A federal judge yesterday ordered the Biden administration to halt a wide range of communications with social media companies, siding with Missouri and Louisiana in a lawsuit that alleges Biden and his administration violated the First Amendment by colluding with social networks “to suppress disfavored speakers, viewpoints, and content.”

  • barf@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Who gives a shit, frankly. The first amendment is the first amendment, science or anti-science or anything in between. Whether or not I agree with anything in your comment.

    • HeartyBeast@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is extremely good news for foreign state-run disinformation farms, or domestic terrorists who want to spread disinformation or panic. “Go for it”.

    • CmdrShepard@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Do you extend the same to lies or threats? If I claimed your computer is full of CP would you still support me?

      I personally think this is a brain-dead approach akin to the many “zero tolerance” laws that only exist to remove thought from the equation. “Yes Billy, you may not have actually thrown any punches but we’re suspending you from school for getting beat up by that bully because you were a participant in the fight.”

      • barf@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It’s brain dead to respect the law? Are you drawing a line between what I said and some idea of unlimited free speech? If so, that’s not my stance.

        Edit: also half the things you said would be illegal, so no I wouldn’t support you

        • CmdrShepard@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The first amendment is the first amendment, science or anti-science or anything in between. Whether or not I agree with anything in your comment.

          What else is there to take from this? Sounds like the typical “unlimited free speech” argument that we’ve all heard before.

          If you want to argue about the law, the legality of this action has yet to be determined, so I’m assuming you must be in support of it, no? What is your stance if you think there’s confusion on my part about what that may be.

          Lies and threats may be illegal but they violate the idea of free speech, so why do you support these restrictions on the first amendment and not others?

          • barf@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Lies and threats may be illegal but they violate the idea of free speech, so why do you support these restrictions on the first amendment and not others?

            Because they’re laws the we have as a society agreed upon and put into place. Pretty simple stuff. I do not understand how thinking that the law should be followed is such a wild idea.

            If we want vaccine misinformation to be illegal, we should pass a law. Otherwise, the first amendment stands. What’s so weird about that?

    • czech@no.faux.moe
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Do you understand why you can’t yell “FIRE” in a crowded theater? Do you think that’s a violation of your first amendment rights?

        • czech@no.faux.moe
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Sorry I didn’t flesh it out… Falsely yelling “fire” is not inherently illegal unless someone gets injured as a result. Millions of people died due to vaccine misinformation spread on social media.

          • barf@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            At least millions, and that’s just COVID!

            But the speech is still legal and protected. Maybe there should be more restrictions about these things, but that’s a case that should be argued in public and implemented the official way. Personally I think not, and instead we should be focusing on restricting the things that allow those ridiculous people making false claims to find the other ridiculous people that believe them.

            Just imagine what Trump could have done during the worst of COVID with the power to restrict speech deemed untrue in the dark and without oversight.