61
Trump-appointed judge blocks Biden agencies from communicating with social media platforms
(www.independent.co.uk)
this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2023
61 points (98.4% liked)
politics
19242 readers
2663 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
My god, I wonder if people understand how truly horrific this ruling is.
This ruling directly says that lies are, as they call it, "protected free speech" and specifically prohibits the government from being able to do anything meaningful to combat it. So the next time some dumbass group says that vaccines are made of radioactive waste and will turn you into one of the aliens from District 9, the government won't be able to do anything to stop them.
But a children's book that discusses little Suzy and her two mommies is too much for society to handle and is therefore not also protected speech. Because reasons. Or something.
So I dont live in the U.S.A. but I'm wondering what happens if the governement does anyway? Like after this, if someone says something not true and the governement still uses the same measures to clarify it isn't true, then what? Does that governement get in trouble?
This judge's opinion won't mean more than a hill of beans.
Good. People shouldn't rely on the government to determine what's true. No person or organization should have that power. If somebody makes a dubious claim, let the people decide for themselves whether to believe it. After all, it's not like the government is always right/right (correct/just).
Good example: the government's stance on various hallucinogenic drugs. It's common knowledge now that cannabis, psilocybin, and possibly LSD have incredible medical benefits with relatively little drawback, but does the federal government acknowledge that scientific fact? Nope. I can't say why for sure, but the most likely answer is that powerful people in the government profit from the war on drugs, and so use their power to keep it going.
I miss the days when being liberal meant being suspicious of the government. Sometimes I feel like I'm the only liberal left in a sea of neolibs.