Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: bitt

I guess I’m too stupid to follow the chain of events of what’s going on here and what’s the expected outcome. Legalese is not part of my decoder ring.


4 posted on 03/18/2024 1:06:01 PM PDT by CatOwner (Don't expect anyone, even conservatives, to have your back when the SHTF in 2021 and beyond.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: CatOwner

Folks in the comments section are confused, as well … saw these comments … hope they’re WRONG …

JanTw

Any chance of an English translation of the legalese here? What does this mean for the rest of us, the great unwashed, the non-lawyers?

JoeMN JanTw
4 minutes ago

It means you may only be able to have government approved views on social media

Scofflaw1 JanTw
39 minutes ago edited

That the first amendment is likely to be eviscerated with the SCOTUS ruling on this case.

😩😡


9 posted on 03/18/2024 1:12:56 PM PDT by Jane Long (What we were told was a conspiracy theory in ‘20 is now fact. Land of the sheep, home of the knaves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: CatOwner
I guess I’m too stupid to follow the chain of events of what’s going on here and what’s the expected outcome.

To put it in layman's terms, the case centered around the government pressuring (coercion) the social media companies to censor speech and ban those who spoke against what our woke government believed and supported.

In other words, restricting speech, the government did not like through the social media companies.

The first court agreed that the government was guilty and had to stop. The decision was appealed, and while on appeal, the first court's decision was put on hold.

If the Supreme Court decides against the government, then the most likely decision is the government will be prevented from forcing social media companies to censor our speech. A VERY GOOD THING!

This can be a very meaningful case.

17 posted on 03/18/2024 1:24:01 PM PDT by icclearly ( )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: CatOwner

i don’t understand this either


25 posted on 03/18/2024 1:32:20 PM PDT by SendShaqtoIraq ( )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: CatOwner
Social media was hounded by the government during COVID. Biden administration cursed and berated them to take posts and users down. Other examples as well.

However, during the Obamacare arguments it seemed the Court would rule against it but they did not.

Listening today, 6-3 decision in favor of Biden administration is my prediction. Hope I am wrong.

33 posted on 03/18/2024 1:51:39 PM PDT by TornadoAlley3 ( I'm Proud To Be An Okie From Muskogee)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: CatOwner

More here for my fellow cat person...

https://legalinsurrection.com/2024/03/supreme-court-hears-argument-in-biden-administration-social-media-coercion-case/


36 posted on 03/18/2024 1:57:48 PM PDT by mewzilla (Never give up; never surrender!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: CatOwner

A real Bloodbath would be if NYC and Chicago started to give free fried chicken to migrants.


53 posted on 03/18/2024 4:39:53 PM PDT by cnsmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: CatOwner

A court *stay” temporarily suspends a lower court order, for or against a pleading, pending Appeal to a next higher court.

I think.


64 posted on 03/19/2024 3:00:06 PM PDT by RitaOK (Viva Christo Rey. For Greater Glory. HIS. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson