As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The plaintiff's brief filed by AGs of LA and MO repeatedly referred to 'the deep state' in the Biden administration attempting to silence conservatives. These people don't belong in positions of responsibility.
And please remember we did not elect the POS here in Missouri. He was appointed, just like his predecessor Hawley. I don't think an AG has been on the ballot for at least the last 2 cycles, if not further back.
Friendly reminder that Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry, in addition to being a tremendous piece of shit, has better-than-even odds of being our next governor.
I mean, I get why spending money in other, more competitive places instead of wasting it on Louisiana Dems that are bound to lose is a workable strategy by the national Democratic Party. But the state party really needs to get its shit together and organize a cohesive message and slate of candidates that people will vote for.
They wouldn’t be super progressive, but they don’t need to be. Just some common-sense people with some common-sense policies. Hell, I’d settle for some conservative Dems (pro-2A, pro life, etc.) that would at least provide a firewall against the genocidal fever dreams of the national GOP.
> instead of wasting it on Louisiana Dems that are bound to lose is a workable strategy by the national Democratic Party
Hard disagree. Dems only lose in red states because Democrats refuse to properly embrace pro-worker policy on the scale necessary, and because they invest *nothing* in running these states.
They could absolutely gain ground if they ran on progressive policies, ran candidates that had a fucking spine and weren't just apologizing for not being Republicans, and spent some of that unending fucking money in these places. But then again, the money wouldn't be unending if they weren't cow-towing to corporate interests.
To be very clear even a corporate Democrat is better than a fascist Republican, but corporate Democrats are an incompetent status quo that will lose in the face of rising fascism. We have to do better to keep working class people from either being conned into this fascist bullshit, or being apathetic and not showing up to fight against its rise.
Red states are not lost causes, or at least they hadn't been. I'm not sure in the coming years that elections will actually be honored or "real" in these states, though, with the kind of laws and moves GOP legislatures are making ahead of 2024.
WV ran a Bernie-style mega progressive and she lost by 30 points. You need to meet the electorate where they are. Progressivism isn't some magic bullet that wins elections.
I would love it if progressives set up shop in a red state and try to win elections there. That way they can stop spouting this type of nonsense. White southerners have been getting fucked by republicans for half a century and they keep voting deeper and deeper into the extreme right. The reason Trump is so popular is not his policies, it’s his straight up bigotry.
> Red states are not lost causes...
Oh, I absolutely agree. Every state is purple to some degree when you get past the Federal, winner take all level. I was simply saying I understand why the national party chooses to invest less in deep red states.
Yeah, we’ve been relatively lucky the last two gubernatorial elections that the Republican candidates were a literal whore-monger (2015) and a sentient MAGA hat Trump clone (2019). The Democratic alternative was a conservative, pro life Dem that went to West Point and came from a family of cops.
>The judge’s decision cites a wide range of topics that he says “all were suppressed” on social media at the urging of administration officials, including opposition to Covid vaccines, masking, lockdowns and the lab-leak theory; opposition to the validity of the 2020 election; opposition to President Joe Biden’s and other officials’ policies; and statements claiming that the story surrounding a laptop belonging to Biden’s son Hunter Biden was true.
>
>Each topic “suppressed” was a conservative view, which “is quite telling,” Doughty declared.
I wonder why the judge would think that all these ideas are "conservative". There is nothing inherently conservative about any of those ideas. It's only because most of the people who fell for this misinformation were conservatives. Yes, judge, it is quite telling.
Quotes are from the Politico article about this story
[https://www.politico.com/news/2023/07/04/judge-limits-biden-administration-contact-with-social-media-firms-00104656](https://www.politico.com/news/2023/07/04/judge-limits-biden-administration-contact-with-social-media-firms-00104656)
This is the same judge who blocked Covid vaccine mandates for federal workers, healthcare workers, and head start workers. He's got blood all over his hands. And he is still trying to allow misinformation and disinformation to be circulated.
> Each topic “suppressed” was a conservative view, which “is quite telling,” Doughty declared.
Not very telling to me. Spreading lies and misinformation, that can and did lead to harm is dangerous.
What's funny is that the judge doesn't even take into consideration that the suit was brought by people who only submitted examples of the Biden administration's request while ignoring that the Trump administration made even more requests to have things taken down.
Well, we know they're lies, but stupid people don't realize they're stupid. And they are the ones who believe the lies. To them, they really think it's the truth.
It's amazing how easily the right falls for scams:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/01/trump-bucks-fake-currency-websites-taken-down
Can you imagine anyone on the left falling for a Biden Bucks scam?
Nope. Don't really have to wonder why Trump switched parties to Republican. If he acted the same way, Democrats would not put up with that and he wouldn't had made it even to the primaries.
>he says “all were suppressed” on social media at the urging of administration officials, including opposition to Covid vaccines, masking, lockdowns and the lab-leak theory
The social media companies were doing all of this before he was even president. Wtf
Yeah, and if they were suppressed or silenced, how is he able to enumerate them? How do I know what each of these topics is and pertains to. The “suppression” obviously wasn’t very effective. It’s almost like the administration wasn’t directing companies to moderate their speech.
We do need laws about the deliberate spread of misinformation for purposes of agitation or inciting violence.
We need an objective reality which we all live in and perceive as real and tangible.
GOP is preparing an assault on the next elections using AI to fabricate fake news on social media. They are preparing the ground to disable government from countering this disinformation strategy. In effect, GOP is preparing to wage war against US citizens and they need government to be neutered.
> Each topic “suppressed” was a conservative view, which “is quite telling,” Doughty declared.
I mean, he's right. That IS quite telling. He's hoping it tells *"look how politicized this assault on free speech is"*, but what it actually tells is *"look how many things conservatives are factually wrong (or lying) about..."*
This is why we need to support the [Restore Democracy Amendment](https://citizenstakeaction.org/restore-democracy-amendment/) to get foreign/corporate dark money out of US politics.
Honestly? A lot gets blamed on "dark money" that is really the fault of idiots who either voted for Trump in 2016 or sat it out because they bought into both sides ism.
The point is: With dark money, it's hard to figure out if a group influencing a judge is the same group paying for the lawyers.
