Federal Judge Terry Doughty releases opinion in Missouri v. Biden on July 4th, finding the government likely violated the First Amendment by ...

[MagicMike]

weaponized law enforcement for political advantage

You really don't have the slightest idea what these words mean do you?
You are only parroting what Donald Trump (the one currently indicted by law enforcement) has been saying.
Cult much?
Here's a newsflash for you.
Trump isn't the first criminal refusing to take responsibility for his crimes and instead blaming law enforcement, prosecutors, judges, and/or somebody else for their sorry predicament.
They pretty much ALL do it.
The only difference is with most felons nobody bothers to take them seriously.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Trump has weaponized crime to intimidate the prosecutors.

He has failed.

 

[scruffy]

Trump has weaponized crime to intimidate the prosecutors.

He has failed.

Nice try, leftard.

The DNC paid for the BLM riots.

That is a FACT supported by a paper trail.

As distinct from your incessant lying.

 

[MagicMike]

Nice try, leftard.

The DNC paid for the BLM riots.

That is a FACT supported by a paper trail.

As distinct from your incessant lying.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Nice try, leftard. The DNC paid for the BLM riots. That is a FACT supported by a paper trail. As distinct from your incessant lying.

You can be charged for defamation for such statements.

 

[scruffy]

You can be charged for defamation for such statements.

Bring it, asswipe.

Not scared of you or your idiotic threats.

Leftards are such little weenies.... Go ahead fuckwad, let's do some discovery.

lol Stupid damn leftard scum....

 

[miketx]

Lol, likely.

 

[miketx]

Demand a like, when provided, the pos will spew and deny.

 

[scruffy]

Demand a like, when provided, the pos will spew and deny.

No links for leftards, sorry.

Leftards can do their own damn research.

And if they find anything interesting, they can post it

 

[scruffy]

Especially those lying fucktards in the CISA.

Those asswipes should be taken apart IMMEDIATELY.

 

[skews13]

No links for leftards, sorry.

Leftards can do their own damn research.

And if they find anything interesting, they can post it

Your stupidity is only a lagging indicator of your ignorance

The district court cited all the precedent supporting this public-private dialogue before cavalierly dismissing it, in part by declaring that “what is really telling is that virtually all of the free speech suppressed was ‘conservative’ free speech.” As if the cases that supported the government all of a sudden didn’t matter because this case involves conservatives? (One side note: Several of the allegations in the complaint occurred during the Trump administration. Communications between social media companies and government officials happen no matter who’s in power, and the First Amendment is not supposed to lean right or left.)

There is also the fact that the district court made no effort to identify circumstances where the government came even close to coercing social media companies into doing something they didn’t want to do. Take the allegations concerning hydroxychloroquine. On pages 52-53 of the opinion, the district court recites the very serious allegation that the Department of Health and Human Services “suppressed speech on hydroxychloroquine” by having Dr. Anthony Fauci make “statements on Good Morning America and on Andrea Mitchell Reports that hydroxychloroquine is not effective.” The next sentence then reports that, after this apparently very coerciveGood Morning America appearance, “social-media platforms censored” videos and material that were pro-hydroxychloroquine. That must have been quite the Good Morning America appearance. But joking aside: A government official appearing on a television show and stating that certain speech is disinformation does not come even remotely close to the government coercing social medial companies into removing that speech.

Let’s go to the tape.

Evidence.” “Scientific data.” “Clinical trials.”

That’s what informed Dr Fauci’s statements as opposed to the mad ramblings of a quack that “embraces demon semen” or a carnival barker who also suggested that people drink bleach to get rid of COVID-19.

So were the warnings on those very social media sites not to drink bleach to get rid of COVID-19 suppressing conservative speech as well?

This would be merely frustrating if hundreds of thousands of people didn’t die, in part, because of disinformation like the claims about hydroxychloroquine that Dr. Fauci is debunking.

The judge must be from Cloud Cuckoo Land.

Abbreviated Pundit Roundup: Law and information disorder

We begin today with law professors Leah Litman and Laurence H. Tribe writing for Just Security about the legal implications of the preliminary injunction issued by federal Judge Terry A. Doughty of the Western District of Louisiana in Missouri v....

www.dailykos.com

If you can’t dispute any of the information in the article, then stay out of the discussion.

 

[scruffy]

Your stupidity is only a lagging indicator of your ignorance

The district court cited all the precedent supporting this public-private dialogue before cavalierly dismissing it, in part by declaring that “what is really telling is that virtually all of the free speech suppressed was ‘conservative’ free speech.” As if the cases that supported the government all of a sudden didn’t matter because this case involves conservatives? (One side note: Several of the allegations in the complaint occurred during the Trump administration. Communications between social media companies and government officials happen no matter who’s in power, and the First Amendment is not supposed to lean right or left.)

There is also the fact that the district court made no effort to identify circumstances where the government came even close to coercing social media companies into doing something they didn’t want to do. Take the allegations concerning hydroxychloroquine. On pages 52-53 of the opinion, the district court recites the very serious allegation that the Department of Health and Human Services “suppressed speech on hydroxychloroquine” by having Dr. Anthony Fauci make “statements on Good Morning America and on Andrea Mitchell Reports that hydroxychloroquine is not effective.” The next sentence then reports that, after this apparently very coerciveGood Morning America appearance, “social-media platforms censored” videos and material that were pro-hydroxychloroquine. That must have been quite the Good Morning America appearance. But joking aside: A government official appearing on a television show and stating that certain speech is disinformation does not come even remotely close to the government coercing social medial companies into removing that speech.

Let’s go to the tape.

