Federal Judge issues injunction against WH, govt "Ministry of Truth"

[Hardcore troubadour 15,414]

Liberals upset that the government can’t control or influence media entities.  What happened to you people? 

[5-Points 3,523]

8 hours ago, dogcows said:

No there hasn’t. So your premise makes zero sense.

Yes, there has. Ask states like Nevada and Texas who have seen a huge influx of dems leaving California for a safer, more affordable place to live. 

Or states like Florida and S.C. who have seen an influx of New York dems for the same reasons. 

 

 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,414]

3 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

Yes, there has. Ask states like Nevada and Texas who have seen a huge influx of dems leaving California for a safer, more affordable place to live. 

Or states like Florida and S.C. who have seen an influx of New York dems for the same reasons. 

 

 

I know people from NY that have moved south. Not a liberal amongst them. I think the liberals that leave NY are the wealthy ones. The rest are middle class that have had enough. If I ever were to realize my dream of leaving this doomed state the first thing I would do is put up my American Flag on my new house.  Let ‘em know I’m a refugee, not an invader. I can dream. 

[5-Points 3,523]

7 hours ago, Blue Horseshoe said:

 

There are a large number of Republicans in California. But CA, Texas and Florida from a geographic standpoint is too easy to split apart and keep separate in a war time scenario. Also a functioning secession needs half of America's carrier fleet and the logistical needs won't be able to be supported by just Red safe zones. Also I'm pointing out states with major ports. Team Blue will not peacefully allow critical ports to end up in the control of the Conservative base completely. 
 

Here's one point we might completely agree on - The radical left have no boundaries whatsoever. They have no respect for basic social lines where it's long been established that no one should cross. So any "treaty" will be considered free toilet paper for the establishment Democrats. 

Any breakaway that functions will need to be a true nuclear power on it's own. 

Someone like Sho Nuff has no desire to engage in real conversation. His point is to try to bait people to react so he can try to get them banned. His routine is pretty clear. Just put him on ignore. That's my suggestion. 

But I agree with you in that most liberals and leftists don't seem to understand that it's probably Conservatives in their cities who are keeping things from completely falling apart. So again, Sho Nuff and his ilk don't have real opinions, only new angles to try to get you to be enraged so he can be a snitch. I'm "new" to this forum, but I'm not completely new to how Sho Nuff operates on other forums. 

I have no quarrel with traditional liberals. But radical leftists, my take has always been to observe them, then ignore them, then just plain feel sorry for their children. 

Agreed, on all counts. 

 

[dogcows 1,030]

6 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

Yes, there has. Ask states like Nevada and Texas who have seen a huge influx of dems leaving California for a safer, more affordable place to live. 

Or states like Florida and S.C. who have seen an influx of New York dems for the same reasons. 

Nope. 99% of people that lived in CA for the 2020 election still live there. The only people that seem to want to avoid “living with it” are the ones here threatening to secede from the union because they can’t get their way on every issue,

[5-Points 3,523]

1 minute ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

I know people from NY that have moved south. Not a liberal amongst them. I think the liberals that leave NY are the wealthy ones. The rest are middle class that have had enough. If I ever were to realize my dream of leaving this doomed state the first thing I would do is put up my American Flag on my new house.  Let ‘em know I’m a refugee, not an invader. I can dream. 

Rich libs have left NY due to the ridiculous taxes. Of course, it's easier for rich people to just up and leave. For most people it's a more difficult undertaking. 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,414]

6 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

Agreed, on all counts. 

 

Who is Sho Nuff? 

[dogcows 1,030]

6 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

Rich libs have left NY due to the ridiculous taxes. Of course, it's easier for rich people to just up and leave. For most people it's a more difficult undertaking. 

You’ve made a bunch of statements like this. Not once have you backed any of them up with facts. You just make crap up to fit your worldview.

[5-Points 3,523]

6 minutes ago, dogcows said:

Nope. 99% of people that lived in CA for the 2020 election still live there. The only people that seem to want to avoid “living with it” are the ones here threatening to secede from the union because they can’t get their way on every issue,

Really?

