Supreme Court Sees Through The Nonsense, Rejects Lower Courts’ Rulings Regarding Social Media Moderation
from the none-of-this-conspiracy-theory-bullshit dept
Actual free speech survives for yet another day as the Supreme Court has rejected a bunch of fantasy-land nonsense in a case in which Trumpists were absolutely positive they’d caught the government “censoring” speech on social media. But every time we looked at the actual evidence, all we saw was “lizard people” level conspiracy theory nonsense.
We’ve talked about the Murthy v. Missouri (originally Missouri v. Biden) case for quite some time now. In this case, Missouri and Louisiana, along with a few rando nonsense peddlers online, had sued the Biden administration for supposedly convincing social media companies to remove their speech. While there were some examples of social media companies doing basic content moderation and there were examples of government officials making statements about content moderation, the case did not have any actual evidence of the government coercing websites to remove or limit the reach of the speech.
And that, as the ruling notes, is kind of the whole ballgame.
As we’ve discussed at great length, both of the following can be true: it absolutely should violate the First Amendment for government officials to threaten and coerce private parties to get them to remove speech and nothing in this case showed any form of actual coercion.
What it showed was a bunch of wild ass conjecture, ridiculously wrong claims, and laughably stupid interpretations of basic everyday content moderation and information sharing. And yet a very partisan district court judge bought every single loony claim and issued the most ridiculously stringent opinion a year ago, insisting that basically every content moderation decision on social media could be traced back to government threats, and ordering nearly all communication between the government and websites to stop.
The 5th Circuit recognized that the lower court went overboard and tried to clean things up, but issued multiple rulings that just made another mess of things. It said that many of the government agencies hadn’t coerced, but some had, and left no clear rules or any way to understand when something crossed the line. In fact, the 5th Circuit ruling was so unhelpful that while their initial ruling said that the government’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) had not coerced, a few weeks later they reissued the opinion changing just one paragraph to say that it had coerced. With no explanation.
So, if you were trying to understand where that line was and what coercion was, you had no chance.
When the Supreme Court heard the case earlier this year, it seemed clear that the Justices were perplexed as to how this case even existed. Justices across the political spectrum pointed out that the record appeared to be filled with nonsense and conspiracy theories and claims that made no sense at all.
And thus we get today’s ruling that rejects the lower courts and says none of the plaintiffs have anything that conveys standing to bring the case in the first place. The lower courts should have rejected the case quickly. We’ll have a more thorough analysis of the majority opinion (which was written by Justice Barrett, and signed onto by everyone except for Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch) later from Cathy Gellis (who filed our own amicus brief in this case).
But the simple summary is this:
A proper case or controversy exists only when at least one plaintiff “establish[es] that [she] ha[s] standing to sue.” Raines, 521 U. S., at 818; Department of Commerce v. New York, 588 U. S. 752, 766 (2019). She must show that she has suffered, or will suffer, an injury that is “concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent; fairly traceable to the challenged action; and redressable by a favorable ruling.” Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U. S. 398, 409 (2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). These requirements help ensure that the plaintiff has “such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to warrant [her] invocation of federal-court jurisdiction.” Summers, 555 U. S., at 493 (internal quotation marks omitted)
The plaintiffs claim standing based on the “direct censorship” of their own speech as well as their “right to listen” to others who faced social-media censorship. Brief for Respondents 19, 22. Notably, both theories depend on the platform’s actions—yet the plaintiffs do not seek to enjoin the platforms from restricting any posts or accounts. They seek to enjoin Government agencies and officials from pressuring or encouraging the platforms to suppress protected speech in the future.
The one-step-removed, anticipatory nature of their alleged injuries presents the plaintiffs with two particular challenges. First, it is a bedrock principle that a federal court cannot redress “injury that results from the independent action of some third party not before the court.” Simon, 426 U. S., at 41–42. In keeping with this principle, we have “been reluctant to endorse standing theories that require guesswork as to how independent decisionmakers will exercise their judgment.” Clapper, 568 U. S., at 413. Rather than guesswork, the plaintiffs must show that the thirdparty platforms “will likely react in predictable ways” to the defendants’ conduct. Department of Commerce, 588 U. S., at 768. Second, because the plaintiffs request forward-looking relief, they must face “a real and immediate threat of repeated injury.” O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U. S. 488, 496 (1974); see also Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U. S. 149, 158 (2014) (“An allegation of future injury may suffice if the threatened injury is certainly impending, or there is a substantial risk that the harm will occur” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Putting these requirements together, the plaintiffs must show a substantial risk that, in the near future, at least one platform will restrict the speech of at least one plaintiff in response to the actions of at least one Government defendant. On this record, that is a tall order.
