Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Social Networks The Internet

Supreme Court Blocks Restrictions On Biden Administration Efforts To Get Platforms To Remove Social Media Posts (nbcnews.com) 148

An anonymous reader quotes a report from NBC News: The Supreme Court on Friday blocked in full a lower court ruling that would have curbed the Biden administration's ability to communicate with social media companies about contentious content on such issues as Covid-19. The decision in a short unsigned order (PDF) puts on hold a Louisiana-based judge's ruling in July that specific agencies and officials should be barred from meeting with companies to discuss whether certain content should be stifled. The Supreme Court also agreed to immediately take up the government's appeal, meaning it will hear arguments and issue a ruling on the merits in its current term, which runs until the end of June. Three conservative justices noted that they would have denied the application: Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch.

"At this time in the history of our country, what the court has done, I fear, will be seen by some as giving the government a green light to use heavy-handed tactics to skew the presentation of views on the medium that increasingly dominates the dissemination of news. That is most unfortunate," Alito wrote in a dissenting opinion. GOP attorneys general in Louisiana and Missouri, along with five social media users, filed the underlying lawsuit, alleging that U.S. government officials went too far in what they characterize as coercion of social media companies to address posts, especially those related to Covid-19. The individual plaintiffs include Covid-19 lockdown opponents and Jim Hoft, the owner of the right-wing website Gateway Pundit. They claim that the government's actions violated free speech protections under the Constitution's First Amendment.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Supreme Court Blocks Restrictions On Biden Administration Efforts To Get Platforms To Remove Social Media Posts

Comments Filter:
  • by blastard ( 816262 ) on Friday October 20, 2023 @11:00PM (#63941319)

    The outcome doesn't go the way they wanted it to.

    This does not let government dictate what these companies do. The lower court order was clearly wrong in preventing the government from contacting tech companies. If the govt was exerting undue pressure the tech lawyers are smart enough and well paid enough to get the govt. to back off. The 5th Circuit is spending too much time pushing its political agenda. That is far more dangerous than the executive branch placing a call to Silicon Valley.

    • by slack_justyb ( 862874 ) on Saturday October 21, 2023 @12:10AM (#63941393)

      Kagan said it best in EPA v WV

      It seems I was wrong. The current Court is textualist only when being so suits it. When that method would frustrate broader goals, special canons like the “major questions doctrine” magically appear as get-out-of-text-free cards.

      The so called "letter of the law" Justices have deviated in erratic ways on topics that are usually Executive deference by tradition and sometimes by stare decisis. Good point is Dobbs where the majority held.

      But the opinion concluded that stare decisis, which calls for prior decisions to be followed in most instances, required adherence to what it called Roe’s “central holding”—that a State may not constitutionally protect fetal life before “viability”—even if that holding was wrong

      And then founds the rationality for overturning long held precedent as "to save kids lives" basically the Court indicates the States have rights to protect children that can override things the Supreme Court held prior. BUT for some reason, the court completely ignores the argument of "protecting children should be paramount to prior court cases" when it comes to their textualiation of the Second Amendment, "OH WELL we have to strictly read the second amendment and our hands are tied, because that protecting children argument doesn't hold water here because we're strict readers of the Constitution." And if that logic seems somewhat circular, congrats! That's how frustrating the current court can be these days.

      They are so all over the place with their double speak. Where major doctrine applies and child rights reign supreme, except when it doesn't because we decided to not use that argument today. I think that's what killed me the most about the EPA case. The law indicates that the EPA has to include the environmental cost, BUT because the law didn't explicitly say CO2, the EPA can't regulate that. Then Congress adds a 400 page amendment to explicitly cover CO2 and all the other various gases and who might emit them, and then everyone is like "HOW DARE THEY ADD A 400 PAGE AMENDMENT!"

      Pick a fucking lane. Either we have executive discretion or we have textualist, but we can't have Judges that just randomly select which one they want to be based on who the current President is and get all huffy when Congress actually writes out every single possibility in black and white. I mean at some point we can't enforce the endangered species act because the law doesn't literally list every single animal that needs to be protected. We can't fund highways because the law doesn't list every single mile of road that needs improvement and indicate what kind of improvement it needs.

      The current mix on the Supreme Court really needs to pick which one they're going to be. Are you going to read the letter of the law or pull out magic cards like Major Questions? I'm glad Judges like Kagan are calling them out for their more waffles than a Waffle House can serve in a year. This case, they're outraged by the stay on a basis that isn't even founded in the original argument, it's one the lower courts invented and the dissent is just running with it, because they're supposed to support the lower one for "insert whatever reason that they failed to give".

      But hypotheticals are just that—speculation that the Government “may suffer irreparable harm at some point in the future,” not concrete proof

      But this same Motley Crew is the one that indicated that they needed to wipe the DC Circuit's ruling on if the House could openly question the border wall in court, because then President Trump said that "it would really, really, I pinky swear promise, would make life difficult." And that was apparently good enough for the Court. Concrete not needed.

