@IronskullGM So true. RFK Jr is the only candidate who has been calling this out and he is the only candidate who will protect ALL our constitutional rights.
I agree when you lose your first amendment rights it's basically over. What is going on what is trying to come in and take over our constitutional rights do they know this is America not a communist country. We must not allow this We as a whole can stop it.
@@dao8805 he is wrong and nutty. the whole twitter files thing was grossly overhyped, since it was the trump admin that was asking for stuff to be taken down and everyone tried to blame Biden. even Musk made a big deal about Biden requests in thehe twitter files, even tho Biden wasn't in office at the time. RFK JR, who like trump never met a paranoid conspiracy fantasy he didn't like, jumped on the twitter files thing.
"But free speech causes hate and makes it hard to protect the children, we're all for democracy but dictatorship is still so much safer and more convenient" - America 2024
@@jasonwhite6463 Don't we all have standing when it comes to the suppression of speech? Literally all of us had our right to hear the truth suppressed, on an issue of the utmost importance to the country. How "standing" is an issue here escapes me. Who exactly has enough "standing" for the court's liking?
The question is "why did it hang around on the docket until the last few days of the term, and why wasn't it dismissed as improvidently granted immediately ?"
The withered hand of the oligarchy put its wrinkled thumb on the scales, forcing at least two compromised justices to agree to punt rather than smack down Biden for violating the heck out of free speech
I agree that if you check the balances of the conservative judges, you’ll find a lot of income and gifts from wealthy litigants to buy the court. Thomas is the biggest one, but Alito is another one. Also, Kavanaugh had some big debts suddenly paid off just before he was confirmed.
@@007kingifrit I do not agree they got it wrong. Decisions should not be party political. Having said that ,quite often, SCOTUS is too ideological driven. Supreme court judges should have term limits. Their rulings should be based on the law and the constitution.
The Court decided long ago that there is no Citizen Standing, no Taxpayer Standing. That only elite and rich people have any ability to access the Federal Courts -- because they cannot be bothered with little people's problems.
@@NinnaFrank For a society to operate for the benefit of all there needs to be a balanced compromise on all sides. The problem is some are quite willing to abuse such for their own agenda (can be on both sides) and then cry over it.
@@mughug9616 you are defending censorship for " society to operate"?? It operated or 200 plus years no issues. Look up " smith propaganda act" and see what Obama repealed. By your speech I'm willing to bet your are a new deep south style lib . You have no issues taking brown and black free Americans rights. Just like the south Dems of old.
Freedom of speech comes with responsibility. A lot of people 'abuse' the idea of freedom of speech thinking it has no limits whatsoever. They 'abuse' it and then complain about first amendmemt rights. Freedom is not free in the true sense of the word.
The Democrats rail against Trump for "taking away our rights". Meanwhile the Democrats threaten journalists, threaten parents, threaten churches, threaten Veterans and claim the 2nd Ammendment won't protect us against Tyrannical Brandon. I hope the patriots in the military are paying attention!
Trump and the Republicans will gladly take peoples rights away too, just a different subset under different pretexts. Abortion is a standing example... I don't agree with it either but still think it's a woman's choice, yet the party of "small government" thinks it's the state's business to decide. Same with free speech which instantly goes out the window when it comes to adult content and "protecting" children from choosing to look at something on a screen, once more thought control in the name of safety is the state's business not even a parent's.
Canadian here...welcome to getting closer to joining the shameful authoritarian nightmare we've become. At least you sort of had rights. We never did, we just didn't realize it until we needed them.
I don't think the US had it either, or any Capitalist "democracy". The difference is we don't even know when we are being propagandized while the Soviets did.
@mughug9616 The Chinese can also say SOME things, is that also land of liberty because every single thing anyone says isn't immediately censored?? The test of freedom isn't "are you allowed to speak when *they* allow you to" It's are you allowed to speak when *you* want & need to Over cov id many countries got their answer.
That means that they did NOT actually decide on the issue and it remains a problem. "You don't have standing, we will not see your case!" is NOT deciding, it's 'kicking the can down the road'
@@briancooper1412 Decisions actually solve problems and address issues. You are correct that kicking the can is a decision but that would be dismissing the deliberate Act of Omission they performed here. ‘It is a real problem that needs clarification but the paperwork is in the wrong font so we are not going to answer’
It is illegal for government to engage in propaganda how is it different from producing propaganda and controlling what others allow to fit into your narrative?
