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

[Patented Phil 1,469]

14 hours ago, 5-Points said:

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

Yes.  Dogshitt and Gutterdik.

[jerryskids 6,557]

34 minutes ago, jonmx said:

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.

  

I find that we often fall into the traps of these false dichotomies.  It is possible to think that people in power in the administration believed that the vaccines were the best course of action, and that the Left has worked to control the media and messaging for decades.  In fact if you had posted here as long as I have, you would know that media bias is my biggest soapbox.  I was saying 10+ years ago that CNN is Left while all of the liberals were saying "nonono that's MSNBC, which is the opposite of Fox.  CNN is neutral!"  

[jerryskids 6,557]

14 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”? 

He says that the very nature of the relationship made any requests into tacit orders.  The @jonmx mother/child analogy seems pretty good.  So you can comb through the itemized list all you want and say "they never made the companies do anything!", that is irrelevant.  

So you need to disagree with the concept in my first sentence, and he provides a precedent for it.

I don't want to go down the sidetrack of Covid being an emergency, except to say it was, then it wasn't, but the government held on way too long, in part to continue justifying the EUA on the vaxxes.

[Strike 5,185]

Judge DENIES Biden admin request for a stay of the injunction:

 

[dogcows 1,030]

4 hours ago, jerryskids said:

He says that the very nature of the relationship made any requests into tacit orders.  The @jonmx mother/child analogy seems pretty good.  So you can comb through the itemized list all you want and say "they never made the companies do anything!", that is irrelevant.  

So you need to disagree with the concept in my first sentence, and he provides a precedent for it.

I don't want to go down the sidetrack of Covid being an emergency, except to say it was, then it wasn't, but the government held on way too long, in part to continue justifying the EUA on the vaxxes.

Did you look up the precedent? Because I’m guessing Judge Doughty threw his back out when he reached that far.

In that case, a store owner called the cops on black kids eating at his counter. So he was a private citizen who violated the kids’ 14th amendment rights but wasn’t personally liable, because he was forced by the government to act, because he was complying with a long-standing city segregation law in 1960.

It really doesn’t compare to this situation with government officials meeting with social media companies. The most obvious difference is there is no law at issue here. In that case, there was a black and white law. In this case, the judge wants us to believe that meetings and emails are equivalent to that? Just silly, IMO.

[dogcows 1,030]

If asking social media companies to take down content is coercive, then what do you call this?

If their actions WERE illegal, they could just prosecute. Instead, they threaten the CEO indicating that the actions MIGHT be illegal, so he better stop. Wow, a direct threat intended to take away the company’s 1st amendment rights. You don’t even need to come up with a Doughty-esque cockamamie legal theory to know this is wrong.

[EternalShinyAndChrome 3,829]

3 hours ago, dogcows said:

If asking social media companies to take down content is coercive, then what do you call this?

If their actions WERE illegal, they could just prosecute. Instead, they threaten the CEO indicating that the actions MIGHT be illegal, so he better stop. Wow, a direct threat intended to take away the company’s 1st amendment rights. You don’t even need to come up with a Doughty-esque cockamamie legal theory to know this is wrong.

You have anymore apples to cabbage comparisons you want to make?    

GTFO.

[Hardcore troubadour 14,922]

3 hours ago, dogcows said:

If asking social media companies to take down content is coercive, then what do you call this?

If their actions WERE illegal, they could just prosecute. Instead, they threaten the CEO indicating that the actions MIGHT be illegal, so he better stop. Wow, a direct threat intended to take away the company’s 1st amendment rights. You don’t even need to come up with a Doughty-esque cockamamie legal theory to know this is wrong.

 No one is above the law. If Trump can be charged under the espionage act, I’m sure an intrepid AG can make a child protection law stick. So tough. They did them a favor by warning them. It’s not unheard of. 

[dogcows 1,030]

On 7/5/2023 at 10:56 AM, jerryskids said:

I see RLLD inserting this topic into other threads but I think it deserves it's own.  A federal judge has looked at the evidence in cases alleging the WH and government agencies worked with social media companies to censor conservative speech, likened it to Orwell's "Ministry of Truth," and issued an injunction against the government working with those companies pending the trial:

https://hotair.com/ed-morrissey/2023/07/04/auto-draft-119-n562425

A link to the actual injunction is in that link.  In that injunction Doughty addresses the defense of "we just suggested things, we didn't MAKE them do it!":

This could be quite bigly.

The 5th circuit put an indefinite hold on Judge Doughty’s order today.

https://news.yahoo.com/appeals-court-pauses-order-limiting-191906131.html

[Hardcore troubadour 14,922]

10 minutes ago, dogcows said:

The 5th circuit put an indefinite hold on Judge Doughty’s order today.

https://news.yahoo.com/appeals-court-pauses-order-limiting-191906131.html

A liberal rooting for this. Well,  not a liberal. A libtard as they say.  

[Dizkneelande 1,085]

Nothing to see here 

 

[RLLD 4,143]

Sinister stuff.  The government is using every tool it has to deny us access to information.  This is the kind of behavior we should all rail against.

[Dizkneelande 1,085]

 

[Dizkneelande 1,085]

4 minutes ago, RLLD said:

Sinister stuff.  The government is using every tool it has to deny us access to information.  This is the kind of behavior we should all rail against.

47% of registered voters will still pull the lever for the fascists. 

[Dizkneelande 1,085]

In another April 2021 email, Brian Rice, Facebook’s VP of public policy, raised the concern that Slavitt's challenge felt “very much like a crossroads for us with the [Biden] White House in these early days.”

[seafoam1 2,799]

1 minute ago, Dizkneelande said:

47% of registered voters will still pull the lever for the fascists. 

100% There are really stupid people that luve here. 

[RLLD 4,143]

1 minute ago, Dizkneelande said:

47% of registered voters will still pull the lever for the fascists. 

I do not see liberals as fascists, while they do have some elements of facism....to me they are maoist in thier philosophy. And perhaps Marxist, and certainly more Marxist than fascist. 

[Dizkneelande 1,085]

7 minutes ago, RLLD said:

I do not see liberals as fascists, while they do have some elements of facism....to me they are maoist in thier philosophy. And perhaps Marxist, and certainly more Marxist than fascist. 

I’m not talking about liberals I’m referring to the Democratic Party. 70% of Democrats support the censorship of dissent. 

[RLLD 4,143]

5 minutes ago, Dizkneelande said:

I’m not talking about liberals I’m referring to the Democratic Party. 70% of Democrats support the censorship of dissent. 

Oh yeah, sure, but that is just totalitarianism.....and make no mistake, Democrats are unabashed totalitarians....

[seafoam1 2,799]

18 minutes ago, RLLD said:

I do not see liberals as fascists, while they do have some elements of facism....to me they are maoist in thier philosophy. And perhaps Marxist, and certainly more Marxist than fascist. 

They are nazi wannabees.

It takes time...