Number of Californians moving to Texas up 80%, study finds

The exodus of Californians moving to Texas has continued to pick up steam, with a record number of Golden State residents leaving California for the Lone Star state in 2021.  

Researchers found that 111,000 people, or 300 per day, decided to make the move from California to Texas in 2021, an 80% increase compared to 2012, according to data from the U.S. Census and IPUMS.

 

And it isn't just people. 

 

Others may have decided to move to Texas due to its business-friendly environment. Texas Standard reported that about 40% of businesses from California relocated to Texas, including a few high-profile businesses.

 

 

[dogcows 1,030]

15 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

Really?

Number of Californians moving to Texas up 80%, study finds

The exodus of Californians moving to Texas has continued to pick up steam, with a record number of Golden State residents leaving California for the Lone Star state in 2021.  

Researchers found that 111,000 people, or 300 per day, decided to make the move from California to Texas in 2021, an 80% increase compared to 2012, according to data from the U.S. Census and IPUMS.

 

And it isn't just people. 

 

Others may have decided to move to Texas due to its business-friendly environment. Texas Standard reported that about 40% of businesses from California relocated to Texas, including a few high-profile businesses.

 

 

Wow, 300 per day in a state of 40 million people! About 1/4 of 1% of people moved to Texas. At that rate the whole state will be empty!… well in 400 years… if nobody is born or moves in.

And your second stat is incorrect, based on the link you provided. 40% of California businesses did NOT relocate to Texas. Of the only 139  businesses that moved to Texas, 40% of them were from California. For context? There are 4 million small businesses in CA. Oh no, 50 left!

And THIS is why I ask for stats. To show that the facts don’t mesh with your narrative.

99% or more of people actually DO live where they voted in the most recent election. So your argument of “vote with it live with it” is silly. That’s everybody’s situation.

Plotting a coup or a secession is the opposite of “living with” the results of elections. 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,414]

It’s all good. California is replacing the ones that flee with morbidly obese Guatemalan women that somehow walk the thousands of miles to get here and not lose any weight.  

[5-Points 3,523]

11 minutes ago, dogcows said:

Wow, 300 per day in a state of 40 million people! About 1/4 of 1% of people moved to Texas. At that rate the whole state will be empty!… well in 400 years… if nobody is born or moves in.

And your second stat is incorrect, based on the link you provided. 40% of California businesses did NOT relocate to Texas. Of the only 139  businesses that moved to Texas, 40% of them were from California. For context? There are 4 million small businesses in CA. Oh no, 50 left!

And THIS is why I ask for stats. To show that the facts don’t mesh with your narrative.

99% or more of people actually DO live where they voted in the most recent election. So your argument of “vote with it live with it” is silly. That’s everybody’s situation.

Plotting a coup or a secession is the opposite of “living with” the results of elections. 

That is the most people leaving California at one time in the history of ever. But dogcows says it's no big deal. 

And I didn't say 40% of California businesses left for Texas. I simply bolded that portion of what they said. My point is that it isn't just people leaving the state but businesses too. 

And I'm correct on both. 

[lickin_starfish 1,935]

I'm not sure how anyone can justify the government telling us what we are allowed to say. It's astounding how far some people are willing to go to support "their side".

[dogcows 1,030]

33 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

That is the most people leaving California at one time in the history of ever. But dogcows says it's no big deal. 

And I didn't say 40% of California businesses left for Texas. I simply bolded that portion of what they said. My point is that it isn't just people leaving the state but businesses too. 

And I'm correct on both. 

300 people a day leaving a state of 40 million people is not a big deal. 50 businesses out of 4 million leaving in a year is not a big deal. You weaken your argument when you insist otherwise. Both of these facts disprove your assertion that there is a massive amount of migration. You’re clowning yourself.