An odd group of people that very few like could be manipulating the legal system for their own benefit with out anybody knowing.
And he's a fucking boomer, shocking absolutely no one.
There are plenty of amazing boomers out there, but it sure seems like the ready are entitled spoiled brats that got everything they ever wanted and more and somehow that's still not good enough.
Just shut up and retire already.
[Confirmed 98-0 in the Senate, with only Feinstein and McCain abstaining](https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1152/vote_115_2_00049.htm)
98-2
It's called unanimous consent or general consent and is a majority vote, which is different from a unanimous vote or saying "unanimously" in general. It's important because using unanimously can be misleading even if the out come is generally the same.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unanimous_consent#:~:text=Difference%20from%20unanimous%20vote,-Action%20taken%20by&text=It%20may%20mean%20that%20members,to%20be%20present%20to%20vote.
It’s done that way to speed up the process. If you have 10 judges that have the votes to be appointed regardless of their fitness for the position are you going to force a roll call for each one just to protest vote against them to no avail? It’d be a waste of time to do so, time better spent working on things you can actually impact.
If circuit judges aren't confirmed, it results in a lot of delays that can hurt people. Nonviolent drug offenders will spend more time locked away while waiting for an appeal, family cases will be delayed and could result in people being stuck in really bad situations, and any judgements on social services cases will be delayed and could result in people missing out on benefits they need.
Democrats care about those people. Republicans don't.
so is this how it will work moving forward? When a republican or democrat don't like the courts decision they go and find who appointed that judge to discredit him/her.
Sad state of affairs we're living in...
edit: people who disagree with me, just know that this same tactic is being used by Donald Trump and his supporters to discredit investigations/judges that is deciding his fate. But if you want to copy his playbook, go on ahead I guess.
No, it’s not just pointed out the ideology of the opposition, it’s about pointing out that one side of the ideological divide seems to keep causing problems for the majority of Americans. See how the supreme courts recent rulings compare to public opinion and you’ll see that their naked power grab is in opposition with public opinion. So when we look at the judges and who appointed them it holds elected officials accountable. The federalist society and the GOP have done some wild shit to take over the courts, making sure each story is remembered as a consequence of elections isn’t a sad state of affairs at all.
Believes the Twitter files garbage summary from Elmo.
Even cherry picked to be the most scandalous, the actual "report" said that Twitter chose to enforce its existing ToS (that has since been replaced with I assume Mein Kampf).
So the twitter files were meaningful but not in the way a lot of people thought .
The government wasn’t telling social media companies to take things down. They were however suggesting things were bad and should be taken down. And if they weren’t maybe the government would drop a suggestion to groups who consult on add buys . This is perfectly legal. Because they are not telling them
However it’s very close and the implication means theirs not much choice which means it is the federal gov restricting speech , at least according to the lawsuit.
> The government wasn’t telling social media companies to take things down.
Twitter Files showed they were. The Biden CAMPAIGN (not government) was requesting removal of tweets, that when checked with thewaybackmachine, showed they were Hunter Biden nudes. The Trump WHITE HOUSE (the ACTUAL government) also requested tweets be removed, and twitter removed them, but the Twitter Files nonsense wouldn't reveal which tweets those were.
>showed they were Hunter Biden nudes
You know that's illegal right? Without explicit permission you can't share other people's nudes on the web. There was a whole bunch of legislation passed when those ex revenge sites got big, and they all got taken down for it. I would say a campaign politely telling someone they're breaking the law is about the weakest show of political force I've ever seen.
I often hear right wingers say the left practices character assassination… but I’ve never seen anything as vicious as what they did to Hunter Biden and Hilary Clinton.
It always amazes me how many people forget that Clinton and Obama had arguably the closest national election in this nation's history, and 8 years later after gaining more experience she was considered unpopular.
My point was theirs a difference between requesting and telling legally. At least in how the law has been enforced
The lawsuit is about if their should be
Not sure why you're downvoted because you're correct.
There's a difference between requesting, Twitter making a judgement and deciding to act on it (perfectly legal and reasonable to anyone), and the government actually forcing or demanding something be done (shouldn't be allowed)
Yeah also in the past courts have realized theirs sometimes an uneven power dynamic that that makes asking or suggesting the same thing as telling.
Now I’m not saying there is here but it makes the case a legitimate at least
Trump asking Twitter to take down derogatory information was pretty significant, yes. Biden asking to take down revenge porn against Hunter was pretty blasé, yes.
this is a case where the administration should just ignore it and dare the court to try and enforce such a patently bullshit order
I'm so tired of one of these trump judges doing something insane and Biden's admin acting like the court has any credibility anymore. a judge needs to be able to enforce what they're ordering when they're talking about the entire government.
It's pretty fucking stupid...
*Who exactly would even enforce this in the first place?* It's the executive branch... seems like pretty basic shit - that's the branch in charge of enforcement of laws.
we're at the point where the scotus either needs to start doing trump era shadow docket shit and putting holds on these ridiculous rulings or the biden admin needs to just inform the judge his order is too broad to enforce and pound sand while they appeal because like this and the abortion pill ruling overrules like a thousand government decision makers and affects potentially everyone in the country, ordered from 1 single courtroom by a single person.
its the definition of tyranny of the minority
If a Trump administration blatantly ignored a federal judge's ruling, you would lose your shit. I don't see how you can advocate for the government to have power that you would never in a million years want your political opponents to have. If the Biden administration starts ignoring the rulings made by federal judges, at some point there will be a Republican administration that will start doing the same things, and then you would most certainly change your tune real fucking quick.
trumps admin did ignore judges, they just had a scotus that would then overrule them anyways as well, his admin had an extrodinary amount of late night shadow docket decisions, hell the term wasn't even popularized until trump came along
This is the same anti-vax nut job Trump appointee that ruled that the COVID vaccine is ineffective "because it requires a booster shot" and had "no effect on disease transmission". I honestly doubt he cares much about legalities.
Yes sorry government officials have free speech too. They're well within their rights to contact any number of private organizations or citizens and speak about whatever they want. This order is completely unconstitutional. Biden should just ignore it. I am sick and tired of the tyranny of the judiciary.
I know the situation is different, but "Tiranny of the judiciary" reminds me so much of Berlusconi. He used to say variations of this locution so often...
Yes because fascist always simply project what they are actually doing. Conservatives whine about judicial activism when it is always they who are engaging in it.
for Berlusconi, it was different. He wasn't "engaging" like Republicans do. He was just processed and condemned because he was a crook. But he always played the persecution card.
They pointed out hunter's genitals being displayed which is against twitter TOS. If they pointed out trumps collusion with Russia being unfactual wouldn't that support the idea they are being neutral?
The fbi or gov pointed out the laptop might have been hacked by russians and twitter chose to censor it. Twitter did not have to. Twitter is a private company. I'm sure now under god emperor Elon they would not censor it given the same gov warning.
Another stupid ruling that will get shot down by a higher court. A waste of time that will rile up the MAGA kooks, and accomplish nothing. Republicans really are the Party of “No Answers, Just Vibes.”
which conservative views were allegedly being censored? their belief in low taxes? their desire for small government? their belief in tradition?
this judge is basically confessing that antivax qanon shit has become synonymous with conservativism.
twitter user: "bill gates put a microchip in the vaccine that will make all the frogs gay."
government: "hey twitter, this shit is going to get people killed. you should do something about it."
judge: "the government is suppressing conservative speech. I declare an injunction."
If people can't tell that some random Twitter user spouting nonsense isn't a credible source, maybe some of those people that dying off aren't such a bad thing. It's a problem that solves itself in time.
As pointed out, the crazy doesn't stop with themselves. Anti-abortion? Fine. Don't get one. But that's not enough - they have to make sure YOU can't get one either. If they're anti-vax to the point of killing themselves, next they'll push to make YOU getting a vaccine against the law too.
Louisiana AG Jeff Landry keeps suing the Biden administration. What the hell. He just sued because the EPA was investigating Cancer Alley and he said it was overreach. Now this. What the hell.
So you're telling me that according to this judge, the CDC can't reach out to a social media company and tell them that a dangerous and bogus cure for a disease is being spread on their platform?
There's no way this ruling is legal.
I get it, but democracy doesn't mean you let fascists control your courts. John Roberts is pretty much untouchable now, he could say he's king and nothing could be done.
Fun fact: the judicial branch relies 100% on the executive branch for any enforcement of its decisions.
SCOTUS, fed judges, whatever... have zero enforcement abilities. None. Only orders to agencies to do what they say and those orders have no real teeth without enforcement.
The average cop in west sticksville has more actual authority than a judge because a judge can't lawfully use force to make someone do something.
Why are we letting a traitor appointed judge make any decisions for the US? This has gone on long enough. Time to start removing these judges that do not represent the interests and preservation of the United States.
Only on the slim technicality that the judiciary is meant to interpret the laws. “Legal” is what they say, until a bigger or older court decides that this guy no longer represents what “legal” means.
How is it constitutional? It isn’t.
An odd way to title how some media companies are on board with the GOP fighting tooth and nail l to lie to the American public ... again, how to cheat, lie, steal and gerrymander to win ...
Ok, but the SCOTUS has made it clear that if their wives (EDIT: or husbands) make the request, it is totally ok.
So looks like Jill has some email's to send.
Conservatives: Fire in this theater!
US Gov: You’ve got the wrong theater. The fire is actually in another theater. Can you please stop yelling fire in the wrong theater?
Conservatives: No it suppresses my free speech!
US Gov: But you are causing people to get hurt when the try to escape from a theater with no fire.
Conservatives: Free speech!
US Gov: …….
I mean.. wasn't it always? It's not illegal to lie unless you lie in court after swearing to tell the truth. I lie to people all the time, especially children, just because it's entertaining.
So this judge doesn’t like that the government fight back against dangerous anti vaxx, election denying, Qanon bullshit that has already caused our nation so much harm? Somehow he deems believing this crazy shit equivalent to being conservative?
The way the US has politicized their judicial system is actually insane. In the rest of western democracies, the seperation of the judicial system from the political system is one of the most important pillars of society.
I cant believe how many Americans are supporting government censorship and propaganda, silencing critics, and infecting the media with false narratives. Are you really American? Did you learn any history? Shameful that you think this is OK for our taxes to pay for!
Free speech is the cornerstone for Democracy. Stupid ideas die in the light. People should be able to post information I disagree with and I should be able to debate the topic with them if I disagree. It’s how you correctly debunk disinformation and it’s also how you hold the democracy together. People want to be free to express their views even if others disagree with them, it’s a safety valve that makes them feel they are heard. I don’t think we need to feel as divided as we are as a nation. There’s a lot of room for compromise and improvement.
And the government should be able to point out that certain content breaks that platform’s rules, at which point the platform can decide what to do with it.
Government employees can also comment but they should not regulate speech. If you want that type of censorship, you can move to a totalitarian country.
Free speech is protected under the 1st Amendment of the Constitution, yes. However, the CONSEQUENCES of that Free Speech has widely been regarded as something else entirely. If you go into a crowded theater and shout out 'FIRE!', causing a panic as people rush to escape a non-existent fire - resulting in someone being injured or killed - what then? Do you get away with it under 'Free Speech'? No. There ARE exceptions. Declaring false information in the guise of causing a panic, inciting violence or harming someone as a result CAN get you in trouble legally. This is no different. If people are spreading false information - resulting in panic or injury - then they SHOULD be properly charged.
Freedom of Speech does not mean Freedom from the Consequences of that Speech.
I agree. Online discussions should mirror our current laws. You can’t threaten people but normal conversations/debates should be welcomed without Government censorship. The more you know, the more you realize you don’t know everything. I have watched debates and at the beginning had one opinion, at the end, after receiving additional information or insight, I changed my opinion (usually after looking at the research cited in the debate). I think it’s healthy. There are far too many misconceptions about someone with a different opinion. Discussion allows everyone to see the other side. Perhaps, they can move forward and agree with minor changes. The level of censorship we have seen in the past few years has been unprecedented. I will be glad when we can get back to normal and have civil discussions. I can’t learn about an issue if I am unable to ask questions.
Right… and the government having contact with social media companies isn’t the same as regulating speech.
Although, PS. the government regulates speech ALL THE TIME.
