SCOTUS punts that ball yet again

[Harpy Eagle]

https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/26/politics/social-media-disinformation-supreme-court-ruling/index.html

“To establish standing, the plaintiffs must demonstrate a substantial risk that, in the near future, they will suffer an injury that is traceable to a government defendant and redressable by the injunction they seek,” Barrett wrote. “Because no plaintiff has carried that burden, none has standing to seek a preliminary injunction.”


Yet one more case kicked down the road on standing.

 

[martybegan]

https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/26/politics/social-media-disinformation-supreme-court-ruling/index.html

“To establish standing, the plaintiffs must demonstrate a substantial risk that, in the near future, they will suffer an injury that is traceable to a government defendant and redressable by the injunction they seek,” Barrett wrote. “Because no plaintiff has carried that burden, none has standing to seek a preliminary injunction.”


Yet one more case kicked down the road on standing.

The thing is these cases then tell the people suing how they have to do it if they want to win the 2nd time around.

 

[TNHarley]

"Not having standing" is such BS

 

[rightwinger]

https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/26/politics/social-media-disinformation-supreme-court-ruling/index.html

“To establish standing, the plaintiffs must demonstrate a substantial risk that, in the near future, they will suffer an injury that is traceable to a government defendant and redressable by the injunction they seek,” Barrett wrote. “Because no plaintiff has carried that burden, none has standing to seek a preliminary injunction.”


Yet one more case kicked down the road on standing.

Why do they take those cases in the first place if they are unwilling to rule on them

 

[dblack]

https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/26/politics/social-media-disinformation-supreme-court-ruling/index.html

“To establish standing, the plaintiffs must demonstrate a substantial risk that, in the near future, they will suffer an injury that is traceable to a government defendant and redressable by the injunction they seek,” Barrett wrote. “Because no plaintiff has carried that burden, none has standing to seek a preliminary injunction.”


Yet one more case kicked down the road on standing.

The standard Robert's sidestep.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Why do they take those cases in the first place if they are unwilling to rule on them

I think post number 2 has the answer. The court is telling the people what to do in order to get the ruling they want. Seems wrong for the court to do

 

[Dante]

https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/26/politics/social-media-disinformation-supreme-court-ruling/index.html

“To establish standing, the plaintiffs must demonstrate a substantial risk that, in the near future, they will suffer an injury that is traceable to a government defendant and redressable by the injunction they seek,” Barrett wrote. “Because no plaintiff has carried that burden, none has standing to seek a preliminary injunction.”


Yet one more case kicked down the road on standing.

"Supreme Court allows White House to press social media companies to remove disinformation."

The Supreme Court on Wednesday said the White House and federal agencies such as the FBI may continue to urge social media platforms to take down content the government views as misinformation, handing the Biden administration a technical if important election-year victory.

Of immediate significance, the decision means that the Department of Homeland Security may continue to flag posts to social media companies such as Facebook and X that it believes may be the work of foreign agents seeking to disrupt this year’s presidential race.

What is your problem here?

 

[odanny]

So the Supremes still have not ruled on the question of immunity?

They are seriously considering whether or not a mentally unbalanced man should be granted immunity?

This court has issues.

 

[Dante]

Why do they take those cases in the first place if they are unwilling to rule on them

They did rule. Just not in the way some people are demanding.

 

[Dante]

"Not having standing" is such BS

Nope.

One has to have standing to sue. D'Oh!

 

[Harpy Eagle]

"Supreme Court allows White House to press social media companies to remove disinformation."

The Supreme Court on Wednesday said the White House and federal agencies such as the FBI may continue to urge social media platforms to take down content the government views as misinformation, handing the Biden administration a technical if important election-year victory.

Of immediate significance, the decision means that the Department of Homeland Security may continue to flag posts to social media companies such as Facebook and X that it believes may be the work of foreign agents seeking to disrupt this year’s presidential race.

What is your problem here?