      I mean you just can't anything with this Court because they'll just contradict themselves in another case and provide magic cards, smoke, and mi

    • by Pinky's Brain ( 1158667 ) on Saturday October 21, 2023 @01:54AM (#63941489)

      I'd say for this kind of case any private communication by government with the companies constitutes undue pressure, due to power imbalance.

      Power imbalance can negate consent in other contexts. If you take the same line here, the mere communication is a first amendment violation on the part of government.

    • by mpercy ( 1085347 )

      Whenever someone advocates creating or expanding a power, especially an executive branch power, they seem to never consider that someday the other side might win an election and will have that power. Imagine for 5 seconds that Trump wins, do you want him to have the unfettered ability to "contact" tech companies and ask them what they plan to do to prevent people from posting "unpatriotic" things, or to "suggest" that they stop censoring anti-trans posts?

      • It is not unfettered. Reasonably functional judicial system will reign in undue pressure.
        The problem with the lower court was then deciding beforehand that ANY contact is problematic.

        • by djinn6 ( 1868030 )

          The legal process is very slow. By the time they get around to charging someone, the wannabe dictator would have consolidated the power and can simply dissolve the courts.

          Keep in mind it just so happens that Trump's policies were disliked by tech CEOs, so they worked against him. This will not be true of all future threats to democracy.

    • Not to mention that old school MSM outlets have more or less been little more than mouthpieces for whatever government officials want to say. They just park reporters at the Capitol and shove microphones in these idiots mouths and call it "news". Government officials have less sway over what is said on social media than they have had over any previous form of media.
    • Give me a break. Biden's administration and the various intelligence connected censorship-oriented NGOs use mafia intimidation tactics to silence dissent. It's beyond obvious.
  • This would also mean if a certain buffoon were to get elected president he wouldn't be able to use his power to quell "the liberal media" as he wants, either.

    • Re:Cuts both ways. (Score:4, Informative)

      by aaarrrgggh ( 9205 ) on Friday October 20, 2023 @11:42PM (#63941367)

      The decision actually says that the administration cannot threaten or coerce the media companies to act (in a round about way). What it doesn't do is gag the administration from coordinating with social media companies.

      • The decision actually says that the administration cannot threaten or coerce the media companies to act (in a round about way). What it doesn't do is gag the administration from coordinating with social media companies.

        This! The plaintiffs will have their day in court, what they don't get is this over reaching injunction until it's settled.

      • Re:Cuts both ways. (Score:5, Informative)

        by SmaryJerry ( 2759091 ) on Saturday October 21, 2023 @01:05AM (#63941441)
        Actually it is saying the administration CAN contact media companies. The lower court ruling was that the government couldn't pressure tech companies and that was reversed here.
        • The lower court ruling was effectively that the administration could not contact social media companies. There is a big difference between "contacting" and "threatening." As long as the social media companies are free to make their own decision without reprisal, Bob's your uncle.

    • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

      Yeah, because Elon Musk & Mark Zuckerberg are such socialist lefty liberals, right?

      The US justice system has clearly become politicised so you can no longer have objective, fair arbitration for the benefit of everyone.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        Zuckerberg is a very lefty liberal. Elon is not on the topics he's public about.

        • So to you, very lefty liberal means funding Chris Christie to help him to bust teachers' unions & privatise public education with charter schools. Then there's his backing of controversial oil & gas development projects & his opposition to the Affordable Care Act. Yeah, that sounds really lefty liberal to me.

          Or perhaps 'lefty liberal' means something else over there in 'Murica'?
          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            Zuck has done a few trivial things that don't fit your extreme left agenda so that makes him a far right winger, eh? Btw, conservatives hate Christie.

            On the whole the guy is very left wing. The exceptions do not make the rule.

            The guy has pumped hundreds of millions into the blue team. Because right wingers fund blue team with huge cash injections? Ok. Whatever.

            • Oh, you're saying the Democrat Party are left wing. That's funny!

              One of the few things that has bipartisan support in the USA is keeping the left out of politics. They both regularly refer to social democracy as socialism/communism & use socialism as if it were a dirty word, FFS.

              No, Zuckerberg has run programmes like XCheck which exempt certain political leaders & pundits, often right wing extremists, thereby enabling them spread populist right wing propaganda to wide audiences. In that sense,
              • Wow you're so far left you think the blue guys are right wingers.

                Had I realized how extreme your views are I wouldn't have bothered trying to talk with you about politics. I'll try to remember that in the future. There's no point in trying to talk with fanatics.

                Btw, are you American or from elsewhere?

                • If I were American, one could presumably argue that I were a fanatic & an extremist. But no. I'm from a social democracy hellhole with universal healthcare & no death penalty. So yeah, pretty extremist in your view. I think I can cope though.
    • By then it can be reintroduced and the SCOTUS will find a reason why it's a-ok then.

  • by Babel-17 ( 1087541 ) on Friday October 20, 2023 @11:30PM (#63941355)

    They must be dealt with!

  • ...the GOP's lower levels are trying to ensure they can continue to spread misinformation and propaganda, while their higher levels are trying to ensure a future Republican administration can control social media with an iron fist.