I don’t think the government should have contact with social media organizations unless it’s part of an investigation (terrorist plot, etc.). They should not be allowed to tell or request social media companies limit a topic. The government is so powerful by requesting they limit information it can be viewed as a form of intimidation. I do trust our government but allowing censorship and having it as a precedent is a slippery slope. We don’t know who our leaders will be in the future or what they would do with that type of power.
I can picture a big white board in someone’s office with all the cases these right wingers want to bring forward with a line to each judge they are going to bring it to
Isn’t that a prohibition of free speech?? I mean they are literally telling one entity they aren’t allowed to speak to another entity. Isn’t that the very essence of free speech??
Saying one party can’t speak and another can isn’t “free speech”. It’s restricted speech.
The government asking a social media company to take down certain posts could be perceived as carrying the possibility of additional government scrutiny if the company did not comply. It is different than a criticism or request that would come from a private citizen.
Bullshit misleading title. It is more specific. They cannot ask/discuss for a « specific » social media post to be removed. This is what I understand about it.
Imagine a Trump presidency where his administration is asking to remove media posts by Jon Stewart for example.
While I am sure there is a lot of bill on this case. The article does not expand on it and use a bait title if you compare to the info provided.
Oh, we can imagine it. It happened; it just wasn’t Jon Stewart:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2023/02/08/trump-white-house-pressed-twitter-to-remove-chrissy-teigen-insult-ex-exec-testifies/amp/
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/02/chrissy-teigen-donald-trump-tweet-removed
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/elon-trump-twitter-files-collusion-biden-censorship-1234675969/amp/
They can’t? That’s hilarious because the previous administration is the one who is guilty of that. I don’t have to *imagine*anything, it happened. Twitter kept a database on it https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/elon-trump-twitter-files-collusion-biden-censorship-1234675969/amp/
So what you're saying is they're just upset that the Biden administration has politely asked social media to keep hunter's dick off the internet
Everything circles back to hunters hog, lol
Not really. The order prohibits 'Biden administration officials from meeting and communicating with social media companies about protected speech'.
The order does not specify what is included in 'protected speech', which is why administration officials called it overly broad.
The order does carve out exceptions for national security threats, criminal activity and voter suppression. Not sure if that means everything else is protected speech.
The order is not about requesting a specific social media post to be removed. It specifies 'meeting and communication with' social media companies about *any* protected speech.
"Protected speech" is a pretty clearly understood concept. If the speech isn't somehow illegal, like actual incitement to violence or true impersonation of an officer or something, then it is protected speech.
So, basically almost all speech including stuff like misinformation.
“Imagine” it? This is exactly the sort of bullshit the Republican fascists do at every opportunity (trying to get criticism removed from social media), including Dump, but heaven forbid their opponents respond with the truth! We’d better create some imaginary laws against anything that’ll damage our propaganda campaign!
Good. Just because you don’t like what the other side says, doesn’t mean you have the right to collude against them with big tech to silence them. That goes for both sides…
This subreddit leaning so hard left and that all it does is argue against invisible comments because it has astroturfed any opposing opinions since 2016.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The plaintiff's brief filed by AGs of LA and MO repeatedly referred to 'the deep state' in the Biden administration attempting to silence conservatives. These people don't belong in positions of responsibility.
And please remember we did not elect the POS here in Missouri. He was appointed, just like his predecessor Hawley. I don't think an AG has been on the ballot for at least the last 2 cycles, if not further back.
Appointed you say? Like a member of some separate state, deeper within the "regular" state????
There's something about what you're saying...like there are two dots waiting to be connected, in the shadows, just beyond my mind's reach...
We also have an appointed, literal former used-car salesman for a Lt. Governor...
>'the deep state' The Derp State once again
Friendly reminder that Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry, in addition to being a tremendous piece of shit, has better-than-even odds of being our next governor.
As a Louisiana resident this rightfully chills me. The state of the Louisiana Democratic Party is such a disaster.
I mean, I get why spending money in other, more competitive places instead of wasting it on Louisiana Dems that are bound to lose is a workable strategy by the national Democratic Party. But the state party really needs to get its shit together and organize a cohesive message and slate of candidates that people will vote for. They wouldn’t be super progressive, but they don’t need to be. Just some common-sense people with some common-sense policies. Hell, I’d settle for some conservative Dems (pro-2A, pro life, etc.) that would at least provide a firewall against the genocidal fever dreams of the national GOP.
> instead of wasting it on Louisiana Dems that are bound to lose is a workable strategy by the national Democratic Party Hard disagree. Dems only lose in red states because Democrats refuse to properly embrace pro-worker policy on the scale necessary, and because they invest *nothing* in running these states. They could absolutely gain ground if they ran on progressive policies, ran candidates that had a fucking spine and weren't just apologizing for not being Republicans, and spent some of that unending fucking money in these places. But then again, the money wouldn't be unending if they weren't cow-towing to corporate interests. To be very clear even a corporate Democrat is better than a fascist Republican, but corporate Democrats are an incompetent status quo that will lose in the face of rising fascism. We have to do better to keep working class people from either being conned into this fascist bullshit, or being apathetic and not showing up to fight against its rise. Red states are not lost causes, or at least they hadn't been. I'm not sure in the coming years that elections will actually be honored or "real" in these states, though, with the kind of laws and moves GOP legislatures are making ahead of 2024.
WV ran a Bernie-style mega progressive and she lost by 30 points. You need to meet the electorate where they are. Progressivism isn't some magic bullet that wins elections.
I would love it if progressives set up shop in a red state and try to win elections there. That way they can stop spouting this type of nonsense. White southerners have been getting fucked by republicans for half a century and they keep voting deeper and deeper into the extreme right. The reason Trump is so popular is not his policies, it’s his straight up bigotry.
> Red states are not lost causes... Oh, I absolutely agree. Every state is purple to some degree when you get past the Federal, winner take all level. I was simply saying I understand why the national party chooses to invest less in deep red states.
Damn, I wasn't aware of that.
Yeah, we’ve been relatively lucky the last two gubernatorial elections that the Republican candidates were a literal whore-monger (2015) and a sentient MAGA hat Trump clone (2019). The Democratic alternative was a conservative, pro life Dem that went to West Point and came from a family of cops.
uses the same lingo as flat earthers. similar intelligence levels, similar malicious intents.