 

[5-Points 3,523]

4 minutes ago, dogcows said:

300 people a day leaving a state of 40 million people is not a big deal. 50 businesses out of 4 million leaving in a year is not a big deal. You weaken your argument when you insist otherwise. Both of these facts disprove your assertion that there is a massive amount of migration. You’re clowning yourself.

 

111,000 people leaving a state in a year is a big deal to anybody but you. 

300 people a day, every day for 365 days in a row. Yeah, that's nothing. And those are just the people on the books. 

How about these stats?

 

California is in unprecedented demographic territory, one in which population declines characterize the state. Lower levels of international migration, declining birth rates, and increases in deaths all play a role. But the primary driver of the state’s population loss over the past few years has been California residents moving to other states. It is a remarkable turnaround for California—long the epicenter of population growth in the United States. Moreover, while net migration losses were once concentrated among lower-income Californians, newly released data suggest that departures have spread beyond this group. And even as more people move out, fewer are moving in: the state is no longer a significant draw for people from other states of any age, education, or income.

Much has been made of the California exodus to other states, and rightly so. This migration, over the decades, has the power to reshape the state. According to the American Community Survey, from 2010 through 2021 about 7.7 million people moved from California to other states, while only 5.8 million people moved to California from other parts of the country. According to Department of Finance estimates, the state has lost residents to other states every year since 2000. Over the past few years, the movement out of the state has accelerated with a record net outflow of 407,000 from July 2021 to July 2022.

 

Now tell me almost half a million people leaving a state within a year is no big deal. 

Somebody is clowning themselves but it isnt me. 

[jonmx 2,429]

58 minutes ago, lickin_starfish said:

I'm not sure how anyone can justify the government telling us what we are allowed to say. It's astounding how far some people are willing to go to support "their side".

When the manure they shovel won't stand up to scrutiny, they have no choice.   The government wants to control the messaging and the responses.  The great experiment which started in 1789 is nearing its end.  

[dogcows 1,030]

16 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

111,000 people leaving a state in a year is a big deal to anybody but you. 

300 people a day, every day for 365 days in a row. Yeah, that's nothing. And those are just the people on the books. 

How about these stats?

 

California is in unprecedented demographic territory, one in which population declines characterize the state. Lower levels of international migration, declining birth rates, and increases in deaths all play a role. But the primary driver of the state’s population loss over the past few years has been California residents moving to other states. It is a remarkable turnaround for California—long the epicenter of population growth in the United States. Moreover, while net migration losses were once concentrated among lower-income Californians, newly released data suggest that departures have spread beyond this group. And even as more people move out, fewer are moving in: the state is no longer a significant draw for people from other states of any age, education, or income.

Much has been made of the California exodus to other states, and rightly so. This migration, over the decades, has the power to reshape the state. According to the American Community Survey, from 2010 through 2021 about 7.7 million people moved from California to other states, while only 5.8 million people moved to California from other parts of the country. According to Department of Finance estimates, the state has lost residents to other states every year since 2000. Over the past few years, the movement out of the state has accelerated with a record net outflow of 407,000 from July 2021 to July 2022.

 

Now tell me almost half a million people leaving a state within a year is no big deal. 

Somebody is clowning themselves but it isnt me. 

That’s 1%. Meaning 99% stayed. Meaning 99% of people are “voting and living with it”. You desperately want this to be a BIG issue. It’s not. Keep flailing.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,414]

7 minutes ago, dogcows said:

That’s 1%. Meaning 99% stayed. Meaning 99% of people are “voting and living with it”. You desperately want this to be a BIG issue. It’s not. Keep flailing.

I’d say the ones leaving are able to, contributors. They are being replaced by uneducated illegals.  Should work out. 

[5-Points 3,523]

[Dizkneelande 1,097]

27 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

111,000 people leaving a state in a year is a big deal to anybody but you. 

300 people a day, every day for 365 days in a row. Yeah, that's nothing. And those are just the people on the books. 

How about these stats?