We need to get off social media anyway. The only reason this decision feels wrong is because we view the internet as our reality. We need to return to actual reality.
This is an excellent decision . Trump's White House reached out to Twitter(now X) to have post taken down. Social media companies removing misinformation is not a first amendment. violation.
It is, technically, but standing is more than just procedural because it is a ruling on who has a big enough direct stake in the matter to actually sue.
@@Calleronline1-vf1eh The overturning of roe was because it was unconstitutional. All rights not explicitly enumerated to the Federal Government are held by the States.
That’s not exactly what happened. They threw the case out because of lack of standing. That doesn’t mean that they ruled that the defendant’s behavior was legal.
Like RFKJR says, the fist amendment wasn’t written for agreeable, popular speech. It was written for difficult to listen to speech. ALL speech must be defended, especially when we don’t like it. When the 1st amendment is tossed aside, all freedom will certainly follow. Protect freedom and vote RFKJR for president in November
For all my Liberal friends who were fine with government censorship on social media in the Biden administration, I hope you are just as happy with the Trump administration having the same power.
"Printers are educated in the Belief, that when Men differ in Opinion, both Sides ought equally to have the Advantage of being heard by the Publick; and that when Truth and Error have fair Play, the former is always an overmatch for the latter: Hence they chearfully serve all contending Writers that pay them well, without regarding on which side they are of the Question in Dispute." - Benjamin Franklin
True, but that's not a technicality. It means the plaintiffs cannot demonstrate a direct stake in the matter sufficient to bring suit. That's pretty bad.
By denying standing they ruled that free speech is at the government’s discretion. You will have to prove harm and intent which as long as it’s done correctly cannot be proven. Hate to rain on your sunny side outlook. We’re f***ed and you need to wake up.
The government has no business controlling our speech. End of story. But our reliance on social media has made us all vulnerable to being led around like mindless sheep. At the end of the day, it's our fault.
I agree with both of you. It is disgraceful. At least there are 3 who know what is at stake. To say there was no standing is oblivious to the first amendment. It is very damning and they chose the case to offset the actual issue to avoid being responsible for any real decision.
No that's not what the ruling means. The state had no "standing" because it could not show direct harm to the state. Meaning it didn't go before the court as a first amendment case. All that needs to be done is for someone to show direct harm by censorship. The gina carrano case so be a prime example of harm from censorship,
The fact that Robby and Jessica agree here really says something. What's even more strange is that they're agreeing with Clarence Thomas. And what's truly bizarre is that Briahna would probably agree with them all too. I wonder if those 6 judges realize how foolish they look right now...
@@domspern, I’m not a lawyer, nor have I read the opinions, yet. I don’t see why Musk couldn’t have X sue, if he has the proof that Twitter was coerced.
I am willing to bet there was some behind the scenes pressure from the agencies for the justices to throw it out. We are already far too aware these agencies act with impunity.
Even though this was against everything President Trump stands for: government by the people… and supports everything the democrats endorse: government by the government… themselves. Biden/ democrat generated control. Yup. You won. Now.., enjoy being limited in your complaint power against the rulers👍🏻
The other side is currently doing it against Trump and his supporters. That's what the case was about lol. Except people support this tyranny when it's "against" Orange man.
I say this very literally: Those in charge of America have the explicit goal to implement the social system and internet censorship models tested and perfected in China, Russia, Iran, etc. It's done one exception at a time to trick the population into accepting it, particularly under the excuse of protecting children but not only. Unless people who realize the reality of this take unprecedented steps to put a stop to it without being charmed by every pretext the government throws to justify it, you're non-ironically about to have an English speaking version of China in a couple of years! And no it doesn't matter if you vote Democrat or Republican, both equally support this trend.
This is why section 230 needs to be stripped from these companies. They are picking and choosing what gets taken down based on their own opinions, not whether the information is true or not. These platforms, as well as RUclips, are the public square. How else does the average citizen have their voice heard if not through these outlets?