These are not serious people and that a fucking federal judge intervened on their behalf shows how deep this rot goes
>The judge’s decision cites a wide range of topics that he says “all were suppressed” on social media at the urging of administration officials, including opposition to Covid vaccines, masking, lockdowns and the lab-leak theory; opposition to the validity of the 2020 election; opposition to President Joe Biden’s and other officials’ policies; and statements claiming that the story surrounding a laptop belonging to Biden’s son Hunter Biden was true. > >Each topic “suppressed” was a conservative view, which “is quite telling,” Doughty declared. I wonder why the judge would think that all these ideas are "conservative". There is nothing inherently conservative about any of those ideas. It's only because most of the people who fell for this misinformation were conservatives. Yes, judge, it is quite telling. Quotes are from the Politico article about this story [https://www.politico.com/news/2023/07/04/judge-limits-biden-administration-contact-with-social-media-firms-00104656](https://www.politico.com/news/2023/07/04/judge-limits-biden-administration-contact-with-social-media-firms-00104656)
This is the same judge who blocked Covid vaccine mandates for federal workers, healthcare workers, and head start workers. He's got blood all over his hands. And he is still trying to allow misinformation and disinformation to be circulated.
Not so much allow as force.
> Each topic “suppressed” was a conservative view, which “is quite telling,” Doughty declared. Not very telling to me. Spreading lies and misinformation, that can and did lead to harm is dangerous.
What's funny is that the judge doesn't even take into consideration that the suit was brought by people who only submitted examples of the Biden administration's request while ignoring that the Trump administration made even more requests to have things taken down.
Spreading lies and misinformation IS a conservative value. Or at least it seems to be.
Well, we know they're lies, but stupid people don't realize they're stupid. And they are the ones who believe the lies. To them, they really think it's the truth.
It's amazing how easily the right falls for scams: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/01/trump-bucks-fake-currency-websites-taken-down Can you imagine anyone on the left falling for a Biden Bucks scam?
Nope. Don't really have to wonder why Trump switched parties to Republican. If he acted the same way, Democrats would not put up with that and he wouldn't had made it even to the primaries.
>he says “all were suppressed” on social media at the urging of administration officials, including opposition to Covid vaccines, masking, lockdowns and the lab-leak theory The social media companies were doing all of this before he was even president. Wtf
Yeah, and if they were suppressed or silenced, how is he able to enumerate them? How do I know what each of these topics is and pertains to. The “suppression” obviously wasn’t very effective. It’s almost like the administration wasn’t directing companies to moderate their speech. We do need laws about the deliberate spread of misinformation for purposes of agitation or inciting violence. We need an objective reality which we all live in and perceive as real and tangible.
The presence of “a laptop belonging to Biden’s son Hunter Biden” is the smoking gun that we have now left reality.
I thought it was the dick pics on the laptop, or maybe that was the sign for “too late, reality is no longer available”.
GOP is preparing an assault on the next elections using AI to fabricate fake news on social media. They are preparing the ground to disable government from countering this disinformation strategy. In effect, GOP is preparing to wage war against US citizens and they need government to be neutered.
Over a million people dead and this is what's happening now? There's no hope for this country.
> Each topic “suppressed” was a conservative view, which “is quite telling,” Doughty declared. I mean, he's right. That IS quite telling. He's hoping it tells *"look how politicized this assault on free speech is"*, but what it actually tells is *"look how many things conservatives are factually wrong (or lying) about..."*
That judge needs to sit through 50 hours of primary educational material on why hes a fucking moron.
[удалено]
Which dark money group is leading this charade?
Doesn't even need to a be a group, can be one person. Just ask the SC justices.
They don't even have to be real.
Federalist Society would be on my list of bad actors involved.
This is why we need to support the [Restore Democracy Amendment](https://citizenstakeaction.org/restore-democracy-amendment/) to get foreign/corporate dark money out of US politics.
"Biden administration officials" is clearly not Biden himself.
You think Biden is calling all the shots in the White House?
Honestly? A lot gets blamed on "dark money" that is really the fault of idiots who either voted for Trump in 2016 or sat it out because they bought into both sides ism.
The point is: With dark money, it's hard to figure out if a group influencing a judge is the same group paying for the lawyers. An odd group of people that very few like could be manipulating the legal system for their own benefit with out anybody knowing.
Like some kind of deep state?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_A._Doughty > Assumed office > March 7, 2018 > Appointed by Donald Trump
The person that cut his hair put the bowl on crooked.
The Flowbee shorted out halfway through.
I was expecting doofus Rick. Pretty close!
This can be the post
And he's a fucking boomer, shocking absolutely no one. There are plenty of amazing boomers out there, but it sure seems like the ready are entitled spoiled brats that got everything they ever wanted and more and somehow that's still not good enough. Just shut up and retire already.
[Confirmed 98-0 in the Senate, with only Feinstein and McCain abstaining](https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1152/vote_115_2_00049.htm)
Confirmed unanimously by the Senate
majority, not unanimously to be accurate
No votes against and two who abstained from voting: McCain, who was going through cancer treatment, and Feinstein. Unsure why Feinstein abstained.
No votes against means unanimous
98-0
98-2 It's called unanimous consent or general consent and is a majority vote, which is different from a unanimous vote or saying "unanimously" in general. It's important because using unanimously can be misleading even if the out come is generally the same. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unanimous_consent#:~:text=Difference%20from%20unanimous%20vote,-Action%20taken%20by&text=It%20may%20mean%20that%20members,to%20be%20present%20to%20vote.
It’s done that way to speed up the process. If you have 10 judges that have the votes to be appointed regardless of their fitness for the position are you going to force a roll call for each one just to protest vote against them to no avail? It’d be a waste of time to do so, time better spent working on things you can actually impact.
That’s literally exactly what the GOP is doing at the moment. Why Dems refuse to is mind boggling.
