Ri-chard Loc: 23322

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered an injunction on a top agency within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) after finding that it likely violated free speech rights by coordinating with social media companies to censor “e******n-related speech.”

https://patriotnewsnetwork.com/alert-federal-court-catches-biden-red-handed/

Sew_What

How much is censored on "T***h Social"?

Ri-chard Loc: 23322

That would be hard to know, if you can't read what was censored. People that were censored would have to come forward.

Sew_What

Right-so how do we know what X previously censored?

Publius Twee

There are several cases going to the Supreme Court on these exact issues. This case will eventually end up before the Supreme Court no matter what is decided in the lower courts. The DHS along with the FBI under the direction of the White House attempted to interfere with individuals right to free speach.It makes no difference why they did these acts. The very fact that they interfered is reason enough. No government entities have the right to interfere in the right of free speach. This includes the right to interfere in individuals right to political speach.The 1st Amendment of the Constitution clearly states that the freedom of speach is an inalienable right. I personally think that there are to many elected and political appointed individuals who absolutely no idea what the word inalienable means. I keep hearing things like it is the word of God or some other nonsense. The word inalienable comes from the old English dictionary. All it means is that someone has something that they can not give away nor can it be taken away from them. The actual word inalienable is not found in the Constitution or the original Bill of Rights. The only place it can be found is in the Declaration of Independence. When the founding fathers drafted the Constitution they avoided the mention of citizens rights. There were several reasons why. The upmost reason was to avoid conflict between the states. Most states at this time already had some form of a Bill of Rights incorporated in their state Constitutions. After the Constitution was ratified by the states one of the first acts of the newly formed Congress was to incorporate the Bill of Rights in the form of Amendments to the Constitution. By doing this the first ten Amendments would not only establish the inalienable rights of citizens but also prevent the government from interfering in the fair practice of these rights.

1ProudAmerican

Right now F**eBook is telling you that something you posted is not in line with their standards and was removed....of course they don't TELL you WHAT was REMOVED. Of course you don't know what it was because you may have posted it yesterday or a month ago. Years ago I spent 80% of my time in "prison". Now they tell me if I don't post things to their standards, I will either be removed or they will push my posts further and further down so they won't be seen.

FJB

Justice101

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/its-official-twitter-executives-purposely-censored-the-h****r-biden-laptop-story/ar-AA14Qmuv

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2022/12/15/23505370/twitter-files-elon-musk-taibbi-weiss-c***d

The documents show in detail how Twitter made key content moderation decisions that disadvantaged Trump, conservatives, and people who broke with the public health consensus on C****-**. They say the evidence proves that, again and again, Twitter intervened to squelch speech that the liberal establishment didn’t like.

https://reason.com/2023/09/11/the-5th-circuit-agrees-that-federal-officials-unconstitutionally-coerced-or-encouraged-online-censorship/

The plaintiffs in this case, Missouri v. Biden, include five social media users, along with the states of Missouri and Louisiana. They argued that the Biden administration's public and private pressure on platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube amounted to government-directed censorship. The 5th Circuit essentially agreed, endorsing much of Doughty's analysis. According to the appeals court, the administration's persistent demands that Facebook et al. do more to control "misinformation"—which were coupled with implicit threats of punishment through heavier regulation, antitrust action, and increased civil liability for user-posted content—crossed the line between permissible government speech and impermissible intrusion on private decisions.

Publicly, President Joe Biden accused the platforms of "k*****g people" by failing to suppress speech that discouraged v******tion against C****-**. Murthy likewise said that failure was "costing people their lives." White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki declared that social media companies "have a responsibility related to the health and safety of all Americans to stop amplifying untrustworthy content, disinformation, and misinformation, especially related to C****-**, v******tions, and e******ns." If they failed to meet that responsibility, Murthy said, "legal and regulatory measures" might be necessary. Psaki floated the possibility of new privacy regulations and threatened social media companies with "a robust anti-trust program." White House Communications Director Kate Bedingfield said the platforms "should be held accountable," which she suggested could include reducing their legal protection against civil claims based on users' posts.