms are “domestic terror threats.” While not a direct threat, equating failure to comply with censorship demands as enabling acts of domestic terrorism through repeated official advisory bulletins is certainly an action social-media companies would not lightly disregard. Moreover, the Complaint contains over 100 paragraphs of allegations detailing “significant encouragement” in private (i.e., “covert”) communications between Defendants and social-media platforms.
The Complaint further alleges threats that far exceed, in both number and coercive power, the threats at issue in the above-mentioned cases. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege and link threats of official government action in the form of threats of antitrust legislation and/or enforcement and calls to amend or repeal Section 230 of the CDA with calls for more aggressive censorship and suppression of speakers and viewpoints that government officials disfavor. The Complaint even alleges, almost directly on point with the threats in Carlin and Backpage, that President Biden threatened civil liability and criminal prosecution against Mark Zuckerburg if Facebook did not increase censorship of political speech. The Court finds that the Complaint alleges significant encouragement and coercion that converts the otherwise private conduct of censorship on social media platforms into state action, and is unpersuaded by Defendants’ arguments to the contrary.
Again, at the time we noted that much of what the administration said was stupid, and they should stop their jawboning. But Judge Doughty’s reading of it as coercive seems… bizarrely wrong. I mean, if that’s accurate, then how do we judge Donald Trump’s much more aggressive threats to repeal Section 230 if social media websites didn’t moderate the way he wanted to?
The Biden Administration notes that none of their public statements about disinformation included anything anywhere near a threat, but the judge doesn’t care.
Defendants argue that Plaintiffs allege only “isolated episodes in which federal officials engaged in rhetoric about misinformation on social media platforms” and that the Complaint is “devoid” of any “enforceable threat” to “prosecute.” Further, they argue that it “is unclear how the alleged comments about amending [Section 230 of the CDA] or bringing antitrust suits could be viewed as ‘threats’ given that no Defendant could unilaterally take such actions.” The Court is unpersuaded by these arguments for several reasons. First, as explained above, any suggestion that a threat must be enforceable in order to constitute coercive state action is clearly contradicted by the overwhelming weight of authority. Moreover, the Complaint alleges that the threats became more forceful once the Biden Administrative took office and gained control of both Houses of Congress, indicating that the Defendants could take such actions with the help of political allies in Congress. Additionally, the Attorney General, a position appointed by and removable by the President, could, through the DOJ, unilaterally institute antitrust actions against social-media companies.
Again, this seems almost certainly backwards as a matter of precedent. And, if it’s accurate, I can’t wait to see how these same courts judge cases in the next GOP administration that will almost certainly go much, much further.
The ruling then gets even dumber. Despite every other court laughing away any claim that seeks to make social media companies like Twitter “state actors,” here the Court says that in this case, there is “joint action” that makes them state actors. This is again, simply wrong. It’s backwards. It’s silly. Again, the judge points to the recent 9th Circuit case that gets it right, and says “but this is different because I say so.”
Recently, in O’Handley, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found no joint action where government officials flagged certain tweets as misinformation. There, the plaintiff alleged the “conspiracy approach” to joint action which requires “the plaintiff to show a ‘meeting of the minds’ between the government and the private party to ‘violate constitutional rights.’” 2023 WL 2443073, at *7 (quoting Fonda v. Gray, 707 F.2d 435, 438 (9th Cir. 1983)). The court noted that, because the “only alleged interactions are communications between the OEC and Twitter in which the OEC flagged for Twitter’s review posts that potentially violated the company’s content-moderation policy,” the plaintiff “allege[d] no facts plausibly suggesting either that the OEC interjected itself into the company’s internal decisions to limit access to his tweets and suspend his account or that the State played any role in drafting Twitter’s Civic Integrity Policy.” Id. at *8. The court described the relationship between the state officials and Twitter as a permissible “arms-length” relationship. Id. at *8 (citing Mathis v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., 75 F.3d 498 (9th Cir. 1996)). For the reasons explained below, the allegations here are distinguishable from those in O’Handley.
Here, Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged joint action, entwinement, and/or that specific features of Defendants’ actions combined to create state action. For example, the Complaint alleges that “[o]nce in control of the Executive Branch, Defendants promptly capitalized on these threats by pressuring, cajoling, and openly colluding with social-media companies to actively suppress particular disfavored speakers and viewpoints on social media.” Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that Dr. Fauci, other CDC officials, officials of the Census Bureau, CISA, officials at HHS, the state department, and members of the FBI actively and directly coordinated with social-media companies to push, flag, and encourage censorship of posts the Government deemed “Mis, Dis, or Malinformation.”