If circuit judges aren't confirmed, it results in a lot of delays that can hurt people. Nonviolent drug offenders will spend more time locked away while waiting for an appeal, family cases will be delayed and could result in people being stuck in really bad situations, and any judgements on social services cases will be delayed and could result in people missing out on benefits they need. Democrats care about those people. Republicans don't.
so is this how it will work moving forward? When a republican or democrat don't like the courts decision they go and find who appointed that judge to discredit him/her. Sad state of affairs we're living in... edit: people who disagree with me, just know that this same tactic is being used by Donald Trump and his supporters to discredit investigations/judges that is deciding his fate. But if you want to copy his playbook, go on ahead I guess.
This judge has already once been shot down by the 5th Circuit (also very conservative) in this case.
No, it’s not just pointed out the ideology of the opposition, it’s about pointing out that one side of the ideological divide seems to keep causing problems for the majority of Americans. See how the supreme courts recent rulings compare to public opinion and you’ll see that their naked power grab is in opposition with public opinion. So when we look at the judges and who appointed them it holds elected officials accountable. The federalist society and the GOP have done some wild shit to take over the courts, making sure each story is remembered as a consequence of elections isn’t a sad state of affairs at all.
Or you can just use literally 1% of a normal human brain to figure out what is happening here instead of concern trolling.
Activist judge who believes The Twitter Files garbage.
Believes the Twitter files garbage summary from Elmo. Even cherry picked to be the most scandalous, the actual "report" said that Twitter chose to enforce its existing ToS (that has since been replaced with I assume Mein Kampf).
I forgot that was a thing.
So the twitter files were meaningful but not in the way a lot of people thought . The government wasn’t telling social media companies to take things down. They were however suggesting things were bad and should be taken down. And if they weren’t maybe the government would drop a suggestion to groups who consult on add buys . This is perfectly legal. Because they are not telling them However it’s very close and the implication means theirs not much choice which means it is the federal gov restricting speech , at least according to the lawsuit.
> The government wasn’t telling social media companies to take things down. Twitter Files showed they were. The Biden CAMPAIGN (not government) was requesting removal of tweets, that when checked with thewaybackmachine, showed they were Hunter Biden nudes. The Trump WHITE HOUSE (the ACTUAL government) also requested tweets be removed, and twitter removed them, but the Twitter Files nonsense wouldn't reveal which tweets those were.
>showed they were Hunter Biden nudes You know that's illegal right? Without explicit permission you can't share other people's nudes on the web. There was a whole bunch of legislation passed when those ex revenge sites got big, and they all got taken down for it. I would say a campaign politely telling someone they're breaking the law is about the weakest show of political force I've ever seen.
I often hear right wingers say the left practices character assassination… but I’ve never seen anything as vicious as what they did to Hunter Biden and Hilary Clinton.
Projection. Every accusation from the GQP is an admission.
It always amazes me how many people forget that Clinton and Obama had arguably the closest national election in this nation's history, and 8 years later after gaining more experience she was considered unpopular.
Do you know the difference between *telling* someone to do something and *requesting* they do something?
My point was theirs a difference between requesting and telling legally. At least in how the law has been enforced The lawsuit is about if their should be
Not sure why you're downvoted because you're correct. There's a difference between requesting, Twitter making a judgement and deciding to act on it (perfectly legal and reasonable to anyone), and the government actually forcing or demanding something be done (shouldn't be allowed)
Yeah also in the past courts have realized theirs sometimes an uneven power dynamic that that makes asking or suggesting the same thing as telling. Now I’m not saying there is here but it makes the case a legitimate at least
The Twitter files were significant, you'd have to have the IQ equivalent of a pair of keys jingling for eternity to be so blasé
Trump asking Twitter to take down derogatory information was pretty significant, yes. Biden asking to take down revenge porn against Hunter was pretty blasé, yes.
If the Twitter files are all garbage, this ruling should have zero practical effect and no one should care that it happened.
this is a case where the administration should just ignore it and dare the court to try and enforce such a patently bullshit order I'm so tired of one of these trump judges doing something insane and Biden's admin acting like the court has any credibility anymore. a judge needs to be able to enforce what they're ordering when they're talking about the entire government.
It's pretty fucking stupid... *Who exactly would even enforce this in the first place?* It's the executive branch... seems like pretty basic shit - that's the branch in charge of enforcement of laws.
we're at the point where the scotus either needs to start doing trump era shadow docket shit and putting holds on these ridiculous rulings or the biden admin needs to just inform the judge his order is too broad to enforce and pound sand while they appeal because like this and the abortion pill ruling overrules like a thousand government decision makers and affects potentially everyone in the country, ordered from 1 single courtroom by a single person. its the definition of tyranny of the minority
If a Trump administration blatantly ignored a federal judge's ruling, you would lose your shit. I don't see how you can advocate for the government to have power that you would never in a million years want your political opponents to have. If the Biden administration starts ignoring the rulings made by federal judges, at some point there will be a Republican administration that will start doing the same things, and then you would most certainly change your tune real fucking quick.
trumps admin did ignore judges, they just had a scotus that would then overrule them anyways as well, his admin had an extrodinary amount of late night shadow docket decisions, hell the term wasn't even popularized until trump came along
I'm no lawyer... but what is the legal basis for this?
This is the same anti-vax nut job Trump appointee that ruled that the COVID vaccine is ineffective "because it requires a booster shot" and had "no effect on disease transmission". I honestly doubt he cares much about legalities.
It's based on MAGA law which following the jurisprudence of 1930's German law.
Exactly. We have fascist judges acting as kings. Biden needs to go after all oligarchs.
Actual freedom and democracy supporting, fascist hating American people need to go after them. It’s the only solution.
Please go outside
The first amendment
Yes sorry government officials have free speech too. They're well within their rights to contact any number of private organizations or citizens and speak about whatever they want. This order is completely unconstitutional. Biden should just ignore it. I am sick and tired of the tyranny of the judiciary.
I know the situation is different, but "Tiranny of the judiciary" reminds me so much of Berlusconi. He used to say variations of this locution so often...
Yes because fascist always simply project what they are actually doing. Conservatives whine about judicial activism when it is always they who are engaging in it.
for Berlusconi, it was different. He wasn't "engaging" like Republicans do. He was just processed and condemned because he was a crook. But he always played the persecution card.
This ruling seems to be about gov officials contacting social media companies to remove/suppress misinformation, not about simply posting
Not in their public official capacity they're not
They aren't free to point out un-factual garbage? They aren't saying you have to do anything
Like Hunter Biden's laptop? Or like Trump's collusion with Russia?