@@markn866 people would be more than happy to go to another platform if Google wasn’t colluding with other major tech companies and the government to destroy those alternatives. Remember Parlor? What’s currently happening to TikTok right now? If these companies want to act like publishers then they should be held to the same legal standards as publishers. Then we’ll see how long they want to police censorship on their platform when they have enough lawsuits on their plates to bankrupt them.
They ruled they didn't have standing not that the feds were acting constitutionally. The question is who would have standing, because I feel like millions of Americans were harmed by suppression of TRUTHFUL ACCURATE information that the government didn't agree with, and millions of Americans have potentially to be harmed by actions like these in the future. Perhaps if the social companies stand up for our rights, and the people are aware that there is suppressed info, that will prevent or minimize something similar in the future.
The go Erne,t didn’t “instruct companies to take down” anything. They notified companies that the posts probably violated the companies’ terms of service or were otherwise in appropriate. The companies always had free reign to act.
this was not a "win" for the government. Anyone else could bring the same case and the Government has to worry about the matter not having a precedence since no one with standing has received a ruling before. Neither side won or lost which leaves America confused about how far the government can/will target the people in general.
This is truly sad. The first amendment is a right and considered one of the highest rights of the land. To allow the government to indirectly influence the right to free speech is totally at odds with 1A.
I’ll let God of All That Exists handle this global rot and say my prayers. God’s Peace be with people of goodwill and intent and keep His angels near to them and protect them.
When you lose your first amendment right, we lose all of our other rights.
I think the 2nd amendment takes care of all the other amendments.
@IronskullGM So true. RFK Jr is the only candidate who has been calling this out and he is the only candidate who will protect ALL our constitutional rights.
I agree when you lose your first amendment rights it's basically over. What is going on what is trying to come in and take over our constitutional rights do they know this is America not a communist country. We must not allow this We as a whole can stop it.
Yes, and THAT is also a Key Point that RFK has also made Several Times. R-F-K... ALL The Way...!!! 🙂👍
@@dao8805 he is wrong and nutty. the whole twitter files thing was grossly overhyped, since it was the trump admin that was asking for stuff to be taken down and everyone tried to blame Biden. even Musk made a big deal about Biden requests in thehe twitter files, even tho Biden wasn't in office at the time.
RFK JR, who like trump never met a paranoid conspiracy fantasy he didn't like, jumped on the twitter files thing.
Shall we just cut to the chase and create a Ministry of Truth.
You mean Biden's Disinformation Governance Board? He already started the ministry of truth over two years ago.
@@billhartig4805 Couldn't agree more. Just wait until Trump does his version of it. Good times.
War is peace.
@@JG-qt3pn SCOTUS ruled against the plaintiffs having standing. SCOTUS did not rule on the merits of the case. Big difference. Grasp the difference.
@@JG-qt3pn Agreed. Trump will normalize this garbage even further.
We have become the frog in the pan not knowing we're slowly being boiled alive
🎯
What did you think all of the social media CEOs were summoned before the senate? Looks like intimidation for compliance.
I believe a lot of people do know but don’t have anywhere to jump to safety, as it feels like a global boiling.
goes to prove DON'T LIE about things WITHOUT PROOF!!!!
Leave the pan.
“ all of our rights rest on Freedom Of Speech”
RFK
Prescisely.
KENNEDY 2024 & 2028 to save our country and all our constitutional rights.
And on helix sleep
@@dao8805👍💯
Thomas Jefferson
"But free speech causes hate and makes it hard to protect the children, we're all for democracy but dictatorship is still so much safer and more convenient" - America 2024
Standing is being used too often as an excuse for the courts to weasel out of ruling on cases
Not really. The real question is why noone with standing brings a case.
Precedent/standing is important, if it wasn't considered so much we likely would have had many of our rights curtailed for the "good of all".
@@jasonwhite6463 Don't we all have standing when it comes to the suppression of speech? Literally all of us had our right to hear the truth suppressed, on an issue of the utmost importance to the country. How "standing" is an issue here escapes me. Who exactly has enough "standing" for the court's liking?
@@jasonwhite6463 Standing for this case requires proving a negative. The victims needed to prove they were injured because they did not see a post.
@@utah_koidragon7117 First off you are assuming the truth was "suppressed". Secondly a private company has the right to not display your content.
How does a case "that doesn't have standing" get to the Supreme Court.
