3 ms·

It was enough control for a judge to outright bar a number of government agencies and people from communicating with any social media company on moderation matt

It was enough control for a judge to outright bar a number of government agencies and people from communicating with any social media company on moderation matters, and then another judge to uphold that bar.

camdat 3y ago
The requirements for an injunction are much lower than an actual ruling. The party must just show that they have a possibility of winning the case and that granting temporary relief will not cause additional harm to the plaintiff. To use that as proof that the defendant will win is ridiculous.
- Karunamon 3y ago
  a possibility of winning the case The actual term used is "likely to prevail". Injunctions are not handed out willy-nilly, and the actual wording in the injunction should give you pause: "The officials have engaged in a broad pressure campaign designed to coerce social-media companies into suppressing speakers, viewpoints, and content disfavored by the government" Nobody said anything about "proof that the defendant will win". I said said that several judges have found evidence of unconstitutional pressure being applied. Please do not misrepresent a plain statement of fact.
  - camdat 3y ago
    Thankfully, we just heard back from 5th Circut Appeals that the injunction was likely a significant overstep and was overturned. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca5.214640/gov.uscourts.ca5.214640.238.1.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca5.214...
    - Karunamon 3y ago
      Incorrect. The Fifth Circuit upheld the injunction. They found, specifically, that the officials from the FBI, White House, and CDC likely violated the First Amendment.
      - camdat 3y ago
        >But, we emphasize the limited reach of our decision today. We do not uphold the injunction against all the officials named in the complain
        Karunamon 3y ago
        >As explained in Part IV above, the district court erred in finding that the NIAID Officials, CISA Officials, and State Department Officials likely violated Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights. So, we exclude those parties from the injunction. Accordingly, the term “Defendants” as used in this modified provision is defined to mean only the following entities and officials included in the original injunction: [Followed up by a page and 1/4 of people and agencies who the injunction still applies to] In no way is it honest to describe this as "overturned".
bandyaboot 3y ago
> and then another judge to uphold that bar. Technically it was a panel of 3 5th circuit judges. This is the same circuit which believes that for government to, in any way, "induce" a social media platform into negatively affecting the reach of user content, is likely a violation of the first amendment. This would presumably include merely calling out a post and essentially saying "hey I think this violates your policies, could you take a look?". Simultaneously, they believe it's a-ok for the government of Texas to expressly dictate social media moderation policies via legislation. When conservative-aligned plaintiffs bring lawsuits in the 5th circuit, they are able to win at each level of the federal court system without ever having to convince a single person that isn't politically aligned with them.

camdat 3y ago

The requirements for an injunction are much lower than an actual ruling. The party must just show that they have a possibility of winning the case and that granting temporary relief will not cause additional harm to the plaintiff. To use that as proof that the defendant will win is ridiculous.

Karunamon 3y ago
a possibility of winning the case The actual term used is "likely to prevail". Injunctions are not handed out willy-nilly, and the actual wording in the injunction should give you pause: "The officials have engaged in a broad pressure campaign designed to coerce social-media companies into suppressing speakers, viewpoints, and content disfavored by the government" Nobody said anything about "proof that the defendant will win". I said said that several judges have found evidence of unconstitutional pressure being applied. Please do not misrepresent a plain statement of fact.
- camdat 3y ago
  Thankfully, we just heard back from 5th Circut Appeals that the injunction was likely a significant overstep and was overturned. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca5.214640/gov.uscourts.ca5.214640.238.1.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca5.214...
  - Karunamon 3y ago
    Incorrect. The Fifth Circuit upheld the injunction. They found, specifically, that the officials from the FBI, White House, and CDC likely violated the First Amendment.
    - camdat 3y ago
      >But, we emphasize the limited reach of our decision today. We do not uphold the injunction against all the officials named in the complain
      - Karunamon 3y ago
        >As explained in Part IV above, the district court erred in finding that the NIAID Officials, CISA Officials, and State Department Officials likely violated Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights. So, we exclude those parties from the injunction. Accordingly, the term “Defendants” as used in this modified provision is defined to mean only the following entities and officials included in the original injunction: [Followed up by a page and 1/4 of people and agencies who the injunction still applies to] In no way is it honest to describe this as "overturned".

bandyaboot 3y ago

> and then another judge to uphold that bar. Technically it was a panel of 3 5th circuit judges. This is the same circuit which believes that for government to, in any way, "induce" a social media platform into negatively affecting the reach of user content, is likely a violation of the first amendment. This would presumably include merely calling out a post and essentially saying "hey I think this violates your policies, could you take a look?". Simultaneously, they believe it's a-ok for the government of Texas to expressly dictate social media moderation policies via legislation. When conservative-aligned plaintiffs bring lawsuits in the 5th circuit, they are able to win at each level of the federal court system without ever having to convince a single person that isn't politically aligned with them.