My initial opinion: It is a bad decision but, it may not be quite as bad as it sounds.
Here is what Barrett said:
In addition, Justice Coney Barrett let the government off the hook for the censorship regime the government created and maintained. Here’s the key passage:
“platforms had independent incentives to moderate content and often exercised their own judgment. To be sure, the record reflects that the Government defendants played a role in at least some of the platforms’ moderation choices. But the Fifth Circuit, by attributing every platform decision at least in part to the defendants, glossed over complexities in the evidence.”
(Emphasis added to the last part).
I don't like the ruling, BUT, if I am correctly understanding Barrett's reasoning here, the issue has more to do with the way the 5th Circuit Court applied its ruling, rather than the ruling itself.
In other words, Barrett is saying that the 5th CC ruling was too broad because some of the platforms that did the censoring were doing it for their own personal reasons, regardless of govt. influence.
It's a really weak argument imo. The argument is trying to split hairs to define the difference between the govt. trying to influence censorship, and actually influencing censorship. It's a bullshit lawyerese type argument that ignores common sense.
However, her statement also acknowledges that the SCOTUS does recognize that at least some govt. influence was applied to actually censor, as indicated by her words- "To be sure, the record reflects that the Government defendants played a role in at least some of the platforms’ moderation choices."
So long story short- the way I see it is that the battle is far from over. The ruling is a setback, but future challenges will proceed with additional ammunition too. The govt. did not get a free pass to censor. The court simply ruled that the plaintiffs will need to narrow their scope to better define which outlets were swayed by govt. coercion, and which outlet's were potentially not influenced.
My initial opinion: It is a bad decision but, it may not be quite as bad as it sounds.
Here is what Barrett said:
(Emphasis added to the last part).
I don't like the ruling, BUT, if I am correctly understanding Barrett's reasoning here, the issue has more to do with the way the 5th Circuit Court applied its ruling, rather than the ruling itself.
In other words, Barrett is saying that the 5th CC ruling was too broad because some of the platforms that did the censoring were doing it for their own personal reasons, regardless of govt. influence.
It's a really weak argument imo. The argument is trying to split hairs to define the difference between the govt. trying to influence censorship, and actually influencing censorship. It's a bullshit lawyerese type argument that ignores common sense.
However, her statement also acknowledges that the SCOTUS does recognize that at least some govt. influence was applied to actually censor, as indicated by her words- "To be sure, the record reflects that the Government defendants played a role in at least some of the platforms’ moderation choices."
So long story short- the way I see it is that the battle is far from over. The ruling is a setback, but future challenges will proceed with additional ammunition too. The govt. did not get a free pass to censor. The court simply ruled that the plaintiffs will need to narrow their scope to better define which outlets were swayed by govt. coercion, and which outlet's were potentially not influenced.
Thanks! Nice detail and reasoning.
Wish we can have this posted on Truth Social; people are dropping their spaghetti there.