And then:
The primary weakness in the record of past restrictions is the lack of specific causation findings with respect to any discrete instance of content moderation. The District Court made none. Nor did the Fifth Circuit, which approached standing at a high level of generality. The platforms, it reasoned, “have engaged in censorship of certain viewpoints on key issues,” while “the government has engaged in a yearslong pressure campaign” to ensure that the platforms suppress those viewpoints. 83 F. 4th, at 370. The platforms’ “censorship decisions”—including those affecting the plaintiffs—were thus “likely attributable at least in part to the platforms’ reluctance to risk” the consequences of refusing to “adhere to the government’s directives.” Ibid.
We reject this overly broad assertion. As already discussed, the platforms moderated similar content long before any of the Government defendants engaged in the challenged conduct. In fact, the platforms, acting independently, had strengthened their pre-existing content-moderation policies before the Government defendants got involved. For instance, Facebook announced an expansion of its COVID–19 misinformation policies in early February 2021, before White House officials began communicating with the platform. And the platforms continued to exercise their independent judgment even after communications with the defendants began. For example, on several occasions, various platforms explained that White House officials had flagged content that did not violate company policy. Moreover, the platforms did not speak only with the defendants about content moderation; they also regularly consulted with outside experts.
This evidence indicates that the platforms had independent incentives to moderate content and often exercised their own judgment. To be sure, the record reflects that the Government defendants played a role in at least some of the platforms’ moderation choices. But the Fifth Circuit, by attributing every platform decision at least in part to the defendants, glossed over complexities in the evidence.
Indeed, the opinion calls out the lies and the fact that the lower courts took them as fact:
The Fifth Circuit relied on the District Court’s factual findings, many of which unfortunately appear to be clearly erroneous. The District Court found that the defendants and the platforms had an “efficient report-and-censor relationship.”… But much of its evidence is inapposite. For instance, the court says that Twitter set up a “streamlined process for censorship requests” after the White House “bombarded” it with such requests. Ibid., n. 662 (internal quotation marks omitted). The record it cites says nothing about “censorship requests.” See App. 639–642. Rather, in response to a White House official asking Twitter to remove an impersonation account of President Biden’s granddaughter, Twitter told the official about a portal that he could use to flag similar issues. Ibid. This has nothing to do with COVID–19 misinformation. The court also found that “[a] drastic increase in censorship . . . directly coincided with Defendants’ public calls for censorship and private demands for censorship.” 680 F. Supp. 3d, at 715. As to the “calls for censorship,” the court’s proof included statements from Members of Congress, who are not parties to this suit. Ibid., and n. 658. Some of the evidence of the “increase in censorship” reveals that Facebook worked with the CDC to update its list of removable false claims, but these examples do not suggest that the agency “demand[ed]” that it do so. Ibid. Finally, the court, echoing the plaintiffs’ proposed statement of facts, erroneously stated that Facebook agreed to censor content that did not violate its policies. Id., at 714, n. 655. Instead, on several occasions, Facebook explained that certain content did not qualify for removal under its policies but did qualify for other forms of moderation.
Over and over the majority case makes the simple point that you can’t just claim that the government was responsible for content moderation decisions without evidence:
The plaintiffs rely on allegations of past Government censorship as evidence that future censorship is likely. But they fail, by and large, to link their past social-media restrictions to the defendants’ communications with the platforms. Thus, the events of the past do little to help any of the plaintiffs establish standing to seek an injunction to prevent future harms.
The majority opinion also calls out the basic nuttery and lies of the plaintiffs over and over again. For example:
Hoft claims that his content appears on a CISA document tracking posts that various entities had flagged for the platforms as misinformation. The spreadsheet shows that a private entity, the Election Integrity Partnership—not CISA—alerted Twitter to an unidentified article from the Gateway Pundit. And the spreadsheet does not reveal whether Twitter removed or otherwise suppressed that post. This evidence does not support the conclusion that Hoft’s past injuries are likely traceable to the FBI or CISA.