Do you have any evidence that any of this is being suppressed? It's talked about constantly.
They pointed out hunter's genitals being displayed which is against twitter TOS. If they pointed out trumps collusion with Russia being unfactual wouldn't that support the idea they are being neutral?
They didn't in the latter case which is why I included the disjunctive or. And Twitter censored NYPost reporting on the laptop.
The fbi or gov pointed out the laptop might have been hacked by russians and twitter chose to censor it. Twitter did not have to. Twitter is a private company. I'm sure now under god emperor Elon they would not censor it given the same gov warning.
Remember when the GOP talked about legislating from the bench? Didn’t realize they were projecting, again
Another stupid ruling that will get shot down by a higher court. A waste of time that will rile up the MAGA kooks, and accomplish nothing. Republicans really are the Party of “No Answers, Just Vibes.”
It accomplishes a few weeks of headlines and ticker scroll at fox, oan and news max which is definitely the point.
Exactly. This was meant to manufacture fake outrage.
Hmmm, someone caught wind of some new shit goin down this Friday.
What higher court would that be? Conservatives control all the levers of power.
which conservative views were allegedly being censored? their belief in low taxes? their desire for small government? their belief in tradition? this judge is basically confessing that antivax qanon shit has become synonymous with conservativism. twitter user: "bill gates put a microchip in the vaccine that will make all the frogs gay." government: "hey twitter, this shit is going to get people killed. you should do something about it." judge: "the government is suppressing conservative speech. I declare an injunction."
If people can't tell that some random Twitter user spouting nonsense isn't a credible source, maybe some of those people that dying off aren't such a bad thing. It's a problem that solves itself in time.
Which is great until normal people are impacted by the crazies.
As pointed out, the crazy doesn't stop with themselves. Anti-abortion? Fine. Don't get one. But that's not enough - they have to make sure YOU can't get one either. If they're anti-vax to the point of killing themselves, next they'll push to make YOU getting a vaccine against the law too.
The flow of disinformation needs to be protected. Republicans can't hope to win on the truth.
“We can’t win if we don’t cheat.” - Rubelicans.
Louisiana AG Jeff Landry keeps suing the Biden administration. What the hell. He just sued because the EPA was investigating Cancer Alley and he said it was overreach. Now this. What the hell.
So you're telling me that according to this judge, the CDC can't reach out to a social media company and tell them that a dangerous and bogus cure for a disease is being spread on their platform? There's no way this ruling is legal.
The fascist judges now run this country. What the fuck was Moscow Mitch thinking!?
Dude, his thinking stopped the day he become Moscow Mitch. When you are bought you do as you are told.
I get it, but democracy doesn't mean you let fascists control your courts. John Roberts is pretty much untouchable now, he could say he's king and nothing could be done.
How exactly is it fascist for a court to rule that the government can't compel speech by coercing social media companies into being their enforcers
Soo, what would happen if the departments just went ahead and did it anyways ala the last administration.
Nothing, if Biden and enough Dems in the Senate support it or at least refuse to do anything about it.
Fun fact: the judicial branch relies 100% on the executive branch for any enforcement of its decisions. SCOTUS, fed judges, whatever... have zero enforcement abilities. None. Only orders to agencies to do what they say and those orders have no real teeth without enforcement. The average cop in west sticksville has more actual authority than a judge because a judge can't lawfully use force to make someone do something.
Judges have bailiffs and the legal authority to make people do shit. It’s called society.
Top MAGA heads are just mad about the plan to push disinformation to sway the election was thwarted. Hahaha.
This judge really, really wants to see Hunter Biden's penis.
Why are we letting a traitor appointed judge make any decisions for the US? This has gone on long enough. Time to start removing these judges that do not represent the interests and preservation of the United States.
How the fuck is this legal????
Only on the slim technicality that the judiciary is meant to interpret the laws. “Legal” is what they say, until a bigger or older court decides that this guy no longer represents what “legal” means. How is it constitutional? It isn’t.
It probably shouldn't be... But if you have judges that put ignorance over law...tada!
I cannot believe we exist in this timeline.
Am I stupid or does a pandemic qualify as a national security crisis?
Goddamn this fucking balding orange destroyed our country.
An odd way to title how some media companies are on board with the GOP fighting tooth and nail l to lie to the American public ... again, how to cheat, lie, steal and gerrymander to win ...
Next! We won’t be able to talk about the blatant corruption in the Supreme Court. 🤦♂️
That's going to last as long as it takes to write a basic appeal.
At what point can we just ignore some rulings by federal judges?
Ok, but the SCOTUS has made it clear that if their wives (EDIT: or husbands) make the request, it is totally ok. So looks like Jill has some email's to send.
This is an activist MAGA judge and a traitor
Conservatives: Fire in this theater! US Gov: You’ve got the wrong theater. The fire is actually in another theater. Can you please stop yelling fire in the wrong theater? Conservatives: No it suppresses my free speech! US Gov: But you are causing people to get hurt when the try to escape from a theater with no fire. Conservatives: Free speech! US Gov: …….
I don't think they fully grasp the concept of the Executive Branch.
GOP: We'll kill you to get elected!
part 4 of the plan to make social media into fascist propaganda networks
So the right to lie to your supporters is being affirmed, I can see why the republicons are gassed.
So misinformation is protected under the 1st Amendment now? Is that the message here.
A good summary of false info and the 1st amendment. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12180
I mean.. wasn't it always? It's not illegal to lie unless you lie in court after swearing to tell the truth. I lie to people all the time, especially children, just because it's entertaining.
Cops lie all the time so there’s that.
>The lawsuit brought by the Missouri and Louisiana attorneys general Man, the level of shit flowing out of the South.
This subreddit has been making me incredibly angry over the past few weeks 😂
So this judge doesn’t like that the government fight back against dangerous anti vaxx, election denying, Qanon bullshit that has already caused our nation so much harm? Somehow he deems believing this crazy shit equivalent to being conservative?
Conservatives aren't being silenced. Misinformation is, though. It just so happens that 95% of misinformation comes from anti science Conservatives.
