Former President Donald Trump’s frequent use of Twitter lurked in the background as the justices weighed whether an official’s online activities can constitute government action.
The Supreme Court ruled Friday that members of the public in some circumstances can sue public officials for blocking them on social media platforms, deciding a pair of cases against the backdrop of former President Donald Trump’s contentious and colorful use of Twitter.
The court ruled unanimously that officials can be deemed “state actors” when making use of social media and can therefore face litigation if they block or mute a member of the public.
In the two cases before the justices, they ruled that disputes involving a school board member in Southern California and a city manager in Michigan should be sent back to lower courts for the new legal test to be applied.
Free speach is not a left or right issue anymore. The left is anti-free-speach as often as the right is. The left is happy to silence speech it doesn’t like when it’s online or on campus. The right is happy to silence it when it’s a library book or story time.
I hope leftists wake up as they watch anti-Zionist speech get silenced by the mechanisms they used to use against the right. The answer to bad speech, whether hate speech or misinformation, is more speech.
This is laughably incorrect. The left are so tolerant of harmful speech by their political opponents it’s neutered their own ability to sell themselves as competitively viable when they do clash with fascists in the political arena. The most lefty space I know bends over backwards to accommodate genocidal retards in the name of pacifying the right and it’s because they believe people who say things like this.
Fuck Israel, free Palestine
Ah, there’s the usual “both sides” “argument”.
I gave specific examples. Be specific in your response. Where was I wrong?
The “left”, insofar as it seeks to limit speech, usually tries to limit hate speech towards minority and oppressed groups.
The “right” usually limits speech to restrict the voices of those same minority and oppressed groups. Equating the two is absurd at best.
The whole thing, from start to finish.
Ah so you are full of shit! I got you
Nope. They’re right, you’re wrong.
You didn’t even give specific examples as you pretended to, it was just a blanket “both sides do it!” You just used more words.
And " the only answer to bad speech is more speech" is just factually and provable wrong. The Nazis and their enemies had free speech during the Weimarer Republik, they all used it extensively, the social democrats, the liberals, the communists, the clerics, the workers, the unions, they all used their right to free speech to try and fight the “bad speech” the Nazis could deploy openly, do you know how that story continues? They all lost their free speech because they were forced to let the cancer that is fascism roam free, with lies, propaganda, misinformation, calls for violence and just pure hate.
So the “bad speech” got plenty of “more speech” to counter but it didn’t change anything.
You could make the same argument against every civil liberty the Germans enjoyed in the Weimar Republic: freedom of movement, freedom of press, freedom of assembly, even democracy.
Here’s more specifics: https://thehill.com/opinion/education/4317052-what-the-vexed-history-of-campus-hate-speech-codes-teaches-us-about-fighting-antisemitism/
https://www.hrw.org/report/2023/12/21/metas-broken-promises/systemic-censorship-palestine-content-instagram-and
What am I wrong about?
I just called them full of shit for blowing someone off.
It’s almost like I did the same thing they did