The end result is the case is sent back to the lower courts with a note attached saying, effectively, “hey fuckheads, look at what actually happened here.” This has been quite a term for the Supreme Court rejecting the insane theories of the 5th Circuit (may that continue…)
In short, the Court recognized this case for what it was: utter fucking nonsense, and told the lower courts “there’s no way you could come to this conclusion based on the evidence, which shows no direct connection.”
Still, because the court rejected on standing, it means that it did nothing to actually clarify the standard for determining when so-called “jawboning” crosses the line to First Amendment-violating coercion. The Supreme Court explicitly notes:
Because we do not reach the merits, we express no view as to whether the Fifth Circuit correctly articulated the standard for when the Government transforms private conduct into state action.
All that means is that this issue is far from over. Others are going to try to bring similar cases, and eventually the Supreme Court is going to need to more clearly define the test beyond the Bantam Books case in 1963, which is a good ruling, but lacks clarity.
Perhaps in an ideal world, the Supreme Court would have given us a clear rule for determining where the line is between persuasion and coercion. But the majority recognized, correctly, that this is not the case in which to do that. The record is just so full of nonsense, and not a single plaintiff with clear standing. The larger issue will live on, and I’m sure in a year or three we’ll have another case on this issue. But for now, a sense of sanity has returned.
I’m not even going to get into the dissent from Alito, which Thomas and Gorsuch signed onto. It’s basically buying into the conspiracy theory and the wacky lower court rulings. This isn’t unexpected, especially from Alito, who tried desperately during the oral arguments to save Louisiana’s floundering Solicitor General (and just recently a former Alito clerk) who kept getting confused during the hearing.
But, thankfully, Alito couldn’t convince Kavanaugh, Barrett, or Roberts. Kavanaugh seemed to totally get it at the oral arguments, Barrett wrote this opinion, and Roberts similarly seemed perplexed at oral arguments.
And so the Supreme Court gets the basics right but punts some of the deeper issues for a later date. This means we’ll have more cases along these lines, but at least, now, one hopes that they will be focused on actual facts, not fever-dream conspiracy theories.
Filed Under: 1st amendment, amy coney barrett, cisa, conspiracy theories, content moderation, free speech, jawboning, louisiana, missouri, murthy v. missouri, standing, supreme court, vivek murthy
Companies: facebook, linkedin, meta, twitter, x
Comments on “Supreme Court Sees Through The Nonsense, Rejects Lower Courts’ Rulings Regarding Social Media Moderation”
And still, a third of our Supreme Clerics backed it.
Re:
Yup. Essentially we have two revisionist nutcases in the court (Thomas and Alito) who can be depended upon for putting not quite their thumb on one side of the scales once you have read the few first sentences.
Outside of those, there is a 4:3 majority of conservative voices.
It needs all 3 of the “liberal” justices as well as half of the sane conservative ones to override the revisionist camp of Thomas and Alito.
Since that is a high bar to cross, expect a sizable ratio of established Supreme Court precedent to go the way of Roe vs Wade. Overriding precedent (in particular in the direction of turning the clock backwards when the Supreme Court is already half a century behind the times) is not going to help increase public opinion about the Supreme Court as an institution.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Awww, cope & seethe, liberal dork.
Re: Re: Re:
I find it interesting how the “liberal dorks” write thoughtful paragraphs of words and phrases that mean things, whereas the cool guys like you struggle to write a full sentence that actually means anything.
Re: Re: Re:2
“My insults mean more than your reasoned arguments and citations of fact because people don’t need to read my insults for more than two seconds. I am very smart.” — the “cope and seethe” AC, probably
Re: Re: Re:
Imagine if you’d actually said anything there. For the record, what are you saying cope about? The court turned on your side, conservative jagoff.
Are we sure this is not just the SCOTUS giving us the Sandwich approach before they drop some truly atrocious rulings that will spell doom for our republic? Because that’s what it feels like.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
I don’t trust anything coming from the conservative clerics going into November. We know damn well they play politics, and they know damn well they riled folks up with Dobbs.
Any sanity demonstrated by any of the conservative clerics is a ploy to not blow up Trump’s election chances.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
i mean he has a high chance of losing
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
And hi jinx from our clerics going into the election would raise his chances of losing. They know that. They’re not gambling on it when they’re this close to getting their Nazi king.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
when the states that trump needs to get to win is majority for biden yea he’s losing
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
The experts who actually work with the numbers are less confident than you are.
I’m not a MAGAt. I don’t discard expertise in favor of anonymous internet commenters saying things I want to believe.