 

California is in unprecedented demographic territory, one in which population declines characterize the state. Lower levels of international migration, declining birth rates, and increases in deaths all play a role. But the primary driver of the state’s population loss over the past few years has been California residents moving to other states. It is a remarkable turnaround for California—long the epicenter of population growth in the United States. Moreover, while net migration losses were once concentrated among lower-income Californians, newly released data suggest that departures have spread beyond this group. And even as more people move out, fewer are moving in: the state is no longer a significant draw for people from other states of any age, education, or income.

Much has been made of the California exodus to other states, and rightly so. This migration, over the decades, has the power to reshape the state. According to the American Community Survey, from 2010 through 2021 about 7.7 million people moved from California to other states, while only 5.8 million people moved to California from other parts of the country. According to Department of Finance estimates, the state has lost residents to other states every year since 2000. Over the past few years, the movement out of the state has accelerated with a record net outflow of 407,000 from July 2021 to July 2022.

 

Now tell me almost half a million people leaving a state within a year is no big deal. 

Somebody is clowning themselves but it isnt me. 

California lost congressional seats & electoral college delegates. This can only happen when the states population declines. All they have are lies. My nine year old could figure this out. If they weren’t allowed to count all the illegals in the census, they would lose more. Look at that, illegal immigrant de facto voting.

[5-Points 3,523]

28 minutes ago, Dizkneelande said:

California lost congressional seats & electoral college delegates. This can only happen when the states population declines. All they have are lies. My nine year old could figure this out. If they weren’t allowed to count all the illegals in the census, they would lose more. Look at that, illegal immigrant de facto voting.

But they didn't lose THAT many congressional seats or E.C. delegates so it's not really happening. 

The guy is delusional. 

[dogcows 1,030]

1 hour ago, 5-Points said:

But they didn't lose THAT many congressional seats or E.C. delegates so it's not really happening. 

The guy is delusional. 

This whole discussion began because you claimed people didn’t “vote and live with it.” YOU then presented numbers showing that 99% of people DO vote and live with it. This undercut your entire argument, so you change the argument to “migration out of California is a problem.”

For reference, here was your statement:

Quote

You vote for it, you live with it. No running away when your choices fock everything up. Unfortunately, too many leftists are focking poosays and can't deal with the fall out of their voting history. 
 

 

[jerryskids 6,790]

16 hours ago, dogcows said:

Oh no they expressed an opinion, then supported it with facts in subsequent paragraphs. It’s called making an argument. I looked through other articles on Just Security and they aren’t a far left publication, I don’t think. Heck, they have an article warning about the dangers of prosecuting Trump.

It’s just this ruling is off the rails.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520.293.0_1.pdf

Please tell me what page(s) in there show anything even resembling coercion or threats from the government to a social media company. I read through the COVID-19 section and although the plaintiffs are quite upset that their claims about ivermectin et al were blocked, there’s no evidence of government even being involved with any requests other than somebody from NIAID asking for some fake Fauci accounts to be policed. His entire argument is that Fauci’s TV appearances telling people not to take ivermectin amounted to coercion of social media companies. That’s just outlandish.

As for bias, this judge put “Ministry of Truth” right in the ruling. 

I wonder, if I posted for a 3rd time the judge's statement defining coercion including legal precedents, if you would bother to read it that time?  

Nah, fool me twice...

6 hours ago, dogcows said:

You can believe it, but the facts tell a different story. Biden won 60% of college-educated voters in 2020.

Does that include most of the recent grads who need college loan relief so badly?

[5-Points 3,523]

1 hour ago, dogcows said:

This whole discussion began because you claimed people didn’t “vote and live with it.” YOU then presented numbers showing that 99% of people DO vote and live with it. This undercut your entire argument, so you change the argument to “migration out of California is a problem.”

For reference, here was your statement:

 

Not quite. Somebody posted about separating blue states and red states. I said those red states would have to enforce their own immigration policies to prevent blue state dems from relocating to red states and bringing their voting habits with them. I then made the comment about living with the results of your votes. 

If you're going to interject, you should prolly keep up with the conversation. Better yet, don't interject in the first place. 

We're done here. 

