Donald J. Trump (For everyone else)
06-01-2024
, 02:57 PM
06-01-2024
, 03:00 PM
Quote:
No they are accused of requesting (not asking) while threatening, and not only "covid misinformation".
//
Facts of the case
Multiple plaintiffs, including epidemiologists, consumer and human rights advocates, academics, and media operators, claimed that various defendants, including numerous federal agencies and officials, have engaged in censorship, targeting conservative-leaning speech on topics such as the 2020 presidential election, COVID-19 origins, mask and vaccine efficacy, and election integrity. The plaintiffs argue that the defendants used public statements and threats of regulatory action, such as reforming Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, to induce social media platforms to suppress content, thereby violating the plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights. The States of Missouri and Louisiana also alleged harm due to the infringement of the free speech rights of their citizens.
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a nationwide preliminary injunction prohibiting the federal government from meeting with social media companies or otherwise seeking to influence their content-moderation policies. The U.S. Supreme Court granted the government’s motion for an emergency stay and granted certiorari to review the case on the merits.
//
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2023/23-411
On appeal, the Court of Appeals agreed with the District Court’s assessment of the evidence, which, in its words, showed the existence of “a coordinated campaign” of unprecedented “magnitude orchestrated by federal officials that jeopardized a fundamental aspect of American life.” Missouri v. Biden, 2023 WL 6425697, *27. The Court of Appeals found that “the district court was correct in its assessment—‘unrelenting pressure’ from certain government officials likely ‘had the intended result of suppressing millions of protected free speech postings by American citizens.’ ” Ibid.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/23A243
And at last let's see the 5th district appeal court decision on the topic
"how have i arrived at the idea that the government threatened the platforms", well it was public, repeatedly, it was the district court assessment and it's the appeal court assessment.
so we have 2 federal courts claiming various parts of the Biden administration, for years, violently coherced and threatened all the major social media companies in the USA to censor citizens' speech. That's direct use of executive powers to annihilate one of the most important rights of the US constitution, on a mass scale (not a few individuals, millions). Nothing that Trump ever did with executive power comes even vaguely close to this. Keep in mind that no matter what you think Trump role was on jan 6th, he didn't abuse executive power there. He didn't order militaries or agencies to profoundly violate any constitutional right of millions of individuals.
He might have had a role into attempting election interference and so on but not by massive blatantly unconstitutional abuses of executive powers. And threats to democracy are exactly that: that an elected official disregards fundamental constitutional rights and acts violating them for the masses, thus nullying the rule of law in the country.
//
Facts of the case
Multiple plaintiffs, including epidemiologists, consumer and human rights advocates, academics, and media operators, claimed that various defendants, including numerous federal agencies and officials, have engaged in censorship, targeting conservative-leaning speech on topics such as the 2020 presidential election, COVID-19 origins, mask and vaccine efficacy, and election integrity. The plaintiffs argue that the defendants used public statements and threats of regulatory action, such as reforming Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, to induce social media platforms to suppress content, thereby violating the plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights. The States of Missouri and Louisiana also alleged harm due to the infringement of the free speech rights of their citizens.
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a nationwide preliminary injunction prohibiting the federal government from meeting with social media companies or otherwise seeking to influence their content-moderation policies. The U.S. Supreme Court granted the government’s motion for an emergency stay and granted certiorari to review the case on the merits.
//
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2023/23-411
On appeal, the Court of Appeals agreed with the District Court’s assessment of the evidence, which, in its words, showed the existence of “a coordinated campaign” of unprecedented “magnitude orchestrated by federal officials that jeopardized a fundamental aspect of American life.” Missouri v. Biden, 2023 WL 6425697, *27. The Court of Appeals found that “the district court was correct in its assessment—‘unrelenting pressure’ from certain government officials likely ‘had the intended result of suppressing millions of protected free speech postings by American citizens.’ ” Ibid.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/23A243
And at last let's see the 5th district appeal court decision on the topic
"how have i arrived at the idea that the government threatened the platforms", well it was public, repeatedly, it was the district court assessment and it's the appeal court assessment.
so we have 2 federal courts claiming various parts of the Biden administration, for years, violently coherced and threatened all the major social media companies in the USA to censor citizens' speech. That's direct use of executive powers to annihilate one of the most important rights of the US constitution, on a mass scale (not a few individuals, millions). Nothing that Trump ever did with executive power comes even vaguely close to this. Keep in mind that no matter what you think Trump role was on jan 6th, he didn't abuse executive power there. He didn't order militaries or agencies to profoundly violate any constitutional right of millions of individuals.
He might have had a role into attempting election interference and so on but not by massive blatantly unconstitutional abuses of executive powers. And threats to democracy are exactly that: that an elected official disregards fundamental constitutional rights and acts violating them for the masses, thus nullying the rule of law in the country.
06-01-2024
, 03:11 PM
06-01-2024
, 03:15 PM
06-01-2024
, 04:59 PM
06-01-2024
, 05:29 PM
06-01-2024
, 05:41 PM
06-01-2024
, 05:48 PM
06-01-2024
, 05:57 PM
06-01-2024
, 06:01 PM