1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. REC.AUDIO.OPINION

  • In case you missed it.

    From ScottW@21:1/5 to All on Fri Oct 20 18:56:31 2023
    The Biden WH and a few other fed agencies were found to have violated the first amendment. They appealed and SCOTUS will hear the case.

    Sadly, SCOTUS also stayed the lower courts injunction against the Biden WH etc.

    Oh well.....June 2024 is the expected date for the final ruling. Joe can go into the books as the first president found to be in violation of the 1st amendment.
    Really excellent campaign material.

    ScottW

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mINE109@21:1/5 to ScottW on Sat Oct 21 09:42:19 2023
    On 10/20/23 8:56 PM, ScottW wrote:
    The Biden WH and a few other fed agencies were found to have violated
    the first amendment. They appealed and SCOTUS will hear the case.

    Sadly, SCOTUS also stayed the lower courts injunction against the
    Biden WH etc.

    Oh well.....June 2024 is the expected date for the final ruling. Joe
    can go into the books as the first president found to be in violation
    of the 1st amendment. Really excellent campaign material.

    Yes, "WH appeal advances to SCOTUS" is some terrible news for Biden.

    "[W]ere found to have violate the first amendment" is one way to
    describe the 5th Circuit Court of Right-wing Judicial Activism's ruling,
    a court whose decision involving a Texas law concerning content
    moderation was called “the most angrily incoherent First Amendment
    decision I think I’ve ever read,” according to "one legal expert."

    https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/government_talk_platforms_banned_doughty.php

    Please do inspect this and claim its balanced reporting means it
    contradicts me.

    This writer is concerned by government influence but lays out the
    factual mistakes made by the court:

    https://knightcolumbia.org/blog/getting-the-facts-straight-some-observations-on-the-fifth-circuit-ruling-in-missouri-v-biden-1

    tl/dr: timeline problems; FBI pointing out 'terms of service violations'
    not coercive; and, twitter rejected several FBI suggestions.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ScottW@21:1/5 to All on Sat Oct 21 10:01:50 2023
    On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 7:42:25 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
    On 10/20/23 8:56 PM, ScottW wrote:
    The Biden WH and a few other fed agencies were found to have violated
    the first amendment. They appealed and SCOTUS will hear the case.

    Sadly, SCOTUS also stayed the lower courts injunction against the
    Biden WH etc.

    Oh well.....June 2024 is the expected date for the final ruling. Joe
    can go into the books as the first president found to be in violation
    of the 1st amendment. Really excellent campaign material.
    Yes, "WH appeal advances to SCOTUS" is some terrible news for Biden.

    A SCOTUS ruling against Biden is going to be salt in your festering brain hemmorrage.

    ScottW

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Fascist Flea@21:1/5 to All on Sat Oct 21 10:55:31 2023
    Witlessmoron peers into the depths.

    your festering brain hemmorrage.

    HAHAHAHAHAHA! You're priceless, Pooch.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mINE109@21:1/5 to ScottW on Sat Oct 21 13:32:46 2023
    On 10/21/23 12:01 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 7:42:25 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
    On 10/20/23 8:56 PM, ScottW wrote:
    The Biden WH and a few other fed agencies were found to have violated
    the first amendment. They appealed and SCOTUS will hear the case.

    Sadly, SCOTUS also stayed the lower courts injunction against the
    Biden WH etc.

    Oh well.....June 2024 is the expected date for the final ruling. Joe
    can go into the books as the first president found to be in violation
    of the 1st amendment. Really excellent campaign material.
    Yes, "WH appeal advances to SCOTUS" is some terrible news for Biden.

    A SCOTUS ruling against Biden

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23a243_7l48.pdf

    "The application for stay presented to JUSTICE ALITO and by him referred
    to the Court is granted. The preliminary injunction issued on July 4,
    2023, by the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, case No. 3:22–cv–01213, as modified by the United States
    Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on October 3, 2023, case No.
    23–30445, is stayed. The application for stay is also treated as a
    petition for a writ of certiorari, and the petition is granted on the
    questions presented in the application. The stay shall terminate upon
    the sending down of the judgment of this Court."

    That looks more like a ruling for Biden.

    https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/10/justices-allow-federal-government-continued-communication-over-social-media-content-moderation/

    "In a filing on Oct. 5, the Biden administration once again urged the
    justices to put Doughty’s order on hold and suggested that the justices
    could fast-track the case for briefing and oral argument on the merits. Prelogar stressed that the court of appeals had not cited any “precedent
    for its conclusion that when private companies choose to request or
    follow advice from the government, the companies thereby become state
    actors” whose conduct could violate the First Amendment."

    Better pause there so it can sink in.

    "And even if it is true that, as the court of appeals contended, social
    media companies changed their moderation policies or removed content in response to agencies like CISA, Prelogar explained, that would still not transform “the platforms’ private decisions into state action because it would not demonstrate that CISA offered the type of positive incentives
    that overwhelm a party’s independent judgment.”"

    You're familiar with the counterargument that follows.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)