SCOTUS: Government censorship of Social Media OK...
-
@jon-nyc I said that in the third line of my post.
But the practical effect is the same as saying that it’s OK.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
@jon-nyc I said that in the third line of my post.
But the practical effect is the same as saying that it’s OK.
@George-K said in SCOTUS: Government censorship of Social Media OK...:
@jon-nyc I said that in the third line of my post.
Then you should have chosen a better thread title.
If social media companies agree then there’s no coersion. If they disagree and feel coerced they’d have standing and the opinion would surely go the other way.
-
@George-K said in SCOTUS: Government censorship of Social Media OK...:
@jon-nyc I said that in the third line of my post.
Then you should have chosen a better thread title.
If social media companies agree then there’s no coersion. If they disagree and feel coerced they’d have standing and the opinion would surely go the other way.
@jon-nyc said in SCOTUS: Government censorship of Social Media OK...:
Then you should have chosen a better thread title.
By refusing to hear the case because of lack of standing, SCOTUS did exactly that. If you don't prohibit something, you allow it.
-
@jon-nyc said in SCOTUS: Government censorship of Social Media OK...:
Then you should have chosen a better thread title.
By refusing to hear the case because of lack of standing, SCOTUS did exactly that. If you don't prohibit something, you allow it.
@George-K said in SCOTUS: Government censorship of Social Media OK...:
@jon-nyc said in SCOTUS: Government censorship of Social Media OK...:
Then you should have chosen a better thread title.
By refusing to hear the case because of lack of standing, SCOTUS did exactly that. If you don't prohibit something, you allow it.
Not to get sidetracked, but isn't that like saying The Bible or Jesus condoned slavery because they don't condemn it?
I was only joking
-
I'm not really acquainted with how important it is to be strictly vigilant about "standing", nor how often that vigilance is discarded by motivated courts. Without that information, I don't know whether I agree with this decision or not. But as a big fan of free speech, and as someone who knows how easily your typical human discards that principle when motivated by "existential threats", I would have loved to see this case decided on its merits.
-
Regarding whether this decision is tantamount to the court saying censorship is ok, I think an important distinction is that no precedent was established on any merit of the case either way. It's like a mistrial rather than a finding of guilt or not-guilt. So, the merits can be retried some other time, when this sort of censorship is actually coercive, and does some specific harm.
-
@George-K said in SCOTUS: Government censorship of Social Media OK...:
@jon-nyc said in SCOTUS: Government censorship of Social Media OK...:
Then you should have chosen a better thread title.
By refusing to hear the case because of lack of standing, SCOTUS did exactly that. If you don't prohibit something, you allow it.
Not to get sidetracked, but isn't that like saying The Bible or Jesus condoned slavery because they don't condemn it?
@Doctor-Phibes said in SCOTUS: Government censorship of Social Media OK...:
isn't that like saying The Bible or Jesus condoned slavery because they don't condemn it?
No.
It's like saying "There's no speed limit, drive as fast as you want."
Lack of prohibition is permission.
@Horace said in SCOTUS: Government censorship of Social Media OK...:
It's like a mistrial rather than a finding of guilt or not-guilt. So, the merits can be retried some other time, when this sort of censorship is actually coercive, and does some specific harm.
Good point. It never was adjudicated, so the precedent stands.
