As a result, our legal content and policy standards team removed the content for the following reason: unwanted content.
Thirty minutes after my first post, I received the following email from Google Groups stating that they had "Permanently removed" my content because "An external report flagged the content for illegal content or policy violations." My post was removed "For the following reason: unwanted content," and I was informed, "You may have the option to pursue your claims in court."
In the Murthy v Missouri ruling on July 26, 2024, the Supreme Court reversed an injunction imposed by a lower court that prevented the government from contacting social media companies about the content on their platforms.
The majority opinion stated that the plaintiffs "Do not point to any specific instance of content moderation that caused them identifiable harm." The Court invoked a legal term, "Standing," to say that there wasn't sufficient evidence to retain the injunction.
Basically the Supreme Court said, "Well, yeah, the White House did pressure social media companies to remove content, but the platforms might have taken that action anyway, so go ahead and 'abridge the freedom of speech, and of the press' for now, White House."
The Court shirks that duty and thus permits the successful campaign of coercion in this case to stand as an attractive model for future officials who want to control what the people say, hear, and thinkIt was blatantly unconstitutional, and the country may come to regret the Court's failure to say so.
On June 26, 2024 the Supreme Court said the Government could keep pressuring social media companies until Murthy v Missouri and other cases that are laboriously and expensively working their way through the courts are fully heard and settled.
No comments:
Post a Comment