[dogcows 1,030]

1 hour ago, jerryskids said:

wonder, if I posted for a 3rd time the judge's statement defining coercion including legal precedents, if you would bother to read it that time?  

Why is it if I disagree with something, you pretend I didn’t read it? I find the assertion that the government was so involved with social media companies that their actions and the government’s actions were the same…. To be unsupported by the evidence. It’s an extremely bold assertion, followed by an extremely bold and broad injunction that effectively censors almost the entire federal executive branch.

What I found in the memo and ruling was a lot of complaining about social media companies taking things down, sometimes connected to requests from the government, but sometimes only based on somebody appearing on TV and debunking COVID disinformation (which this judge attempted to link despite no direct evidence of a link)… and very little evidence that takedowns were compelled by the govt… as the judge asserts.

I predict the judge’s injunction will be lifted on appeal very soon. As for the trial? I haven’t looked into whether it’s a jury or if the judge rules. If the judge rules, then I’m sure he will support the plaintiffs. He’s already played his hand there. If it’s a jury? Lawyers for the defendants can keep hammering home that nobody was coerced or threatened. They can also debunk the idea that every moderation action was as if the government acted simply by pointing to times when the government made a request and social media companies didn’t honor it.

Finally, let’s not lose sight of the fact that this case is mostly about COVID-19 disinformation. It was strategically put before THIS judge because he (infamously) quoted vaccine disinformation from a discredited physician in past anti-vaccine and anti-mask rulings. A more sympathetic judicial ear for COVID-19 skeptics I doubt you could find.

[dogcows 1,030]

1 hour ago, 5-Points said:

Not quite. Somebody posted about separating blue states and red states. I said those red states would have to enforce their own immigration policies to prevent blue state dems from relocating to red states and bringing their voting habits with them. I then made the comment about living with the results of your votes. 

If you're going to interject, you should prolly keep up with the conversation. Better yet, don't interject in the first place. 

We're done here. 

Hmm, one thing you say here caught my eye “prevent blue state Dems from relocating to red states”

The article you posted about people leaving California says it’s mostly conservatives who are leaving.

Quote

Political outlook might also play a role for some movers, as conservatives are more likely to contemplate leaving the state than liberals

There goes the liberal invasion of red states argument, debunked by your own link again. Next time you put a bunch of rakes in the thread, try not stepping on ALL of them?

[5-Points 3,523]

1 hour ago, dogcows said:

Hmm, one thing you say here caught my eye “prevent blue state Dems from relocating to red states”

The article you posted about people leaving California says it’s mostly conservatives who are leaving.

There goes the liberal invasion of red states argument, debunked by your own link again. Next time you put a bunch of rakes in the thread, try not stepping on ALL of them?

Hey, genius, the only people who can take a survey about contemplating leaving California are people still in California. All the libs that already left weren't around to take the survey, dummy. 

 

[dogcows 1,030]

54 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

Hey, genius, the only people who can take a survey about contemplating leaving California are people still in California. All the libs that already left weren't around to take the survey, dummy. 

If you consider the source unreliable, why did you link to it?

[Hardcore troubadour 15,414]

57 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

Hey, genius, the only people who can take a survey about contemplating leaving California are people still in California. All the libs that already left weren't around to take the survey, dummy. 

 

[5-Points 3,523]

34 minutes ago, dogcows said:

If you consider the source unreliable, why did you link to it?

I didn't say the source is unreliable, I said your excerpt doesn't say what you think it says. Your lack of comprehension is astounding. 

[dogcows 1,030]

5 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

I didn't say the source is unreliable, I said your excerpt doesn't say what you think it says. Your lack of comprehension is astounding. 

You have presented zero evidence regarding the political leanings of those who already left California. This survey is the only indicator you presented, and one could reasonably assume the sentiment expressed doesn’t drastically change from year to year.

But, please support your assertion that “All the libs that left aren’t around to take the survey.” Surely you have a past survey with that information, or you wouldn’t be making such a claim… right?