These allegations, unlike those in O’Handley, demonstrate more than an “arms-length” relationship. Plaintiffs allege a formal government-created system for federal officials to influence social-media censorship decisions. For example, the Complaint alleges that federal officials set up a long series of formal meetings to discuss censorship, setting up privileged reporting channels to demand censorship, and funding and establishing federal-private partnership to procure censorship of disfavored viewpoints. The Complaint clearly alleges that Defendants specifically authorized and approved the actions of the social-media companies and gives dozens of examples where Defendants dictated specific censorship decisions to social-media platforms. These allegations are a far cry from the complained-of action in O’Handley: a single message from an unidentified member of a state agency to Twitter.
I mean, basically all of that is wrong. The discussions were not coordinating “censorship.” But, among the crowd of fools that are pushing this nonsense, it’s now taken as fact. Gullible fools suckered in by their own disinformation.
There’s also a lot of complete nonsense about Section 230 in the ruling, including this:
Plaintiffs’ injuries could be redressed by enjoining Defendants from engaging in the above-discussed “other factors” that have twisted Section 230 into a catalyst for government-sponsored censorship
But that makes a huge false assumption that Section 230 has been “a catalyst for government-sponsored censorship,” which remains not shown anywhere.
The judge also makes a hop, skip, and logical mental leap, to claim that because Twitter (a private company) engaged its own private property rights to remove certain content that it felt violated its rules… this is prior restraint:
Because Plaintiffs allege that Defendants are targeting particular views taken by speakers on a specific subject, they have alleged a clear violation of the First Amendment, i.e., viewpoint discrimination. Moreover, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants, by placing bans, shadow-bans, and other forms of restrictions on Plaintiffs’ social-media accounts, are engaged in de facto prior restraints, another clear violation of the First Amendment. Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged their First Amendment claims.
I mean, under this kind of ruling, any government would have massive, unchecked power to force any private property owner to host any speech they want, by publicly complaining about the content, because according to this judge, at that point, if the website chooses to moderate that speech, it must be because of state action.
That’s ridiculous.
The only part of the motion to dismiss that’s granted is a very narrow part requesting an injunction directly against President Biden. But everything else targeting the administration is allowed to stand. Of course, any appeal out of this court will go up to the 5th Circuit, which is somewhat famous for its motivated reasoning in cases like these. So there’s a decent chance this ruling stands.
Again, the White House never should have said what it said and shouldn’t have even suggested it was telling social media companies how to moderate. And I’m now doubly furious because if they’d just shut the fuck up, we wouldn’t have this terrible ruling on the books. But, now we do.
Of course, it’ll be fun when there’s another Trump or DeSantis administration and they find out they’re bound by the same rules, and merely commenting on content moderation choices is seen as coercive…
Filed Under: 1st amendment, biden administration, content moderation, jawboning, joe biden, louisiana, missouri, prior restraint, section 230, state action, terry doughty
Companies: twitter
Comments on “Judge Says White House Can’t Get Out Of Lawsuit Over Pressuring Social Media To Moderate”
help us if there is a Trump or DeSantis admin. The US would basically become Gilead.
Under his eye.
I’m like 83% certain (and 100% grossed out) over the fact that Matthew Bennett probably got a boner reading that Judge’s decision.
Re:
I highly doubt he can ever get one.
Why do you think he spends so much time hate reading and rage posting at this site?
If this goes forward discovery will be quite interesting because then we will most likely get to see everything not in the Twitter files.
Re:
Considering that the Twitter files were supposed to be a bomb-like exposé into what Twitter did behind the scenes and turned out to be a complete wash, there probably won’t be anything more interesting to be found in discovery.
Re: Re:
Not necessarily. The Twitter Files were released with the intent to paint the previous Twitter employees and Democrats as censorious or incompetent and to support conspiracy theories from Musk and his right wing snuggle buddies. It’s possible they declined to release examples of conduct or communications that specifically showed previous Twitter employees or Democrats in a positive light.
Re:
To be clear: most things found in discovery are not revealed to the public. Discovery is not what the public perception of it often is…
Re: Re:
I’m fully aware of that fact. Perhaps I should have phrased it differently and said that what is found in discovery tend to be aired in court.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
…only because it is boring and not relevant to the case. That which is relevant to public case and is submitted into evidence sure as hell winds up being public.
Re: Re: Re:
Always there to interject his $0.02 into the conversation, no matter what the topic, and no matter how mundane his comment is.
