> public admissions by then-White House press secretary Jennifer Psaki that the Biden administration was ordering social media companies to censor certain posts, as well as statements from Psaki, President Biden, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, and DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas threatening them with regulatory or other legal action if they declined to do so,
The rest of that quote is, "...[according to judges] still did not suffice to establish that the plaintiffs were censored on social media due to government action." Pretty misleading to cut that out.
Edit: TFA goes on to contrast those cases with a different case, Missouri v. Biden, which I didn't mention because it's the entire topic of the article I'm charitably assuming we've all at least skimmed before coming here to argue about, but I'm adding it now due to naasking's uno reverse card.
> The rest of that quote is, "...[according to judges] still did not suffice to establish that the plaintiffs were censored on social media due to government action." Pretty misleading to cut that out.
That's not relevant to the question I was answering, which was about what/when threats allegedly happened. Furthermore, the article goes on to describe judges that did find it sufficient. Is it misleading of you to leave that out?
So the judges said that the government ordering private companies to censor, and threatening them with consequences if they don't comply is not a 1st amendment violation? Sounds like we need some new judges.
That's not a fair summary of what happened in those cases. The article doesn't even argue those judges were wrong! It just says, in essence, "Here's a list of cases where judges said this didn't happen, as opposed to Missouri v Biden where a judge said it did, which we will spend the rest of the article discussing." And the person I'm responding to for some reason listed the former rather than the latter in responding to someone looking for examples, and somehow I'm the one getting downvoted.
Dammit, there's a reasonable discussion to have over this. Biden said, "Misinformation on Facebook is killing people." Facebook said, "Oh crap, the president is calling us out, that looks bad so let's block stuff." Is that censorship? Maybe! It kinda is, and it kinda isn't! We could argue about it! But not while we're arguing over semantic crap like this. It felt like a good and useful thing to do, to point out when something is taken egregiously out of context like that, but now I really regret even wading in.
> According to those judges, public admissions by then-White House press secretary Jennifer Psaki that the Biden administration was ordering social media companies to censor certain posts, as well as statements from Psaki, President Biden, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, and DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas threatening them with regulatory or other legal action if they declined to do so, still did not suffice to establish that the plaintiffs were censored on social media due to government action. Put another way, the judges declined to take the government at its word.
Here's why the the two linked cases were dismissed:
> "Plaintiffs lack standing. And even if that were not the case, the content of their claims— and the sources those claims cite and depend upon—does not plausibly suggest they are entitled to the relief they seek."
> "[The plaintiff] has not plausibly pleaded that any action by President
Biden or Surgeon General Murthy was causally related to Facebook and Twitter’s decisions to enforce their misinformation policies against [him]"
Summarizing that as the courts finding that "the Biden administration was ordering social media companies to censor certain posts" is not even misleading, it's just false. And it's not particularly relevant to the actual subject of the article, which is the Missouri v Biden case brought by the three people named in the first sentence.
> Summarizing that as the courts finding that "the Biden administration was ordering social media companies to censor certain posts" is not even misleading, it's just false. And it's not particularly relevant to the actual subject of the article, which is the Missouri v Biden case brought by the three people named in the first sentence.
That's an incorrect summary, again neglecting the relevant information provided by the article. Those cases were dismissed due to lack of standing because the judges surmised that the evidence presented was insufficient, and so they couldn't move on to discovery to really prove those claims. However, the other cases, like Missouri, have moved forward and the evidence they uncovered through discovery does substantiate some of the claims in the dismissed cases, namely that government officials were directing social media companies to censor certain content. Per the article:
> But the Missouri judge reached a different conclusion, determining there was enough evidence in the record to infer that the government was involved in social media censorship, granting the plaintiffs’ request for discovery at the preliminary injunction stage. The Missouri documents, along with some obtained through discovery in Berenson v. Twitter and a FOIA request by America First Legal, expose the extent of the administration’s appropriation of big tech to effect a vast and unprecedented regime of viewpoint-based censorship on the information that most Americans see, hear and otherwise consume. At least 11 federal agencies, and around 80 government officials, have been explicitly directing social media companies to take down posts and remove certain accounts that violate the government’s own preferences and guidelines for coverage on topics ranging from COVID restrictions, to the 2020 election, to the Hunter Biden laptop scandal.
> statements from Psaki, President Biden, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, and DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas threatening them with regulatory or other legal action
As far as I can tell, this is a straight-up lie. The Tablet article links to two other articles[1][2] that don't support this at all. All of the language used to describe the Biden Administration's actions is "request" and "advise".
I can't find any direct quotes from any of the above people threatening anyone with legal action. The NY Times article even says that Facebook completed ignored basic requests from the administration without any consequences or threats.
Biden straight up said that social media companies are killing people by not censoring certain content. The article goes into this in some detail if you want more context, but if the President is saying that you are killing people, that's a pretty clear threat that they are looking to regulate you if you don't get in line.
It's not a clear threat at all because it isn't a threat. They talk about things that are killing people all the time without putting forward any unconstitutional legislation.
Provide a direct quote. If it's true, it will be easy for you to do.
> They talk about things that are killing people all the time without putting forward any unconstitutional legislation.
Oh give me a break. COVID was declared a national emergency and plenty of legislation was put forward to combat it, mitigate it or otherwise reduce harm. The president specifically saying social media companies are killing people in the context of a national emergency is a not so subtle veiled threat.
I'm not sure what direct quote you want, this was all over the news and if you just Google it you'll find hundreds of articles:
Edit: consider if the US was at war with a serious enemy and the president was making comparable claims about social media companies allowing treasonous misinformation to spread that's endangering the nation and try and tell me with a straight face that that's not a veiled threat.
You seem to be saying that if the government characterizes X as misinformation that is killing people, that is a "pretty clear threat that they are looking to regulate you". If that's accurate, how is the framing of "We believe X is misinformation, do with that advice what you will" versus "We believe X is misinformation, and if you don't act on that, we will penalize you in some way" valid at all? Wouldn't the first statement always be equivalent to the second one?
"Killing people" is a pretty important distinction don't you think? Is the government not in the business of protecting the public? If there's a threat to the public, doesn't the government typically intervene?
So no, those two statements are not equivalent, but if you add that additional qualifier that the misinformation is killing people, that becomes a much more serious charge which then implies intervention is a likely outcome.
> public admissions by then-White House press secretary Jennifer Psaki that the Biden administration was ordering social media companies to censor certain posts, as well as statements from Psaki, President Biden, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, and DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas threatening them with regulatory or other legal action if they declined to do so,