Abuse of the legal system?
A third-term underground president bribed a favor to try and save his puppet from the truth going viral..
The question is "why did it hang around on the docket until the last few days of the term, and why wasn't it dismissed as improvidently granted immediately ?"
A "Political Circus Show.." makes a Great DISTRACTION for all oof us...! : (
The withered hand of the oligarchy put its wrinkled thumb on the scales, forcing at least two compromised justices to agree to punt rather than smack down Biden for violating the heck out of free speech
I think we can all agree that the SCOTUS is not a check and balance.
Bingo
I agree that if you check the balances of the conservative judges, you’ll find a lot of income and gifts from wealthy litigants to buy the court. Thomas is the biggest one, but Alito is another one. Also, Kavanaugh had some big debts suddenly paid off just before he was confirmed.
Is it because SCOTUS made a ruling you did not like?
well no, they just got it wrong this one time
@@007kingifrit I do not agree they got it wrong. Decisions should not be party political. Having said that ,quite often, SCOTUS is too ideological driven. Supreme court judges should have term limits. Their rulings should be based on the law and the constitution.
The harm is being censored. Any American has standing
The Court decided long ago that there is no Citizen Standing, no Taxpayer Standing. That only elite and rich people have any ability to access the Federal Courts -- because they cannot be bothered with little people's problems.
America is living in a constitutional banana republic.
And you seem ok to live in it. Cannot be that bad.
@@mughug9616you seam to be good with it simping authoritarian . Free Americans are not ok with being censored Boris
@@NinnaFrank For a society to operate for the benefit of all there needs to be a balanced compromise on all sides. The problem is some are quite willing to abuse such for their own agenda (can be on both sides) and then cry over it.
@@mughug9616 you are defending censorship for " society to operate"?? It operated or 200 plus years no issues. Look up " smith propaganda act" and see what Obama repealed. By your speech I'm willing to bet your are a new deep south style lib . You have no issues taking brown and black free Americans rights. Just like the south Dems of old.
You mean an "unconstitutional banana republic."
Terrible!!!!!! So, CENSORSHIP IS NOW LEGAL?????? F the government…
Apparently it has been since COVID go figure
@@kailahmarie5657 Another event happened that year in November that was also silenced.
Time for a reset is upon us.
F gov. choose Freedom be an Anarchist
Censorship was always legal
America has fallen.
Oh christ.
More drama, queen.
@@mephik this is the energy needed from 2016-Present!! It would save a lot of TDS victims for sure! 🤣🤣
Democracy preserved.
Not yet. When the people supporting this decision become the victims of it then maybe we'll be closer. BDS versus TDS - mutually assured destruction.
Freedom of speech comes with responsibility. A lot of people 'abuse' the idea of freedom of speech thinking it has no limits whatsoever. They 'abuse' it and then complain about first amendmemt rights. Freedom is not free in the true sense of the word.
“ when rights are taken away we rarely get them back. “
RFK
Vote RFK….a brilliant mind. We need that
KENNEDY 2024 & 2028
@@dao8805
we never get them back
🫡
The Democrats rail against Trump for "taking away our rights". Meanwhile the Democrats threaten journalists, threaten parents, threaten churches, threaten Veterans and claim the 2nd Ammendment won't protect us against Tyrannical Brandon. I hope the patriots in the military are paying attention!
Sad times when speech is controlled. Isn't this a type of fascism?
It's racism
And they where concerned about trump taking our rights away
They never were. They were afraid Trump wasn't going to let them keep trampling on everyone else's rights with impunity.
name one right. I'll wait. @@utah_koidragon7117
Trump and the Republicans will gladly take peoples rights away too, just a different subset under different pretexts. Abortion is a standing example... I don't agree with it either but still think it's a woman's choice, yet the party of "small government" thinks it's the state's business to decide. Same with free speech which instantly goes out the window when it comes to adult content and "protecting" children from choosing to look at something on a screen, once more thought control in the name of safety is the state's business not even a parent's.
Canadian here...welcome to getting closer to joining the shameful authoritarian nightmare we've become. At least you sort of had rights. We never did, we just didn't realize it until we needed them.
I don't think the US had it either, or any Capitalist "democracy". The difference is we don't even know when we are being propagandized while the Soviets did.
