Posted on 03/18/2024 8:04:24 AM PDT by george76
the appeals panel agreed that several federal offices and agencies, including the White House .. violated the First Amendment by coercing the platforms’ content moderation decisions.
...
A federal appeals court ... finding that several agencies likely violated the First Amendment.
...
The original case was brought by the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana, who alleged that federal officials unduly pressured social media firms to limit speech on their platforms, as they communicated concerns about posts related to the Covid pandemic or elections.
...
The decision had an immediate impact. Following the district court’s order in July, the State Department canceled its standing monthly meeting with Facebook officials on election prep
...
the appeals court concluded that the White House, the Surgeon General’s office and the Federal Bureau of Investigation likely violated the First Amendment by coercing social media platforms into moderating posts on their sites. It also said the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention likely violated the First Amendment, though its actions were “not plainly coercive.”
The appeals court decision means that some federal agencies — the State Department, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases — will not be subject to the injunction. But the offices found to have likely violated the First Amendment will still be subject to a more limited version of the order.
The appeals court vacated nine of the 10 prohibitions Doughty set out in the initial injunction. The one that remained is now modified “to exclusively target illegal conduct and provide the officials with additional guidance or instruction on what behavior is prohibited.” That’s intended to prevent the action from capturing “otherwise legal speech.”
(Excerpt) Read more at cnbc.com ...
Not plainly coercive? Like a visit from John Gotti’s lieutenant just suggesting you need to suppress statements critical of the Family is not coercive.
Terrorism has been redefined.
Patriotism is the new terrorism.
Submission to unconstitutional federal power is the new patriotism.
No, W was not trying to prevent terrorism. If he did that he wouldn’t of let in 900,000 people from the Middle East in the aftermath of 9/11. Also very convenient that his DHS and patriot were ready to roll out immediately. No longer give him the benefit of the doubt.
Let the lawsuits begin!
Exactly! When are the individuals that did this and ordered it done going to be publicly beaten within an inch of their life as a warning to the rest of the bureaucracy? They do this because they don’t believe they have any skin in the game. That ought to change.
Maybe W was being noble. But I have no doubt Cheney saw big potential down the line. I should have pondered why Marxist professors of mine at UVA would confide that they actually liked Cheney .
Good thing red China isn’t running all our social media sites
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.