3 ms·
TL;DR: The litigants had no standing (you can't sue because someone else got hurt and collect the damages) and that the case failed to actually link any governm
by legitster 2y ago
TL;DR: The litigants had no standing (you can't sue because someone else got hurt and collect the damages) and that the case failed to actually link any government officials to the "suppression of speech".
I think an important thing here is the ruling is pretty specific - they are essentially saying it still could be litigated. If there was a future case where speech was suppressed and a government official was complicit, that would be grounds for a 1A lawsuit. But you can't just sue because you are butthurt that Facebook takes down your post but not Fauci's.
- lokar 2y agoNot just that, you can’t sue because someone else (a hypothetical someone) may have been harmed.
- jcranmer 2y agoIt's a little less specific than that. While the ruling officially only addresses standing and doesn't decide merit, there are several footnotes that basically go "the underlying theory of government action here is just wrong." And they're ultimately saying that the plaintiffs don't have standing because they couldn't trace their bans to government action... which is pretty close to a merits finding, as the lack of a government role is pretty dispositive as to whether or not that role was impermissible.