5 ms·

Except they did. This ruling removes the injection prohibiting the USG from talking to social media companies. This detail is in the article. https://en.wikip

Except they did. This ruling removes the injection prohibiting the USG from talking to social media companies. This detail is in the article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murthy_v._Missouri https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murthy_v._Missouri

sickofparadox 2y ago
It removes the injunction because they determined there wasn't standing, not because they affirmed the Executive's actions as legal. Those are two different things.
- GauntletWizard 2y ago
  There could be no clearer standing than this case, consisting of several users who had their opinions censored and attorneys general representing the rights of the people. If neither group has standing, who does? This was a base act of legal buffoonery. It is transparently bullshit.
  - otterley 2y ago
    Facebook or Twitter would have had standing, if they claimed injury due to perceived Government threats in reaction to their speech. Did you read the whole opinion? It's pretty coherent, and makes sense if you've ever taken a civil procedure course.
  - lesuorac 2y ago
    The lack of standing comes from the failure of the plaintiffs to mention specific actions. You can't just be like "FaceBook censored me because of the FBI". You have to actually make a claim like "My post from July 5th was removed by FaceBook because of an email written to FaceBook from the FBI on July 6th". Preferably with both the email and post as exhibits.
    - otterley 2y ago
      Well, that's not quite true. You can claim that you have been dissuaded from exercising your First Amendment rights[1] in the future (for example, that you're afraid of publishing new material under threat of punishment). That's called a "chilling effect." The problem in this case is that no plaintiff could do even that and draw a plausible and clear causal connection between their fear and the actions of the Government. [1] The question of whether someone has a First Amendment right to make a social media post has not yet been clearly established, and the Court didn't get to this question in this case.
    - Jiro 2y ago
      That allows the government to censor at will by censoring on the policy level, by making Facebook adopt government-demanded policies. Since it is always possible that Facebook could have come up with the same policy anyway by coincidence, it's never possible to trace any specific act to the government censorship.
      - otterley 2y ago
        Of course it’s possible. That’s what discovery is for. Internal emails were cited in this case as well. And if the Government had coerced Facebook in violation of its Constitutional rights, I’m sure Facebook would sue the Government and quite possibly prevail.
        shadowgovt 2y ago
        Precisely. What some people want is for some judicial process to interpose itself in collusion between a private company and the government against the interests of individual clients of a private company... That if the Executive says "jump" and a private company says "how high?" in violation of no particular statute, the judiciary would stop them for First Amendment reasons. It won't, because the companies don't own a private citizen's First Amendment right.
jjulius 2y ago
It's not a "ruling", it's a "refusal to hear the case", which effectively removes the injunction. They made no comment on the legality of the administration's actions. Edit: jfc, lol @ the debate around whether or not to call it a "ruling". The government can continue to talk to social media companies for now regardless of whatever the hell you call it. I regret contributing to this lol.
- lesuorac 2y ago
  > 83 F. 4th 350, reversed and remanded. Is a ruling. It reverses the decision in "83 F. 4th 350" also known as Murthy v Missouri [1]. [1]: https://casetext.com/case/murthy-v-missouri-3 https://casetext.com/case/murthy-v-missouri-3
  - otterley 2y ago
    It indeed is a ruling, but it's not a ruling that "US Government Can Continue Talking to Social Media Companies." It's a ruling that this specific case cannot be heard as presented.
  - chatmasta 2y ago
    It’s a ruling against the injunction, not a ruling on the merits of the case.
    - lesuorac 2y ago
      And the injunction prohibited the USG from talking to Social Medial Companies. This ruling removes the injunction, Therefore, SCOTUS rules that USG can talk to Social Media Companies.
      - otterley 2y ago
        That's not how lawyers think about this, and since this is a legal case, if they don't, neither should the rest of us.

sickofparadox 2y ago

It removes the injunction because they determined there wasn't standing, not because they affirmed the Executive's actions as legal. Those are two different things.

GauntletWizard 2y ago
There could be no clearer standing than this case, consisting of several users who had their opinions censored and attorneys general representing the rights of the people. If neither group has standing, who does? This was a base act of legal buffoonery. It is transparently bullshit.
- otterley 2y ago
  Facebook or Twitter would have had standing, if they claimed injury due to perceived Government threats in reaction to their speech. Did you read the whole opinion? It's pretty coherent, and makes sense if you've ever taken a civil procedure course.
- lesuorac 2y ago
  The lack of standing comes from the failure of the plaintiffs to mention specific actions. You can't just be like "FaceBook censored me because of the FBI". You have to actually make a claim like "My post from July 5th was removed by FaceBook because of an email written to FaceBook from the FBI on July 6th". Preferably with both the email and post as exhibits.
  - otterley 2y ago
    Well, that's not quite true. You can claim that you have been dissuaded from exercising your First Amendment rights[1] in the future (for example, that you're afraid of publishing new material under threat of punishment). That's called a "chilling effect." The problem in this case is that no plaintiff could do even that and draw a plausible and clear causal connection between their fear and the actions of the Government. [1] The question of whether someone has a First Amendment right to make a social media post has not yet been clearly established, and the Court didn't get to this question in this case.
  - Jiro 2y ago
    That allows the government to censor at will by censoring on the policy level, by making Facebook adopt government-demanded policies. Since it is always possible that Facebook could have come up with the same policy anyway by coincidence, it's never possible to trace any specific act to the government censorship.
    - otterley 2y ago
      Of course it’s possible. That’s what discovery is for. Internal emails were cited in this case as well. And if the Government had coerced Facebook in violation of its Constitutional rights, I’m sure Facebook would sue the Government and quite possibly prevail.
      - shadowgovt 2y ago
        Precisely. What some people want is for some judicial process to interpose itself in collusion between a private company and the government against the interests of individual clients of a private company... That if the Executive says "jump" and a private company says "how high?" in violation of no particular statute, the judiciary would stop them for First Amendment reasons. It won't, because the companies don't own a private citizen's First Amendment right.

jjulius 2y ago

It's not a "ruling", it's a "refusal to hear the case", which effectively removes the injunction. They made no comment on the legality of the administration's actions. Edit: jfc, lol @ the debate around whether or not to call it a "ruling". The government can continue to talk to social media companies for now regardless of whatever the hell you call it. I regret contributing to this lol.

lesuorac 2y ago
> 83 F. 4th 350, reversed and remanded. Is a ruling. It reverses the decision in "83 F. 4th 350" also known as Murthy v Missouri [1]. [1]: https://casetext.com/case/murthy-v-missouri-3 https://casetext.com/case/murthy-v-missouri-3
- otterley 2y ago
  It indeed is a ruling, but it's not a ruling that "US Government Can Continue Talking to Social Media Companies." It's a ruling that this specific case cannot be heard as presented.
- chatmasta 2y ago
  It’s a ruling against the injunction, not a ruling on the merits of the case.
  - lesuorac 2y ago
    And the injunction prohibited the USG from talking to Social Medial Companies. This ruling removes the injunction, Therefore, SCOTUS rules that USG can talk to Social Media Companies.
    - otterley 2y ago
      That's not how lawyers think about this, and since this is a legal case, if they don't, neither should the rest of us.