Re: Re: Re:4
you might wanna look at yourself your also a ac so we shouldn’t trust you either
Re: Re: Re:5
Reading comprehension, ch… Oh, wait. No.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
also you provide no source to your claim either
Re: Re: Re:5
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/national/
This site is a great resource for people who want to be informed about the things you’re trying to talk about.
Generally speaking, I expect commenters here to be informed at a baseline level above zero. Except the trolls. They don’t need to be informed because they’re just here to smear shit.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
You know, by constantly arguing stuff on which they’re uninformed.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:7
said the ac who said not to trust acs
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:8
That’s not actually what I said though. I said I trust experts over ACs when the two conflict.
I check what the experts are saying, while you pull words out of your ass that sound good to you.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:9
meanwhile your hidden is it amazing
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:7
also you have been hidden sadly
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:8
That’s not “sad.” Most commenters here don’t actually want to watch me try to knock sense into mindless trolls.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:9
more sad is your getting mad
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:10
You’d like that, wouldn’t you? Because you’re really just here to try to get emotional reactions from people.
There’s very much a word for that.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:11
i mean your doing it your giving trolls a reaction dumbie that’s what they want no wonder they hidden they knew you were falling for the troll trap
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:12
Quiet Andrea.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:13
oh look you came out violence advocator
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:14
Telling you to “quiet” is not “violence.”
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:15
no am saying about why you want to kill police and trump voters
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:16
Ok then, crazy pants.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:17
wow
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:13
heh all i had to do is get you upset to reveal your true nature
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:14
Your headcanon is lame.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:11
also polls dont mean anything btw
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:12
They mean more than any sentence you’ve managed to string together.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:13
said the one that admits in other posts that they want cops and trump voters dead
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:14
Ok, lunatic.
Re: Re: Re:14
No one said any such thing. And try to use the correct “you’re” just once, for fuck sake.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:9
you dumbass fell for the troll trap they want you to react dumbie
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Not sure why this is hidden. AC is pretty correct, here.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
Half the voters here can’t process a thought that takes more than three words to express.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
btw your responding to a troll account
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
we know you’re the violence advocate calling me andrea gives it away
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
You got me. Calling you “andrea” is violent.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
no calling me andrea means your the user that admitted muiltiple times that you wanted to kill police and trump voters you did this on muiltiple posts
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
ok so you want cops and trump voters dead?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
Put the crack pipe down.
Re: Re: Re:3
am not high you are tho
Having Kavanaugh be the one to replace Anthony Kennedy has put me somewhat at ease, at least in the realm of First Amendment jurisprudence. Barrett also seems to have brought back Sandra Day O’Connor’s willingness to move to the center.
It’s a shame Alex Kozinski got MeToo’d. I would’ve loved to have him on the court.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
Lol. Barrett is a polished turd. I do not believe for one minute that anyone can compare these two in good faith.
I’d vote Republican if I wanted sex pests on the court. Sorry the Democrats have standards, I guess.
Can’t wait to see Bratty Matty try to explain why the Supreme Court basically agreed with Mike here, even as Matt insisted Mike didn’t understand the law, and the Courts would easily side against the White House. Looking over the analysis, Mike’s predictions were spot on. Matt’s were not.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
Clearly only 3 members of the Supreme Court understand the law. Much like 0 Techdirt writers understand the law. As a sumo come loud graduate of Harvard Law and Engineering, I can run circles around these people all day with my tremendous law brain.
Even when I’m “wrong,” I’m right.
Re: Re:
bratty matt you just proved them right dude
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
You just don’t understand law.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
or you’re a lier and a troll cuase you have nothing better to do
Re: Re: Re:2
…says the dude who’s opinion effectively got overruled by the Supreme Court.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
By the 6 people on the Supreme Court who don’t understand the law.
Re: Re: Re:4
Seems like they understand it better than Matty B, given that they’re on the Supreme Court and he’s projecting his ignorance onto them.
Re: Re: Re:5
Yeah, but some of them are just there as politically-motivated amateur historians.
Re: Re:
…hallucinated nobody mentally competent, ever.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
WPATH Files
Re: Re: Re:2
If you trust anything shat out by Shellenberger, your stand on a lot of things are very, very apparent.
https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/fact-check-216-instances-of-factual
Start reading, chucklefuck.