    I suspect the votes on the appeal will change depending on what option looks best for the next election.

    • The gaslighting is strong with you, sir.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Baron_Yam ( 643147 )

        You're obviously a partisan idiot. After all, everything I stated is right there in the summary, party affiliations and all.

        Republicans are just shitty human beings with no sense of decency, honesty, or integrity. You're sad people and it's very disappointing that there are so many of you in the US... but that's what generations of fostering ignorance will get you.

    • Like the other guy said, this is gaslighting. It's also projection. You subhumans control almost all the media, and said media actually lies through, well, LYING, and omission. Kyle Rittenhouse, Russians and Trump, BLM and adjacent issues, kids getting trans'd and subjected to sodomite propaganda, Ukraine and so forth, all topics the alphabet soup networks and their vanguard hyper-left publications AND politically controlled social media like Reddit spread lies and manipulate narratives about.
  • If we don't allow conspiracy loonies to propagate bullshit, we will never get this pandemic restarted and it will be way harder to bury that RTO bullshit for good.

  • by iAmWaySmarterThanYou ( 10095012 ) on Saturday October 21, 2023 @07:03AM (#63941731)

    An unsigned order doesn't give a hint either way how the court will rule but it is good to see them take up this issue.

    I believe strongly in the FA. Posting stupid shit is not a crime. Posting incorrect shit is not a crime. Posting known incorrect shit is not a crime. Even posting foreign propaganda written by hostile states is not a crime.

    I'd much rather the net be filled with silly shit than the government decide what we're _allowed_ to say and ruining or forcefully silencing anyone who disagrees. That goes against everything this country is supposed to be about.

    Even if the government has good intentions (lolololololol), we know what the road to Hell is paved with.

    • Even posting foreign propaganda written by hostile states is not a crime..

      Are you sure about that? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

      • by iAmWaySmarterThanYou ( 10095012 ) on Saturday October 21, 2023 @08:10AM (#63941793)

        We also interned thousands of innocent Japanese. Do you want to repeat that?

        The dumb shit we did during ww2 is not a good look for how we should behave as a free people.

        • I don't need to be reminded.

          An internment camp was set up at Banff and Castle Mountain in Dominion Park from July 1915 to July 1917 mostly imprisoning Ukrainian immigrants.[8] The prisoners of the internment camp were used as slave labour to build the infrastructure of the national park.[9]

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

          Free speech is fine right up until it is weaponized, like it is now with Russia pumping millions into it's foreign troll farming operations not to mention outright buying a significant chunk of the republican party. How long is this supposed to continue before it brings everyone a bad end?

          Speaking of dumb shit... Appeasement is definitely on that list, and the people that are feeling it now are the same one's claiming victim status every five min

          • Free speech is fine right up until it is weaponized, like it is now with Russia pumping millions into it's foreign troll farming operations

            I'm certain that us giving up on free speech would be the ultimate accomplishment for Russia. What better way to put out that bright, burning American light of freedom that's lasted for a quarter of a millenium?

            Also, please explain to me, how is it that so many on the left suddenly have no fucking clue how freedom of speech works? You can't possibly believe that the Russian and Chinese model of speech suppression is superior?

    • Even posting foreign propaganda written by hostile states is not a crime.

      Doing it for free isn't a crime, but being a paid agent of a foreign state without registering with the State Dept is a crime [wikipedia.org]

      • Sure. Agreed. But I think you'd agree the vast majority of people posting things the government didn't like and got silenced for it weren't paid foreign agents.

        There's a huge distinction between a foreign agent doing shit and some dumbass posting the same thing. The key difference is the latter is protected speech while the first is a crime. The crime btw is not the speech but being an unregistered foreign agent.

  • I am guessing that if we had a different party in office, people would be less agreeable with this ruling. There is nothing that prevents the government from posting whatever it wants on social media. There's a big problem if the government is talking to social media behind closed doors about what is or isn't the "truth." It's my understanding that democracy dies in the darkness, but I guess "That's different."
    • I agree that there needs to be a lot of transparency in this, perhaps a bipartisan agency controlling their communications, but I also think the government does need to be able to communicate with social media.

  • Scotus is sick and tired of "emergency" appeals, which have totally ballooned in number, as everyone thinks their thing is an emergency. So, they now routinely refuse to do anything about them, and schedule them for regular order of business.

  • by davide marney ( 231845 ) on Saturday October 21, 2023 @11:26AM (#63942095) Journal

    Read this: https://westminsterdeclaration... [westminste...ration.org]

    Government has a voice to speak its own opinion, but ONLY its opinion. It absolutely does not have an unfettered right to control what others say. This case is about the government jawboning private companies to do the censorship they are not legally allowed to do.

    They are taking your money and using it to restrict your fundamental human rights. In the process, they are corrupting social media.

    This is one of the most important cases of this term.

  • In this day and age:

    " You have the right to speak your mind, but the Government appears to have the right to ensure no one can hear you. "

1 1 was a race-horse, 2 2 was 1 2. When 1 1 1 1 race, 2 2 1 1 2.

Working...