Judge rules White House pressured social networks to “suppress free speech”
Judge rules White House pressured social networks to “suppress free speech”
Missouri and Louisiana sued Biden over attempts to limit COVID misinformation.
A federal judge yesterday ordered the Biden administration to halt a wide range of communications with social media companies, siding with Missouri and Louisiana in a lawsuit that alleges Biden and his administration violated the First Amendment by colluding with social networks "to suppress disfavored speakers, viewpoints, and content."
You're viewing a single thread.
This is about attempts to stop folks from spreading provably wrong info online that's killing people. It's like protecting the free speech of someone yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.
The headline is also overstated. Its a preliminary injunction and of course its from a Trump nominee.
But Judge Terry Doughty, a Trump nominee at US District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, granted the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction imposing limits on the Department of Health and Human Services, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
But if the government can pressure platforms to remove provably false information that is actively killing people, it will have a chilling effect on my constitutional freedom to lie to people. Won't somebody please think of the grifters and anti-sciencers?
Was it antiscience to say covid originated in a lab in China?
Was it antiscience to say 2 weeks to flatten the curve was BS?
Was it antiscience to say cloth masks were ineffective?
Was it antiscience to question the long term efficacy of a drug that was not studied for the long term?
Was it antiscience to question the long term side effects of a drug that was not studied for the long term?
At one point or another every one of those questions was considered antiscience and is now begrudgingly accepted by the experts.
Was it antiscience to say covid originated in a lab in China?
YES, there was little evidence AND there still isn't conclusive evidence that it was. They just used it as a reason to be racist toward Asian (and it did provably increase hate crime toward Asian people).Was it antiscience to say 2 weeks to flatten the curve was BS?
YES, if people would have actually isolated, we would have had far fewer cases shortly after.Was it antiscience to say cloth masks were ineffective?
YES, they are still effective and far better than not wearing a mask at all.Was it antiscience to question the long term efficacy/long term side effects (I'm combining 2 questions here) of a drug that was not studied for the long term?
YES, the vaccine was not given to people widespread until after thorough testing. It's fact that almost any vaccine side effect will occur within the first few weeks of it being administered. There was also information and testing about the efficacy before it was widely distributed.People questioning this stuff were given the answers by scientists, specialists, people with knowledge, and they outright denied the truth of the data. It's one thing to question, it's another thing to yell questions into the void and pretend you don't hear the answers.
Who gives a shit, frankly. The first amendment is the first amendment, science or anti-science or anything in between. Whether or not I agree with anything in your comment.
Do you extend the same to lies or threats? If I claimed your computer is full of CP would you still support me?
I personally think this is a brain-dead approach akin to the many "zero tolerance" laws that only exist to remove thought from the equation. "Yes Billy, you may not have actually thrown any punches but we're suspending you from school for getting beat up by that bully because you were a participant in the fight."
It’s brain dead to respect the law? Are you drawing a line between what I said and some idea of unlimited free speech? If so, that’s not my stance.
Edit: also half the things you said would be illegal, so no I wouldn’t support you
The first amendment is the first amendment, science or anti-science or anything in between. Whether or not I agree with anything in your comment.
What else is there to take from this? Sounds like the typical "unlimited free speech" argument that we've all heard before.
If you want to argue about the law, the legality of this action has yet to be determined, so I'm assuming you must be in support of it, no? What is your stance if you think there's confusion on my part about what that may be.
Lies and threats may be illegal but they violate the idea of free speech, so why do you support these restrictions on the first amendment and not others?
Lies and threats may be illegal but they violate the idea of free speech, so why do you support these restrictions on the first amendment and not others?
Because they’re laws the we have as a society agreed upon and put into place. Pretty simple stuff. I do not understand how thinking that the law should be followed is such a wild idea.
If we want vaccine misinformation to be illegal, we should pass a law. Otherwise, the first amendment stands. What’s so weird about that?
Saying those things before having any data to back them up was indeed anti-science.
You couldn't know they didn't have data if they didn't have the ability to present it. Once censored, it's impossible to tell what media is, that's the point of censorship.
You can't know if what was censored was false information, if you don't have the data on what was said.Questioning is the heart and soul of science. Doubting included.
To censor doubt is a demand for agreement, and an intimidation of dissent.
There was a time I would believe you whole heartedly.
I despise book bans.
I see people try to censor other people's very existence.
I hate China's authoritarian laws.
I wish to strive to allow as much free speech and liberty reasonably possible.
Then COVID happened. Misinformation, narrative pushing, and just plain lying. My grandma died from the virus in a hospital not consistently wearing masks or even checking for it in the first place. A hospital wear fox news plays abound and nurses proudly talk about their "knowing" of what actually is happening.
I have to ask myself, is this worth it?
I don't think so. A line must be drawn somewhere.
This is bullshit. They were calling certain things misinformation before they themselves knew. What gives them authority to do this and who actually decides what is true? At the time many scientists, including the CDC director (who was forcibly sidelined after sharing his position), were saying we should investigate the lab leak theory, and they were all silenced as a result. Scientists were saying that they wouldn't have suggested quarantine (including the UKs top health advisor) as the understaffed medical/health facilities would cause more death than quarantines would save, they were saying that masks had little to no impact on CORONA viruses in the past and peer-reviewed articles suggesting this were literally removed from websites; the list goes on. Meanwhile the MSM was literally spreading misinformation like the Ivermectin story or the vaccine stopping spread story. You really have to trust someone quite a bit to just go along with this while all your freedoms are diminishing.
That's a whole lot of claims with little to no sources backing them up.
Not even enough info to know who "they" or "them" are when referenced in their comment.
Which ones specifically? These are all fairly well known at this point. Let me ask, if I provide them, do you think it would influence you in any way?
All of them. If it's the truth I will see it.
But be warned. No tabloid or backwater new articles. Actual studies and statements.