If this is how you are in real life, no wonder you spend so much time fucking around here. And it sure does explain your little boner for Twitter’s new management. No more timeouts for being an asshole is a victory for you and the other sphincters, I’m sure.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
….you didn’t even say anything. Amazing.
Re: Re: Re:3
If that’s what you got out of it, great.
Now extrapolate that to yourself and you’ve got a plan to move forward.
Asshole.
Reality: “I have dozens of court decisions based on fact and law that say you’re full of shit, and I have one crackpot that agrees with you.”
Bratty Matty: (Seizes on the one Louisiana decision) “Hah, I knew it!”
Re:
He really is the human version of confirmation bias.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
This is actually the only case I know of that deals with the “Censorship Industrial Complex” which at the time of it’s filing was really only starting to be revealed. The O’Handley case dealt with a matter analogous to a small part of that, but as the judge points out was much more limited. (also wrongly decided)
Anyway, no idea where you’re getting “dozens” from.
I think what the case alleges and the judge wrote in allowing it is exactly true, yes.
Go ahead, reply “fact not in evidence” or “said no one not on hallucinogens” like the gibbering monkey you are.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
I really don't know what you don't get.
You’re legally wrong, gov is not allowed to direct censorship. That’s it.
You’re also misrepresenting the facts of the case, the legal rulings, and the evidence on offer in this meandering babble of an article. I’m particularly amused how every court that ever disagrees with you is silly and wrong and the one court who agrees with you hyperbolically virtuous.
BTW, since you’re unclear on it, this case is in the 5th circuit and not bound by the 9th’s (pretty crazy) precedent.
Incorrect. Yeah, I know you wrote a whole article about it, that was dumb and wrong too. And since you’re wrong in the specific instance, I can only assume you’re wrong in general on the other examples.
Oh, an elected AG makes a politically based legal move? I notice you never mention when a democratic AG does similar.
Except for the white house and various agencies it controls being directly in contact with Twitter weekly.
Why? This is your bias showing.
One court, really, the ninth. And almost certainly to be overturned. You’re probably also referring to other cases that are only dimly related to this, too, you FUD like that. Also, there’s been a whole lot of new evidence since of exactly that since.
Yes, that seems accurate. At least half the country is alleging that, too.
Well, yeah, because they were being told what to remove by gov agencies, both in specific cases but also in general, i.e. “Misinformation”
Here you’re just lying. It’s something you’ve asserted often without proof. You literally have no evidence that that is true. There is however a great deal of evidence that they WERE coordinating censorship in those meetings. Basically the only thing we’re missing is meeting minutes/recording (probably doesn’t exist) or direct witness testimony, which hey, this case might produce.
Also:
Well that’s not fucking true, you walnut. You’re purposefully trying to conflate two aspects of the case 1) Willful coordination with SM companies to censor 2) public statements that could be construed as a threat, which corroborates the first, much more important point.
I mean cute, trying to pretend this about public statements rather than “…setting up privileged reporting channels to demand censorship, and funding and establishing federal-private partnership to procure censorship of disfavored viewpoints” which I think is an entirely accurate description. But you can’t possibly be that deluded, meaning you’re lying, on purpose.
It’s really not hard: Don’t attempt censorship by proxy. Gov has no business even suggesting to media companies of any type what should be allowed.
Yeah man, should I listen to Masnick spending … damn, 2500 words, attempting to twist, distort and lie about a case that clearly shows why everything he’s claiming is wrong, or my own lying eyes?
Re:
For him to be wrong about that, he’d have to claim that the government is allowed to direct censorship. But he hasn’t, so he’s not.
I don’t think it’s so much your eyes that are lying to you, as it is your brain.
As for the rest of your 672 word essay, it’s just the usual gobbledygook.
Re:
TLDR;
Suck a fart out of my asshole!
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Oh, you got me, really argued on the merits
Re: Re: Re:
Hitchens’s razor.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
I’d suggest that, instead of refusing to read things considered “too long”, one might actually read such things instead of TLDRing. Then one might be able to marshal a more useful response. Or at least a less useless one than a fart reference.
Based on the rather stupid responses (on trend for far-wingers) to MTB here and above, one can only assume the “+1 army” will continue to bully in the hopes that enough hateful rhetoric will win the argument.
MTB has a couple of good points (especially about the last paragraph subject switcheroo), but ultimately is unpersuasive as to the merits.