Evidence.” “Scientific data.” “Clinical trials.”

That’s what informed Dr Fauci’s statements as opposed to the mad ramblings of a quack that “embraces demon semen” or a carnival barker who also suggested that people drink bleach to get rid of COVID-19.

So were the warnings on those very social media sites not to drink bleach to get rid of COVID-19 suppressing conservative speech as well?

This would be merely frustrating if hundreds of thousands of people didn’t die, in part, because of disinformation like the claims about hydroxychloroquine that Dr. Fauci is debunking.

The judge must be from Cloud Cuckoo Land.

Abbreviated Pundit Roundup: Law and information disorder

We begin today with law professors Leah Litman and Laurence H. Tribe writing for Just Security about the legal implications of the preliminary injunction issued by federal Judge Terry A. Doughty of the Western District of Louisiana in Missouri v....

www.dailykos.com

If you can’t dispute any of the information in the article, then stay out of the discussion.

I dispute you thusly:

You're full of shit.

The entire leftard political establishment is COMPLETELY fill of shit.

NONE of you fucktards have a medical degree. Which makes YOU the clueless and ignorant one.

Now go away fucktard, before I slap you upside the head for being such a wanker.

 

[Weatherman2020]

So, a right wing judge makes a generic ruling based on conspiracy theory. Sure...if it was a ruling with any teeth, he wouldn't have used the word "likely". As in, it was likely this judge just wants his 15 minutes in the alt-right spotlight.

If it’s only a conspiracy that Democrats were working with social media to censor conservatives, then the ruling is moot, you’ve got nothing to worry about.

But all the weeping and gnashing of teeth says the judge hit the mark.

 

[westwall]

A very bad ruling.

Only if you are a fascist.

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

If it’s only a conspiracy that Democrats were working with social media to censor conservatives, then the ruling is moot, you’ve got nothing to worry about.

But all the weeping and gnashing of teeth says the judge hit the mark.

No one is censoring any conservatives. All I have to do is browse Twitter and Facebook to know that argument is full of shit.
And as far as the Trumpswab judge issuing an edict on a co-equal branch of government, I'd send him the middle finger door prize..and continue doing what I wanted.

 

[Weatherman2020]

No one is censoring any conservatives. All I have to do is browse Twitter and Facebook to know that argument is full of shit.
And as far as the Trumpswab judge issuing an edict on a co-equal branch of government, I'd send him the middle finger door prize..and continue doing what I wanted.

Yep. You Leftards are in a tizzy over your ‘nothingness’.

 

[Blaster]

Your stupidity is only a lagging indicator of your ignorance

The district court cited all the precedent supporting this public-private dialogue before cavalierly dismissing it, in part by declaring that “what is really telling is that virtually all of the free speech suppressed was ‘conservative’ free speech.” As if the cases that supported the government all of a sudden didn’t matter because this case involves conservatives? (One side note: Several of the allegations in the complaint occurred during the Trump administration. Communications between social media companies and government officials happen no matter who’s in power, and the First Amendment is not supposed to lean right or left.)

There is also the fact that the district court made no effort to identify circumstances where the government came even close to coercing social media companies into doing something they didn’t want to do. Take the allegations concerning hydroxychloroquine. On pages 52-53 of the opinion, the district court recites the very serious allegation that the Department of Health and Human Services “suppressed speech on hydroxychloroquine” by having Dr. Anthony Fauci make “statements on Good Morning America and on Andrea Mitchell Reports that hydroxychloroquine is not effective.” The next sentence then reports that, after this apparently very coerciveGood Morning America appearance, “social-media platforms censored” videos and material that were pro-hydroxychloroquine. That must have been quite the Good Morning America appearance. But joking aside: A government official appearing on a television show and stating that certain speech is disinformation does not come even remotely close to the government coercing social medial companies into removing that speech.

Let’s go to the tape.

Evidence.” “Scientific data.” “Clinical trials.”

That’s what informed Dr Fauci’s statements as opposed to the mad ramblings of a quack that “embraces demon semen” or a carnival barker who also suggested that people drink bleach to get rid of COVID-19.

So were the warnings on those very social media sites not to drink bleach to get rid of COVID-19 suppressing conservative speech as well?

This would be merely frustrating if hundreds of thousands of people didn’t die, in part, because of disinformation like the claims about hydroxychloroquine that Dr. Fauci is debunking.

The judge must be from Cloud Cuckoo Land.

Abbreviated Pundit Roundup: Law and information disorder

We begin today with law professors Leah Litman and Laurence H. Tribe writing for Just Security about the legal implications of the preliminary injunction issued by federal Judge Terry A. Doughty of the Western District of Louisiana in Missouri v....

www.dailykos.com

If you can’t dispute any of the information in the article, then stay out of the discussion.

Please keep your replies short and to the point. Long winded posts like this are seldom read by most people.

 

[WEATHER53]

Please keep your replies short and to the point. Long winded posts like this are seldom read by most people.

Correct t
If you have to write an epistle then your message is weak at best

 

[WEATHER53]

Nanny state “disinformation” control was always bullshit. Now you perpetual emoters and wishers may need some protection from what goes into your head but us thinkers are more than capable of deciding what is true and what is false and how to act accordingly

 

[Kilroy2]

BREAKING: Federal Judge Terry Doughty releases opinion in Missouri v. Biden on July 4th, finding the government likely violated the First Amendment by conspiring with Big Tech in a "far-reaching and widespread censorship campaign."

Judge Doughty grants preliminary injunction blocking the DOJ, FBI, and DHS from working with Big Tech to censor content.

Likely violated sounds like maybe

preliminary injunction means there is no final judgment yet