Re: Re: Re:2
AKA anti-trans Q-Anon shit.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
World Professional Association for Transgender Health
Re: Re: Re:4
A rightoid buzzphrase for anti-trans Q-Anon shit.
Re: Re: Re:4
Yes, but the files are misquoted and taken out of context to suggest the opposite of what they actually said or to put words in their mouth that are not actually in the files. That is, people like you aren’t citing what WPATH actually said but anti-trans QAnon BS pretending to quote from WPATH.
Re: Re: Re:5
Which is exactly what Hillary Cass did for the Cass Review. Just sayin’.
Re: Re: Re:2
Written by pedos and believed to be true only by pedos.
Re: Re: Re:3
…and Biden is as sharp as a tack behind closed doors…
Re: Re:
I almost have to admire your completely unwavering confidence that you really are the smartest human alive, despite the overwhelming evidence that that confidence massively outweighs your actual ability. You could be a case study.
Re: Re:
You’re so fucking dumb you don’t even realize that the law is what six Supreme Court Justice said it is, not what the other three said, and certainly not what your dumb ass thinks it is.
And lol Harvard Law.
Re: Re:
Not only does your inability to spell the phrase summa cum laude correctly say you’re lying, but so does the fact that Harvard doesn’t even have a School of Law and Engineering.
Re: Re:
Spectacular arrogance isn’t the win you desperately want it to be, Matty. You absofuckinglutely do NOT know better than anyone, least of all the courts.
And the term is summa cum laude, you illiterate bastard. More evidence of your lies.
Reflection
The platforms, it reasoned, “have engaged in censorship of certain viewpoints on key issues,” while “the government has engaged in a yearslong pressure campaign” to ensure that the platforms suppress those viewpoints.
This struck me as an odd reflection of something else we have discussed here of late.
You have a person or organization in authority endlessly repeating a vague call to action, and at some point one or more people decide to take that action. There is no direct causal connection between the instigator and the implementer, but the desired result happens anyway. We’ve heard it called stochastic terrorism when the suggested action is violent, but this situation seems to me to fit that same model, so it would likely need a different, or more inclusive name.
But it also fit another pattern we’ve discussed. Projection. Accusing another of an action or tactic that the speaker has used themselves.
Could this decision be used as precedent in a case about stochastic terrorism to say that because there is no provable causal link, the person spewing inflammatory rhetoric is in no way responsible for the actions a follower takes, believing that they were told to do so by their legally protected leader?
Re:
Stochastic terrorism is already soundly protected by the First Amendment and case law. Neither liberals nor fascists would have it any other way in the US.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
take your meds
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
Read a book.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
any more insults?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
That’s not an insult. It’s a suggestion. I’m operating under the assumption that you don’t actually want to spend your whole life loudly not understanding things.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
or your a anti 1a troll that think everything that is speech is terrorism
Re: Re:
“Stochastic terrorism is already soundly protected by the First Amendment and case law”
Please elucidate.
I suggest that stochastic terrorism is enabled by the deliberate non prosecution by the DA/AG of criminal acts.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
Your suggestion is idiotic.
Re: Re: Re:
The definition of the word ‘stochastic’ shows why what we call stochastic terrorism would be protected speech:
Having a random probability distribution or pattern that may be analysed statistically but may not be predicted precisely.
How could you possibly make a good legal case for something with a random and undeterminable outcome? Stochastic terrorism is something that should be loudly and strongly condemned when it occurs, but trying to criminalize it would be a legal minefield.
Re:
Two things.
Re:
“Stochastic terrorism” is a recently made up concept, often pushed by people who want to stifle speech.
Is it a useful concept? Eh, maybe to think about, but it has no legal bearing, and anything that is seen as “stochastic terrorism” is likely protected speech under the First Amendment, because, as you note, there is no direct connection.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Legal question aside, you came in just this side of brushing off the concept entirely. Gross look. Privileged take.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
ok violence advocater
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
Shut up, neo-Marxist scum.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
this is sad that your just trolling and for what? for attention for that engagement farm?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
Do you denounce or defend stochastic terrorists? Answer the question.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5
are your confirming that everything you’re saying means your anti 1a answer the question
Re: Re: Re:
Yeah. I did. Because people in the last few years have over-indexed on it.
I think it’s a useful concept to think about in understanding harm. But, people falsely think it’s a legal concept, and as such it by itself is pretty harmful. It makes a lot of people think that perfectly reasonable protected speech must be illegal, and that’s bad.