[Reality 3,121]

Is this dogcows idiot a real person or is this somebody who's just focking with y'all?

Because... Damn...

[5-Points 3,523]

8 minutes ago, Reality said:

Is this dogcows idiot a real person or is this somebody who's just focking with y'all?

Because... Damn...

Remind you of anybody that used to post here but ran away with his tail between his legs? 

[lickin_starfish 1,935]

13 minutes ago, dogcows said:

one could reasonably assume...

When you assume, you make an ass of U.

[Reality 3,121]

41 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

Remind you of anybody that used to post here but ran away with his tail between his legs? 

That would definitely answer quite a few questions.

[5-Points 3,523]

6 minutes ago, Reality said:

That would definitely answer quite a few questions.

[jerryskids 6,790]

3 hours ago, dogcows said:

Why is it if I disagree with something, you pretend I didn’t read it? I find the assertion that the government was so involved with social media companies that their actions and the government’s actions were the same…. To be unsupported by the evidence. It’s an extremely bold assertion, followed by an extremely bold and broad injunction that effectively censors almost the entire federal executive branch.

What I found in the memo and ruling was a lot of complaining about social media companies taking things down, sometimes connected to requests from the government, but sometimes only based on somebody appearing on TV and debunking COVID disinformation (which this judge attempted to link despite no direct evidence of a link)… and very little evidence that takedowns were compelled by the govt… as the judge asserts.

I predict the judge’s injunction will be lifted on appeal very soon. As for the trial? I haven’t looked into whether it’s a jury or if the judge rules. If the judge rules, then I’m sure he will support the plaintiffs. He’s already played his hand there. If it’s a jury? Lawyers for the defendants can keep hammering home that nobody was coerced or threatened. They can also debunk the idea that every moderation action was as if the government acted simply by pointing to times when the government made a request and social media companies didn’t honor it.

Finally, let’s not lose sight of the fact that this case is mostly about COVID-19 disinformation. It was strategically put before THIS judge because he (infamously) quoted vaccine disinformation from a discredited physician in past anti-vaccine and anti-mask rulings. A more sympathetic judicial ear for COVID-19 skeptics I doubt you could find.

The reason I don't think you read my posts is because when I quoted the judge with his citation defining the legal requirements for coercion, you responded with:

Quote

Please tell me what page(s) in there show anything even resembling coercion or threats from the government to a social media company.

Please go back, read what he said again (since you claim to have read it already), and see if you understand it this time around.

Regarding lifting the injunction, I'm no lawyer so I can't say.  I will say that it seems like a potential overreach, given the lack of an emergency (I honestly can't recall if Biden lifted emergency status on Covid tho).  Unless the trial is a long time in the future, then I can see wanting to curtail things pending the trial.

One thing I think this shows is that we need transparency in the dealings between the government and the media companies.  At a certain level it is important that the government can coordinate messaging for emergencies.  The problem is they screwed the pooch in the way they handled Covid messaging.  This was largely due to the somewhat unique circumstance that the accelerated authorization of the vaxxes required the absence of potential alternatives, so they squashed any discussion of potential alternatives.  And please, don't say they didn't do that, it is obvious to anyone with two brain cells to rub together that that is exactly what happened.

While that is clearly Machiavellian, IMO it was motivated by good intentions (as the road to Hell often is).  

So, here we are, unable/unwilling to trust our government, which is very sad because next time around we may have an actual emergency and need to believe them.  Again, the only way I see that happening, or at least following them with a wary eye, is for such communication to be as transparent as possible.

That is the end game I see (hope) coming out of this exercise.

[dogcows 1,030]

1 hour ago, jerryskids said:

The reason I don't think you read my posts is because when I quoted the judge with his citation defining the legal requirements for coercion, you responded with:

Please go back, read what he said again (since you claim to have read it already), and see if you understand it this time around.

Regarding lifting the injunction, I'm no lawyer so I can't say.  I will say that it seems like a potential overreach, given the lack of an emergency (I honestly can't recall if Biden lifted emergency status on Covid tho).  Unless the trial is a long time in the future, then I can see wanting to curtail things pending the trial.