While discovery would be helpful to have a complete picture of the facts, there needs to be just a little bit more to go on. Twitter didn’t always follow the prompting and sometimes blessedly pushed back (internally, it appears) without consequence which to my mind fatally weakens the “by proxy” argument. Yes, it’s bad that Twitter listened at all to anything the State said regarding speech, but censorship can’t be shown with the known evidence.
If they only had been loud and proud about their First Amendment rights and perhaps publicly ridiculed the government’s requests I might even have had respect for them!
While I wish Masnick would show greater contempt (contempt being Techdirt’s default rhetorical mode) for the USG’s just-this-short-of-the-censorship-line behavior, he is a default lefty and can usually be seen to downplay the poor behavior of those on his “team” and exaggerate in a most heated way the poor behavior (sometimes imagined and sometimes obvious) of those of the other side. In this, MTB is quite correct.
I can imagine the long essay that would have been written by Masnick if executive-branch righties had done to Twitter exactly what the opposing lefties have done, and calm and accepting it isn’t. The Techdirt Sycophant Chorus would likely provide some of the most vile contempt that ever dripped from tooth and claw. Brief in the main and barbarous as usual, of course.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
Thank you for your thoughtful response, if someone refers to me by initials, it’s usually MMB.
Yes, exactly. There are grey areas to be argued here but Masnick’s coverage is hyperbolic and extremely biased. We all know he’d take the exact opposite tack were the teams reversed. (as he did in the one, limited case Trump has been shown to do the same thing)
That’s….just not useful. It’s not “analysis” or explaining anything. (ironically since he so often says “as I’ve explained”) It’s just ranting or defensive gaslighting based on the (R) or (D) next to someone’s name.
Re:
💩
Re:
The article says exactly that. Thanks for proving you didn’t even read it. As if we needed more proof.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
You quoted the wrong bit, dumbass.
Re: Re: Re:
You said Mike was unclear on it. He’s clearly not, since he directly said as much.
If you’re claiming I should have quoted the part about how 9th Circuit holds no precedent, that’s meaningless, as I don’t see anywhere Mike suggested 9th Circuit precedent applies. Perhaps I missed it? Either way, the judge in the case, sure seems focused on acting as if it does, because he does not disagree with it, or say it’s a different circuit. Rather he seeks to distinguish the case.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
Yeah, he was suggesting the Ninth is a precedent.
No, it isn’t a precedent. Doesn’t keep the judge from referencing the other case. He was actually thowing shade at the other case, but these things are subtle.
I really don’t care if you get it or not.
Re: Re: Re:3
Where? The only time he mentions it is in talking about how the judge referenced it.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
We’ve established your reading comp isn’t great.
Re: Re: Re:5
Sorry. I forgot your allergic reaction to being asked to prove your assertions.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
on fucking what?!?
Re:
We get it, you’re a paranoid, anti-government crackpot who sees dastardly intent in literally every government action. Every word from them is a powerful threat, despite a complete lack of actual punishment for disobedience. For such a supposedly powerful, coercive force they seem to be pretty ineffective at actually achieving censorship.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
If you aren’t that, you haven’t read enough history books.
There was that, yes.
They got lots of prominent people shadowbanned. Probably way more meaningful than their ban-lists. But I don’t really care how successful they were, I cared that they tried.
It’s sorta like defending cops shooting people who flinched too much because they are bad shots. I don’t care, they shouldn’t have shot.
said no one not on hallucinogens
The hallucinogens I take are what make assholes like you tolerable.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
Toom1275? Is that you?
I know, being proven wrong is tough.
Re: Re:
It’s your father. I should’ve pulled out.
Re: Re:
Why is it always projection with you fuckers.
I have proven you wrong over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again… and again some more….
Have you ever admitted it? Nope. Not Once.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
Yeah yeah “projection blah blah”.
Someone please make a real argument, anywhere, I’m begging you.
Re: Re: Re:2
You make the best argument for keeping abortion legal.
Re: Re:
And what do you do when proven to be wrong time after time and pinned in a corner? Throw a petulant childish hissy fit and start getting nasty and swearing and generally showing your 13 year old emotional mentality.
When hypocrisy might as well be an official pillar of your political party...
Of course, it’ll be fun when there’s another Trump or DeSantis administration and they find out they’re bound by the same rules, and merely commenting on content moderation choices is seen as coercive…
You’d think so but you’re also assuming they wouldn’t just flip their own argument/rulings on their head, declaring that the same act that they were roundly condemning mere moments ago are now entirely legal and will remain that way so long as their guy is in power.
