Corporate media OUTRAGED by judge stopping Biden’s social media censorship, demands conservative voices silenced
America's major news outlets are calling for more censorship, and they are roundly dismayed that a federal judge ruled that the federal government cannot collude with tech companies to suppress, censor and limit Americans' free speech online.
The judge noted that it was speech that could be classified as conservative, and not liberal, that was routinely blocked.
"The judge basically says," the CNN pundit goes on, "'you're not allowed, administration, to talk to the social media companies about any protected free speech, except for cybersecurity threats, national security threats, criminal threats.
"In granting a preliminary injunction," the Times writes, "Judge Doughty said that the agencies could not flag specific posts to the social media platforms or request reports about their efforts to take down content. The ruling said that the government could still notify the platforms about posts detailing crimes, national security threats or foreign attempts to influence elections." For the Times, the main concern is that the ruling could force government agencies "To refrain from notifying the platforms of troublesome content." The assumption in that statement, of course, is that speech which is "Troublesome" should come with a government warning or be flagged by government officials.
NPR claimed outright that the judge has "Blocked some government agencies and Biden administration officials from communicating with tech companies." In discussing the case, NPR's anchor said, "I just can't think of another instance where government officials were told they could not talk to key players in an industry." Of course, that's not the basis of the ruling.
The case was brought by Missouri's attorney general, who was joined by other states' attorneys general, claiming that the federal government under Joe Biden targeted Americans' speech during the Covid pandemic by directly instructing social media companies what speech to allow on their platforms and what speech to identify as so-called misinformation or disinformation.
"Plaintiffs allege," the judge wrote, "That Defendants, through public pressure campaigns, private meetings, and other forms of direct communication, regarding what Defendants described as 'disinformation,' 'misinformation,' and 'malinformation,' have colluded with and/or coerced social-media platforms to suppress disfavored peakers, viewpoints, and content on social-media platforms." As a result, the judge limited the government's access to tools of suppression, even going as far as to limit their ability to engage with academic institutions to limit Americans' free speech.
Comments
Post a Comment