Re: Re: Re:2
The fact that some people over index on it isn’t a reason to brush it off entirely. At most, that’s a reason to draw a distinction between what’s over-indexed, and what isn’t.
Well that’s the thing, if it’s useful to think about, that opens up the question of whether it’s actually ‘perfectly reasonable speech’ or not. (Never mind the distinction between “is protected” vs “should be protected”, which are very much not the same thing).
Only talking about the over indexed portion papers over the fact that people generally don’t actually consider it to be perfectly reasonable speech in the first place(and hence (incorrectly) assume it to be illegal).
Re:
The current legal test for speech is Brandenburg (which comes from a Supreme Court case). It has 3 prongs: intent, imminence of lawlessness, and likelihood of lawlessness.
The biggest issue is the imminence part. Imminence means the event has to take place soon. Telling people to do something illegal in the indefinite future is considered protected under Brandenburg.
Likelihood for lawlessesness would be much harder to prove, but not technically impossible. You’d have to show that it was likely to incite lawlessness. The bar is extremely high though, especially in practice- abstract discussions are protected, for instance. For example, in Brandenburg itself, they said “We’ll take the fucking street later (or again).”, and that was considered protected.
Brandenburg is unlikely to change any time soon barring a massive SCOTUS rework, although in my personal (and I’m sure will be unpopular here) opinion it’s flawed.
This is unlikely to be used as precedent for that, but it’s largely already protected under Brandenburg and related cases, so it’s a moot point.
Re:
It might be better described as a form of volumetric abuse than a form of terrorism. Even when it doesn’t lead to physical action, it can still lead to the harassment of whoever is being targeted.
But, then, how do you separate that (legally) from legitimate criticism? It’s not unusual for this sort of abuse to be dressed up as “criticism” or “concern”, often involving some degree of misrepresentation.
Such actors are not immune to the law though. A drag queen sued one for defamation (and won) for modifying a video to make it appear as if they were exposing themselves to children.
Re: Re:
Even through the strategic blurring on that video, I could see that there was too much silver and not enough brown for the alleged offense to have actually taken place. But then, reasonable people like me were never the intended audience for that homophobic bullshit.
… and in related SCOTUS news …
Supreme Court Green-Lights Corrupt Gratuities for Politicians
The Supreme Court decided on Wednesday that writing checks to politicians as thank-you payments for corrupt contracting decisions does not constitute bribery under federal law.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/supreme-court-greenlights-corrupt-gratuities-snyder-decision-1235046848/
Corruption for me, but not for thee.
btw, can I have your vote?
'Next time ask for a few FACTS in your 'factual findings'.'
The Fifth Circuit relied on the District Court’s factual findings, many of which unfortunately appear to be clearly erroneous. The District Court found that the defendants and the platforms had an “efficient report-and-censor relationship.”… But much of its evidence is inapposite.
Oof, that’s got to sting, handing out a backhand like that to both the fifth circuit(who’s probably used to it at this point) and the district court.
‘That ‘evidence’ you relied upon for your rulings? Yeah, hate to break it to you but incoherent ramblings of lunatics about the lizard people in charge of the government does not ‘evidence’ make, never mind established facts.’
As absurd as it is that a case that was able to be shot down by nothing more than pointing out that there’s no evidence that the ‘crime’ in question actually happened reached the highest court in the US at least they managed not to mangle it like the lower courts did, even if it sounds like a few justices were chomping at the bit to buy into the conspiracy theories, lack of facts be damned.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
It’s hilarious how Double-M and his minions love the Supreme Court when it rules in what they believe is their favor, and how much they despise the Supreme Court when it does the opposite (protecting 2nd Amendment rights, for example)!
Re:
Double-M And The Minions is my Gem And The Holograms cover band!
Re:
“It’s hilarious how these cop-haters just love it when cops do their actual jobs and protect innocent people but then they get all upset when a cop murders innocent people!
You’re describing a consistent approach to ideals. When the Supreme Court gets it right, it’s good. When they don’t, it’s bad. Do you think anyone should always agree or always disagree? Does nuance hurt your brain?
Also, there’s no “love the Supreme Court” here. It’s mostly just surprise it didn’t go a bad way because our expectation are so low what with several justices being openly corrupt.
Re: Re:
Why you like when hammer hit nail but no like when hammer hit thumb?
Re:
Please tell me this is actually a thing you morons are about to start saying.