Legal precedent and intellectual consistency only matter when the ones involved value either and modern conservatives in the US have shown nothing but contempt for both.
Right, the ever-popular “my claims are equal to facts” has branched out to “my claims with no evidence are plausibly alleged”.
Re: standard on M2D
Actually, that is a pretty good summary of the standard in court. To survive a motion to dismiss, you offer claims which are plausibly alleged. You do not generally need to offer evidence in your complaint.
Once the other side answers, denying your plausibly alleged facts, then you will need to come forward with some evidence. But that is later, and plausible allegations are sufficient to get past the motion to dismiss.
See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009); Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007).
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Right. When there’s a motion to dismiss, the court treats the other side’s allegations as if they are true, and will dismiss the case only if, given that, they still could not win based on the law.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Note that this is just a denial of a motion to dismiss. That means that the case gets to be tried on its merits, and all of the section 230 and 1st Amendment issues will be adjudicated there. Not only is the sky not falling, it’s not even cracked.
Can we now agree that while the founding fathers had some foresight in trying to stop bad actors from using the government to bludgeon people that they never considered the people would elect someone who literally didn’t understand the job & would appoint the worst possible people for jobs simply because they kneeled and kissed his ring?
Re:
Pretty sure they considered it, shrugged, and said “There’s not really a lot we can do, aside from making sure it doesn’t happen in our lifetime, and that our children understand the importance of civics.” They weren’t all-powerful, and those who think they can make something truly foolproof have underestimated the capacity of fools.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
No? The government is trying to bludgeon people. The judge is allowing a suit to put a stop to it and keep it from happening again.
Your arguments boil down to “my side good, their side bad”.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Masnick Bootlicking For Biden.
HOW DARE THERE BE JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT.
Masnick screams.
Wont someone think about the discovery burden!
Masnick cries.
The disinformation governance board is bad!
Masnick denies
Re:
Unhinged rant of the day proudly presented by Benjamin Jay Barber.
Re: Re:
From a troll who suspiciously shares the same name as revenge pornographer Benjamin Jay Barber.
Re:
Dude. You do know people can read that I criticized the board? Or do you assume everyone is as ignorant as you are?
https://www.techdirt.com/2022/04/29/white-house-sets-up-monumentally-stupidly-named-disinformation-governance-board/
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
You primarily criticized the name, not whether such a thing should exist. And even that was surprising given your well-established bias.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Another BARF article advocating for censorship
Moderation is censorship when the 1st Amendment protects free speech. Moderation is not carved out into the 1st Amendment which says speech involving true journalism, and criticism, the government does not like can be suppressed and oppressed.
It’s called official oppression and that is a Felony. Yes, any government official who takes any action to violate your constitutional rights is a crime. And when it involves the 1st Amendment, political officials and the government demand the suppression of the 1st Amendment of any individual is a crime.
But this comment will likely be censored because the Moderators don’t want this fact to be revealed. And the popular commenters and Masnick don’t want to admit government and political officials acting to suppress and oppress constitutionally protected speech is a crime.
Everyone at Techdirt loves the corrupt Biden Admin, as well as the commenters. So excuses, smears, and lies will be told, to pitch false claims that it is not a crime or a violation of constitutional rights.
I look forward to the smears if this comment is uncensored by Techdirt’s Nazi speech moderators.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Masnick shilling for the corrupt Biden Admin
HOW DARE THERE BE JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT.
Masnick screams.
Won’t someone think about the discovery burden!
Masnick cries.
The disinformation governance board is bad!
Masnick denies.
Masnick replies. It’s good, because… Russia/Putin must be hated because I believe every word I’ve been told and read about him and the country I’ve never been to and a person I’ve never met. So you need a nanny all across the internet to violate your 1st and 4th Amendments and censor your speech in real-time wherever you post it online. Because anyone who disagrees with me and my wet dream of 1984 disinfo board is a “RIGHT WINGER”, “TRUMPER”.
Looks like:
There’s an interesting correlation here I’ve brought up before. One that is missed in much of the coverage from those that support the actions of the SM companies.
When a member of the government takes action, even action as minor as flagging content from their official, or non-official, account; there is the appearance of government power.
When the government officials send letters on official letterhead from official accounts, it has the appearance of being official… even if it is not.
Members of the government pointing out things carries a weight of appearance of threat.
It’s that simple.
Right or wrong, the appearance is there.
Re:
…said nobody not on hallucinogens, ever.
Nice post by the way. I loved the article very much. It was so informative and interesting