One thing I think this shows is that we need transparency in the dealings between the government and the media companies.  At a certain level it is important that the government can coordinate messaging for emergencies.  The problem is they screwed the pooch in the way they handled Covid messaging.  This was largely due to the somewhat unique circumstance that the accelerated authorization of the vaxxes required the absence of potential alternatives, so they squashed any discussion of potential alternatives.  And please, don't say they didn't do that, it is obvious to anyone with two brain cells to rub together that that is exactly what happened.

While that is clearly Machiavellian, IMO it was motivated by good intentions (as the road to Hell often is).  

So, here we are, unable/unwilling to trust our government, which is very sad because next time around we may have an actual emergency and need to believe them.  Again, the only way I see that happening, or at least following them with a wary eye, is for such communication to be as transparent as possible.

That is the end game I see (hope) coming out of this exercise.

Perhaps there is a problem distinguishing disagreement with failure to understand.

I understand the Judge’s statement you quoted just fine. However, I disagree that the underlying evidence he claims was “exhaustively listed” in his ruling supports that statement.

Especially since he used the word “coercion” in that statement. And yet I skimmed through the ruling and saw nothing I believe was coercion. I found the examples purporting to be coercive unconvincing. I was surprised how many times he listed TV appearances by Fauci(in which he didn’t mention social media at all) as somehow coercive. That’s just silly.

Also, wasn’t COVID-19 an “actual emergency”? 

[jonmx 2,429]

11 hours ago, dogcows said:

Perhaps there is a problem distinguishing disagreement with failure to understand.

I understand the Judge’s statement you quoted just fine. However, I disagree that the underlying evidence he claims was “exhaustively listed” in his ruling supports that statement.

Especially since he used the word “coercion” in that statement. And yet I skimmed through the ruling and saw nothing I believe was coercion. I found the examples purporting to be coercive unconvincing. I was surprised how many times he listed TV appearances by Fauci(in which he didn’t mention social media at all) as somehow coercive. That’s just silly.

Also, wasn’t COVID-19 an “actual emergency”? 

You make an f-ing crappy lawyer.  If a child's mom says go to their room, that is coercion because she has dominion over her child and if a child does not obey there is the implied threat of dire consequences regardless if explicitly stated or not.  

[jonmx 2,429]

13 hours ago, jerryskids said:

The reason I don't think you read my posts is because when I quoted the judge with his citation defining the legal requirements for coercion, you responded with:

Please go back, read what he said again (since you claim to have read it already), and see if you understand it this time around.

Regarding lifting the injunction, I'm no lawyer so I can't say.  I will say that it seems like a potential overreach, given the lack of an emergency (I honestly can't recall if Biden lifted emergency status on Covid tho).  Unless the trial is a long time in the future, then I can see wanting to curtail things pending the trial.

One thing I think this shows is that we need transparency in the dealings between the government and the media companies.  At a certain level it is important that the government can coordinate messaging for emergencies.  The problem is they screwed the pooch in the way they handled Covid messaging.  This was largely due to the somewhat unique circumstance that the accelerated authorization of the vaxxes required the absence of potential alternatives, so they squashed any discussion of potential alternatives.  And please, don't say they didn't do that, it is obvious to anyone with two brain cells to rub together that that is exactly what happened.

While that is clearly Machiavellian, IMO it was motivated by good intentions (as the road to Hell often is).  

So, here we are, unable/unwilling to trust our government, which is very sad because next time around we may have an actual emergency and need to believe them.  Again, the only way I see that happening, or at least following them with a wary eye, is for such communication to be as transparent as possible.

That is the end game I see (hope) coming out of this exercise.

Wanting to be authoritarian bastards is not good intentions no matter what unicorn and puppydog bullcrap they wrap it in.  The left has been working feverishly to be the gatekeeper of all information and censor average citizens for decades.  You are being naive to assume any good intentions.  The left number one desire is to control all information, education and speech.