> The rest of that quote is, "...[according to judges] still did not suffice to establish that the plaintiffs were censored on social media due to government ac

> The rest of that quote is, "...[according to judges] still did not suffice to establish that the plaintiffs were censored on social media due to government action." Pretty misleading to cut that out. That's not relevant to the question I was answering, which was about what/when threats allegedly happened. Furthermore, the article goes on to describe judges that did find it sufficient. Is it misleading of you to leave that out?