You got guns? Take your rights from them. Not a call to violence, just a history lesson. Look up the guns or butter thought experiment.
Do you post this from outside Canada?
@mughug9616 The Chinese can also say SOME things, is that also land of liberty because every single thing anyone says isn't immediately censored??
The test of freedom isn't "are you allowed to speak when *they* allow you to"
It's are you allowed to speak when *you* want & need to
Over cov id many countries got their answer.
What rights don't you have?
Three conservative judges who are supposedly a threat to democracy got it right. How do liberals square that circle?
RIP America
It was DOA. No big deal.
That means that they did NOT actually decide on the issue and it remains a problem. "You don't have standing, we will not see your case!" is NOT deciding, it's 'kicking the can down the road'
Most are dumb. Just like landmark cases that get named after the person who had standing are really just lawyers looking for someone to represent.
Kicking the can down the road is a decision. They could have decided not to kick the can down the road and instead actually defend the Constitution.
@@briancooper1412 Decisions actually solve problems and address issues.
You are correct that kicking the can is a decision but that would be dismissing the deliberate Act of Omission they performed here.
‘It is a real problem that needs clarification but the paperwork is in the wrong font so we are not going to answer’
Might as well get rid of the 1st Amendment
ACTUALLY getting rid of it would be DIFFICULT.. MUCH Easier to - JUST IGNORE IT... Same Result..! : (
@@jarichards99utubewhich is exactly what gooberment is doing.
It is illegal for government to engage in propaganda how is it different from producing propaganda and controlling what others allow to fit into your narrative?
They must be getting threats behind the scenes. It's insane
Or bought
We need to get off social media anyway. The only reason this decision feels wrong is because we view the internet as our reality. We need to return to actual reality.
No, the only reason this decision feels wrong is because it blatantly pisses all over the First Amendment.
That is an awful decision
Even if it was just procedural and not on the merits -- awful decision
This is an excellent decision . Trump's White House reached out to Twitter(now X) to have post taken down. Social media companies removing misinformation is not a first amendment. violation.
I am thinking that they didn't dismiss on merit but on who was bringing the argument. This is coming back to SCOTUS.
The overturning of roe was mostly procedural...if you agreed with that then you should agree with this
It is, technically, but standing is more than just procedural because it is a ruling on who has a big enough direct stake in the matter to actually sue.
@@Calleronline1-vf1eh The overturning of roe was because it was unconstitutional. All rights not explicitly enumerated to the Federal Government are held by the States.
This is horrible news.
RFK JR is the only candidate calling out censorship and he is the only one that will protect all our constitutional rights.
“All laws that are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void"
“All laws that are repugnant to AIPAC are null and void"
This wasn't about a law. It was about behind-the-scenes arm twisting.
Any official acting against his oath of office is not acting within his official capacity which makes this a Subversion group within our government
That’s not exactly what happened. They threw the case out because of lack of standing. That doesn’t mean that they ruled that the defendant’s behavior was legal.
Like RFKJR says, the fist amendment wasn’t written for agreeable, popular speech. It was written for difficult to listen to speech. ALL speech must be defended, especially when we don’t like it. When the 1st amendment is tossed aside, all freedom will certainly follow. Protect freedom and vote RFKJR for president in November
❤💙💛
How tf did they just decide that corporations have higher authority than the constitution
Something BIG is happening, slowly BIG BROTHER is wanting to take away our rights.
And give us purple nurples for no reason!
What I want to know....IS WHO IS AGAINST FREE SPEECH? Apparently the US govt is.
Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
Surrounded by criminals... Pretty soon all these institutions will not be respected and lose it's authority... We will not respect criminals...
Yikes !!
This is crazy scary.
Time to vote the judges down...
Down where? On their chubby lil knees?
@@WhereYouGoinCityBoy well figure it out
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE... TERM LIMITS For The "Supreme" Court : (
unfortunsly the last few months we have to admit, they can be openly corrupt and sell us put and they won't have anything happen to them
A BIG--WIN...!!! For All Of Those who HATE The FIRST AMENDMENT... : (
Exactly why we need a brilliant legal mind who brings the receipts and bona fides
up against Corporate Power….
Vote Kennedy
Who's DELETING MY COMMENTS? Oh I know THE GOVERNMENT IS!!!