Re:
You might want to look up Mike’s thoughts on 2A rulings, lol. You’ve got an evidence problem not dissimilar to the case ruling discussed above.
Further, no one loves or hates the Court due to rulings. They agree or disagree, or maybe love or hate the rulings. People might be fans of particular justices, though.
Thanks for your wrong and weirdly oversimplified thoughts.
Re:
I don’t believe that that has even been referenced here. When has any of us said such a thing?
Can we now please go back to the old flagging system. Under that, you only had to scroll past the flagged comments, but now you have to open everything to see any responses worthy of an insightful or funny vote. It’s rather like having an email account where everything gets sent to the trash folder, forcing you to trawl through tons of crap just to read the emails from friends, your kids’ schoolteachers, your family physician, etc., and it’s only going to ruin the Techdirt experience for everyone except the trolls.
Re:
… Uh, no? The new system is leagues better as now you don’t have to scroll past dozens of flagged comments of trolls ‘no u r the dummi!’-ing each other/themselves.
If you want to wade through that crap the new system still allows you to do so just fine.
Re: Re:
Seriously, the new system might be a bit of an annoyance in re: keeping track of conversations and all, but it beats having to scroll through six troll posts and twelve counter-troll posts from the dude who thinks posting “ok troll” two or three times in response to the trolls is actually accomplishing anything but making the rest of us think he’s either a sockpuppet who’s only out to waste people’s time or a child who lacks self-awareness.
Re: Re: Re:
There is one modification to the system that would be nice, that when you click on a message on the sidebar it would open up the thread an show that message.
That would allow for quick navigation to new posts while avoiding wading through the trollish slog-fests.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
It’s time to remove your blindfold now, dude, seriously.
Re: Re:
Yes, but I don’t want to wade through that crap to get to the worthy comments. I just want to skim past them like I used to instead of having to jump into the giant trash folder Techdirt now is.
Re: Re: Re:
… It’s literally one click to open up a collapsed thread, and until/unless you do that it treats the entire thread as one collapsed comment, preventing one or two people from filling the comment sections with long strings of ‘no u’ trolling that necessitates copious use of the ‘Page down button just to get to worthwhile comments.
If you don’t want to have to wade through the trolls then I’ve got some advice for you: Just don’t click on a hidden thread to begin with. If you absolutely must go digging through the sewage to see if anyone left a decent response to a troll then just skim past the troll comments.
Re: Re: Re:2
Which, you know, isn’t actually possible anymore since worthy comments get hidden along with the trollish ones under the new system. Did you take in any of the recent conversation, including your own comment?
Re: Re: Re:3
If by ‘isn’t actually possible’ you mean that clicking to unhide unhides all comments in a given thread, requiring you to manually skim past troll comments to look for ‘good’ ones then sure, totally impossible.
You’re talking about a minuscule inconvenience caused by your desire to wade through the sewage to look for anything worthwhile, compared to everyone not having to deal with troll threads dozens of comments long filling up the comment section it’s not even close to even, and certainly not enough to justify rolling back to the old system.
Re: Re: Re:3
Okay, but it is, though. If you’re viewing comments in Threaded mode, switch to Time mode or click the “view in chronology” link on a given comment. Sure, keeping track of who’s replying to who becomes more difficult, but you can still see all the comments that haven’t been hidden via flagging.
Re: Re: Re:
This makes no sense. With the new system, it’s so much easier to see the worthy comments. The troll threads get hidden away.
I’m honestly confused about how you find this to be somehow worse than what we had before. This exposes you to less of the trash, and more of the quality.
Re: Re: Re:2
I will say that I appreciate y’all starting to get rid of the more obviously trollish comments/threads instead of merely letting them stay hidden. Keep it up and maybe the trolls will finally get the message…well, assuming we have numerous trolls and not just one or two dudes who think “anonymous” posting means they can sockpuppet without being caught.
The government probably should be mindful of things like free expression when talking to companies, and to avoid flagging whenever it is reasonable to achieve that. However, the judiciary is probably not the best avenue for that.
Can we please now go back to the old flagging system? Under that, you only had to scroll past the flagged comments, but now you have to open everything to see any responses worthy of an insightful or funny vote. It’s rather like having an email account where everything gets sent to the trash folder, forcing you to trawl through tons of crap just to read the emails from friends, your kids’ schoolteachers, your family physician, etc., and it’s only ruining the Techdirt experience for everyone except the trolls.