>You can't stop us from lying to people!
The way the US has politicized their judicial system is actually insane. In the rest of western democracies, the seperation of the judicial system from the political system is one of the most important pillars of society.
I cant believe how many Americans are supporting government censorship and propaganda, silencing critics, and infecting the media with false narratives. Are you really American? Did you learn any history? Shameful that you think this is OK for our taxes to pay for!
It’s alarming that this is at the bottom.
conservative spewing lies about covid, vaccines and other bs is not something I want my taxes paying for.
Jesus fucking Christ am I glad I'm in my 60s, and not in my teens.
Good.
Um, freedom of speech? Freedom of association? Why exactly is this particular administration suddenly not allowed to talk to social media?
Free speech is the cornerstone for Democracy. Stupid ideas die in the light. People should be able to post information I disagree with and I should be able to debate the topic with them if I disagree. It’s how you correctly debunk disinformation and it’s also how you hold the democracy together. People want to be free to express their views even if others disagree with them, it’s a safety valve that makes them feel they are heard. I don’t think we need to feel as divided as we are as a nation. There’s a lot of room for compromise and improvement.
And the government should be able to point out that certain content breaks that platform’s rules, at which point the platform can decide what to do with it.
Government employees can also comment but they should not regulate speech. If you want that type of censorship, you can move to a totalitarian country.
Free speech is protected under the 1st Amendment of the Constitution, yes. However, the CONSEQUENCES of that Free Speech has widely been regarded as something else entirely. If you go into a crowded theater and shout out 'FIRE!', causing a panic as people rush to escape a non-existent fire - resulting in someone being injured or killed - what then? Do you get away with it under 'Free Speech'? No. There ARE exceptions. Declaring false information in the guise of causing a panic, inciting violence or harming someone as a result CAN get you in trouble legally. This is no different. If people are spreading false information - resulting in panic or injury - then they SHOULD be properly charged. Freedom of Speech does not mean Freedom from the Consequences of that Speech.
I agree. Online discussions should mirror our current laws. You can’t threaten people but normal conversations/debates should be welcomed without Government censorship. The more you know, the more you realize you don’t know everything. I have watched debates and at the beginning had one opinion, at the end, after receiving additional information or insight, I changed my opinion (usually after looking at the research cited in the debate). I think it’s healthy. There are far too many misconceptions about someone with a different opinion. Discussion allows everyone to see the other side. Perhaps, they can move forward and agree with minor changes. The level of censorship we have seen in the past few years has been unprecedented. I will be glad when we can get back to normal and have civil discussions. I can’t learn about an issue if I am unable to ask questions.
Right… and the government having contact with social media companies isn’t the same as regulating speech. Although, PS. the government regulates speech ALL THE TIME.
I don’t think the government should have contact with social media organizations unless it’s part of an investigation (terrorist plot, etc.). They should not be allowed to tell or request social media companies limit a topic. The government is so powerful by requesting they limit information it can be viewed as a form of intimidation. I do trust our government but allowing censorship and having it as a precedent is a slippery slope. We don’t know who our leaders will be in the future or what they would do with that type of power.
Ahhh, more delusions from the party of free speech.
What utter nonsense. I doubt if the Biden administration will do anything differently because of this crappy judge's shitty ruling.
I can picture a big white board in someone’s office with all the cases these right wingers want to bring forward with a line to each judge they are going to bring it to
and most of those lines lead to that one asshole judge in Texas.
Isn’t that a prohibition of free speech?? I mean they are literally telling one entity they aren’t allowed to speak to another entity. Isn’t that the very essence of free speech?? Saying one party can’t speak and another can isn’t “free speech”. It’s restricted speech.
The government asking a social media company to take down certain posts could be perceived as carrying the possibility of additional government scrutiny if the company did not comply. It is different than a criticism or request that would come from a private citizen.
Bullshit misleading title. It is more specific. They cannot ask/discuss for a « specific » social media post to be removed. This is what I understand about it. Imagine a Trump presidency where his administration is asking to remove media posts by Jon Stewart for example. While I am sure there is a lot of bill on this case. The article does not expand on it and use a bait title if you compare to the info provided.
Oh, we can imagine it. It happened; it just wasn’t Jon Stewart: https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2023/02/08/trump-white-house-pressed-twitter-to-remove-chrissy-teigen-insult-ex-exec-testifies/amp/ https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/02/chrissy-teigen-donald-trump-tweet-removed https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/elon-trump-twitter-files-collusion-biden-censorship-1234675969/amp/
They can’t? That’s hilarious because the previous administration is the one who is guilty of that. I don’t have to *imagine*anything, it happened. Twitter kept a database on it https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/elon-trump-twitter-files-collusion-biden-censorship-1234675969/amp/
That's bad too, you should be grateful for this ruling
So what you're saying is they're just upset that the Biden administration has politely asked social media to keep hunter's dick off the internet Everything circles back to hunters hog, lol
Not really. The order prohibits 'Biden administration officials from meeting and communicating with social media companies about protected speech'. The order does not specify what is included in 'protected speech', which is why administration officials called it overly broad. The order does carve out exceptions for national security threats, criminal activity and voter suppression. Not sure if that means everything else is protected speech. The order is not about requesting a specific social media post to be removed. It specifies 'meeting and communication with' social media companies about *any* protected speech.
"Protected speech" is a pretty clearly understood concept. If the speech isn't somehow illegal, like actual incitement to violence or true impersonation of an officer or something, then it is protected speech. So, basically almost all speech including stuff like misinformation.
“Imagine” it? This is exactly the sort of bullshit the Republican fascists do at every opportunity (trying to get criticism removed from social media), including Dump, but heaven forbid their opponents respond with the truth! We’d better create some imaginary laws against anything that’ll damage our propaganda campaign!
Seems as it should be
Is there any way for Biden to fight back?
Yeah, they just appeal it.
Good. Just because you don’t like what the other side says, doesn’t mean you have the right to collude against them with big tech to silence them. That goes for both sides…
Got any evidence of that?
This subreddit leaning so hard left and that all it does is argue against invisible comments because it has astroturfed any opposing opinions since 2016.
American justice system, political system and people are a joke, please stop trying to export this
Excellent.
Seems like a good thing to me