CONTINUOUSLY.
@@zooyhnahte it's ridiculous!!!
For all my Liberal friends who were fine with government censorship on social media in the Biden administration, I hope you are just as happy with the Trump administration having the same power.
Another nail in America's coffin. Goodbye liberty, I hardly knew the
Time to shake of the dust from thine Shakespeare
BIG BROTHER just wants whats best for you! What? You dont trust Big Brother?
Seems BIG BROTHER has to step in sometimes because some take advantage and abuse our system. Less abuse and less big brother.
My big brother taught me the art of the oil change. Trust isn't an issue.
Standing is not the same as ruling against….
It may as well be as ruling against. It seems to have the same effect.
Do we still tell children that they are fortunate to live in the "land of the free?"
Land of the “free”.
Used to be,no more😢
"Printers are educated in the Belief, that when Men differ in Opinion, both Sides ought equally to have the Advantage of being heard by the Publick; and that when Truth and Error have fair Play, the former is always an overmatch for the latter: Hence they chearfully serve all contending Writers that pay them well, without regarding on which side they are of the Question in Dispute." - Benjamin Franklin
Your body my choice! Long live the Ministry of Truth
They did not rule that it's OK. They ruled that the plaintiffs did not have standing.
True, but that's not a technicality. It means the plaintiffs cannot demonstrate a direct stake in the matter sufficient to bring suit. That's pretty bad.
By denying standing they ruled that free speech is at the government’s discretion. You will have to prove harm and intent which as long as it’s done correctly cannot be proven. Hate to rain on your sunny side outlook. We’re f***ed and you need to wake up.
They ruled they didn't have standing, so who does?
Jessica is an improvement over Briahna.
The Jab is proof of the harm!
If the people don't have standing, who does?
Find those Dr. Who got stifled...
The supreme court needs to stop allowing these law fare cases to go unanswered because theyre afraid to get involved... its literally their job
The government has no business controlling our speech. End of story. But our reliance on social media has made us all vulnerable to being led around like mindless sheep. At the end of the day, it's our fault.
I agree with both of you. It is disgraceful. At least there are 3 who know what is at stake. To say there was no standing is oblivious to the first amendment. It is very damning and they chose the case to offset the actual issue to avoid being responsible for any real decision.
No that's not what the ruling means. The state had no "standing" because it could not show direct harm to the state. Meaning it didn't go before the court as a first amendment case. All that needs to be done is for someone to show direct harm by censorship. The gina carrano case so be a prime example of harm from censorship,
WELL THERE GOES FREE SPEECH FOLKS!!!!!!
Everyone for themselves. God help us, no one else will.
Terrible decision. Extremely disappointed with SCOTUS.
I remember when the liberals were the champions of free speech and against censorship.
It’s so nice not having The Bri show anymore
"nothing to see here"
-JACK BOOTS
This was a "standing" decision not a decision on merits find Turley.
The fact that Robby and Jessica agree here really says something. What's even more strange is that they're agreeing with Clarence Thomas. And what's truly bizarre is that Briahna would probably agree with them all too. I wonder if those 6 judges realize how foolish they look right now...
The opinion only says that the petitioners did not have standing.
So can't the state find someone in their state who was silenced to bring a case?
@@domspern, I’m not a lawyer, nor have I read the opinions, yet.
I don’t see why Musk couldn’t have X sue, if he has the proof that Twitter was coerced.
@@domspern , I don’t think so. The individuals would have to bring suit themselves.
Acb was a bad choice.
So, when the Trump administration starts to use social media, just watch how the left goes ballistic!!!!!
Very true!
Right before the election as well, super convenient for Biden and the Dems.
They had Twitter the last time and still have Facebook.
I am willing to bet there was some behind the scenes pressure from the agencies for the justices to throw it out. We are already far too aware these agencies act with impunity.
This will come in handy when Trump takes control.
Even though this was against everything President Trump stands for: government by the people… and supports everything the democrats endorse: government by the government… themselves. Biden/ democrat generated control. Yup. You won. Now.., enjoy being limited in your complaint power against the rulers👍🏻
The other side is currently doing it against Trump and his supporters. That's what the case was about lol. Except people support this tyranny when it's "against" Orange man.
at least he will secure the borders....