My problem is that it is wrong and should not be happening. it is not the Govt's job to decide what is "true" or not. I do not need a fucking nanny state keeping me safe from lies on the internet.

 

[Dante]

My problem is that it is wrong and should not be happening. it is not the Govt's job to decide what is "true" or not. I do not need a fucking nanny state keeping me safe from lies on the internet.

The key word here is "urge" and it's not about being kept from lies as in bs information. The government is concerned with foreign agents and agencies and...

wake up

Do not go down the rabbit hole with the boy who cried wolf

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The key word here is "urge" and it's not about being kept from lies as in bs information. The government is concerned with foreign agents and agencies and...

wake up

Do not go down the rabbit hole with the boy who cried wolf

Yes, the Fed Govt with all its power to punish companies "urges" someone to do something, it is more than a simple suggestion

It is not the job of the Govt to keep me safe from lies on the internet.

 

[ReinyDays]

https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/26/politics/social-media-disinformation-supreme-court-ruling/index.html

“To establish standing, the plaintiffs must demonstrate a substantial risk that, in the near future, they will suffer an injury that is traceable to a government defendant and redressable by the injunction they seek,” Barrett wrote. “Because no plaintiff has carried that burden, none has standing to seek a preliminary injunction.”


Yet one more case kicked down the road on standing.

<nitpick> I think the issue is finished, based on standing, all Federal courts will rule this way forevermore ... </nitpick>

My claim is Democrats put microchips in the Covid vaccine on behalf of the Communist Chinese ... how does this harm anyone other than myself? ... if you haven't been harmed, you can't sue me ... if my statement is harmless, why shouldn't it be protected from government censorship? ... USMB is allowed to retain my posts for as long as they want to, Free Speech baby ...

That's just the way it is in the United States ... always has been, always will be ... after 248 years we should be mature enough to deal with the misinformation ...

 

[Harpy Eagle]

<nitpick> I think the issue is finished, based on standing, all Federal courts will rule this way forevermore ... </nitpick>

My claim is Democrats put microchips in the Covid vaccine on behalf of the Communist Chinese ... how does this harm anyone other than myself? ... if you haven't been harmed, you can't sue me ... if my statement is harmless, why shouldn't it be protected from government censorship? ... USMB is allowed to retain my posts for as long as they want to, Free Speech baby ...

That's just the way it is in the United States ... always has been, always will be ... after 248 years we should be mature enough to deal with the misinformation ...

If anyone is dumb enough to believe your claim they deserve what they get!

On a serious note, I agree, it is not the job of the Govt to tell the USMB to take it down

 

[Crepitus]

Why do they take those cases in the first place if they are unwilling to rule on them

I suspect it's to inform the plaintiffs how to do it right the next time.

Coaching as it were.

 

[ReinyDays]

Yes, the Fed Govt with all its power to punish companies "urges" someone to do something, it is more than a simple suggestion

It is not the job of the Govt to keep me safe from lies on the internet.

Yes it is ... speech that engenders "imminent lawless actions" is punishable by law ... prison, fines, execution ... it is a really high standard for the government prosecutors to meet, but it does exist ... the government can stop speech and it should under certain circumstances ...

My grandfather couldn't speak at all during WWII ... his children could only speak German ... ha ha ... he was arrested twice simply for having a profound and thick German accent ... it was technically Dutch, but you know stupid Americans ...

 

[rightwinger]

I suspect it's to inform the plaintiffs how to do it right the next time.

Coaching as it were.

A lower court can do the same thing

 

[Crepitus]

My problem is that it is wrong and should not be happening. it is not the Govt's job to decide what is "true" or not. I do not need a fucking nanny state keeping me safe from lies on the internet.

Nobody decides what is true.

 

[Dante]

Yes, the Fed Govt with all its power to punish companies "urges" someone to do something, it is more than a simple suggestion

It is not the job of the Govt to keep me safe from lies on the internet.

"someone to do something" doesn't quite cut it.

Be specific. The law does and is.