You meant the UNIPARTY sided with its self on this? TELL ME IT AIN'T SO! And this is A CROCK!
Either you have free speech or you don't. Start investigating the judges.
But when the government gets to have their input and maybe even threaten if they don’t, that’s when it crosses the line.
Government invest ages itself, finds it did nothing wrong. More at 11
I say this very literally: Those in charge of America have the explicit goal to implement the social system and internet censorship models tested and perfected in China, Russia, Iran, etc. It's done one exception at a time to trick the population into accepting it, particularly under the excuse of protecting children but not only. Unless people who realize the reality of this take unprecedented steps to put a stop to it without being charmed by every pretext the government throws to justify it, you're non-ironically about to have an English speaking version of China in a couple of years! And no it doesn't matter if you vote Democrat or Republican, both equally support this trend.
Where do we go to reconcile this situation ?
Well the 1st Amendment wasn't respected. So maybe we try the next one.
Narrative Control is all that matters....
What don't the government want me to say ? I sure would say it !!!! Pureblood forever !!!
Hail Slitherin
@@WhereYouGoinCityBoy praise to my lord Jesus.
This is why section 230 needs to be stripped from these companies. They are picking and choosing what gets taken down based on their own opinions, not whether the information is true or not. These platforms, as well as RUclips, are the public square. How else does the average citizen have their voice heard if not through these outlets?
YT is not the public square. No one has a right to spread their message on any one website. Find another baker.
@@markn866 people would be more than happy to go to another platform if Google wasn’t colluding with other major tech companies and the government to destroy those alternatives. Remember Parlor? What’s currently happening to TikTok right now? If these companies want to act like publishers then they should be held to the same legal standards as publishers. Then we’ll see how long they want to police censorship on their platform when they have enough lawsuits on their plates to bankrupt them.
Maybe the S.C needs to be replaced😢
Terrible decision. Extremely disappointed with SCOTUS.
CITIZENS NEED TO VOTE CORRUPT OUT!!!
FTS. I'll still say and do what I want. NOT what THEY want.
"You will own nothing (not even your voice) and you will be happy."
-WEF
Where's my voice going? I'm not Helen kelci!
This was specifically about Kennedy. He sued and it was part of this case. It’s very sad.
Right up there with the Citizens United ruling.
This decision was about standing, not the merits of the case.
3:19 Jessica makes the best point in this video.
If you actually read the opinion on the case, Amy Coney Barrett eviscerates the case for being a joke and not based on actual evidence and facts.
They ruled they didn't have standing not that the feds were acting constitutionally. The question is who would have standing, because I feel like millions of Americans were harmed by suppression of TRUTHFUL ACCURATE information that the government didn't agree with, and millions of Americans have potentially to be harmed by actions like these in the future. Perhaps if the social companies stand up for our rights, and the people are aware that there is suppressed info, that will prevent or minimize something similar in the future.
I’m furious. This isn’t American. We’ve lost it. I won’t vote for the first time. Too many lies and shenanigans.
Nowhere in the decision does it say the "FBI" can "limit social media."
I do not like the 9 wise elders decision on this one. Shame they are untouchable and above any scrutiny.
The go Erne,t didn’t “instruct companies to take down” anything. They notified companies that the posts probably violated the companies’ terms of service or were otherwise in appropriate. The companies always had free reign to act.
Come on Robby, you know that rejecting a case for standing is not the same.
this was not a "win" for the government. Anyone else could bring the same case and the Government has to worry about the matter not having a precedence since no one with standing has received a ruling before. Neither side won or lost which leaves America confused about how far the government can/will target the people in general.
Give the SC a stronger case people!
And the Democrats say the Supreme Court is biased ???????
Hopefully RFK's case against Biden goes better.
This is truly sad. The first amendment is a right and considered one of the highest rights of the land. To allow the government to indirectly influence the right to free speech is totally at odds with 1A.
Imagine Trump getting into office and using this power.
A fantasy
I’ll let God of All That Exists handle this global rot and say my prayers. God’s Peace be with people of goodwill and intent and keep His angels near to them and protect them.
Good thing I digitally declared, 4 yrs ago, that I am a WORLD CITIZEN, beholden to NONE, OWED much for damages given in service.
How does a state not have standing to bring suit?