https://www.reddit.com/r/LockdownSkepticism/comments/1c3banv/appeals_court_rules_government_likely_violated/
Appeals court rules government likely violated First Amendment in
vaccine misinformation campaign
BY IAN SWANSON - 09/08/23 8:20 PM ET
A U.S. appeals court on Friday ruled several government entities
including the White House, the FBI, the Surgeon General and the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention likely violated the First Amendment
by pressuring social media companies to moderate their content on >misinformation surrounding vaccines.
In a decision issued Friday evening, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
said government actors likely coerced or encouraged social media
companies to moderate their content, affirming a decision by a lower
court with respect to the White House, the FBI, the CDC and the Surgeon >General. The three judges issuing the decision were all appointed by >Republicans.
The decision represents a significant win for conservatives who have
long argued the government has gone too far in pressuring social media >companies to make content decisions in lockstep with government opinion.
At the same time, the court largely vacated an injunction by a lower
court that prohibited the government from contacting social media
companies about their content, ruling the previous injunction was both
too broad and vague.
It issued a modified injunction that prohibits parts of the government
from coercing or significantly encouraging a social media platforms
content moderation decisions. It said this conduct would include threats
of adverse consequences, even if those threats were not verbalized or
did not materialize, so long as a reasonable person would construe a >governments message as alluding to some form of punishment.
The decision also said the government could not supervise a platforms >content moderation decisions or directly involve themselves in the
decision itself.
The White House in a statement said the Department of Justice was
reviewing the decision and its options going forward.
This Administration has promoted responsible actions to protect public >health, safety, and security when confronted by challenges like a deadly >pandemic and foreign attacks on our elections, the statement said. Our >consistent view remains that social media platforms have a critical >responsibility to take account of the effects their platforms are having
on the American people, but make independent choices about the
information they present.
The pressure mentioned in the decision largely took place in 2021, as
the Biden administrations sought to convince the public to take vaccines
as protection from the coronavirus pandemic.
In striking language, the decision harshly criticized the campaign by
the government to pressure social media companies to moderate their
content on vaccines, writing that it did not take its decision lightly
and that the Supreme Court has rarely been faced with a coordinated
campaign of this magnitude orchestrated by federal officials that
jeopardized a fundamental aspect of American life.
It said the earlier court was right it its assessment that unrelenting >pressure of certain government officials likely had the intended
result of suppressing millions of protected free speech postings by
American citizens.
It also agreed that the plaintiffs in the case had shown they were
likely to have suffered an irreparable injury from the campaign, and
that they were likely to suffer a future injury without an injunction.
In upholding the modified injunction, the court said that while
officials have an interest in engaging with social media companies
including on issues such as misinformation and election interference,
it is not permitted to advance these interests to the extent that it
engages in viewpoint suppression.
The decision emphasized that it was limited and that it was not
upholding the injunction on all officials. While the court ruled the
White House, FBI, CDC and Surgeon General had likely violated the First >Amendment, it ruled other government entities including the State
Department had not.
Moving forward, the new injunction would cover a host of officials in
the executive office of the president, spelled out specifically by the
court.
In discussing the pressure campaign, the decision said frustration in
the administration over vaccine misinformation reached a boiling point
at a press conference in July 2021.
It noted that the Surgeon General at that press conference described
social media platforms as being one of the biggest obstacles to
controlling the COVID pandemic because they had enabled misinformation
to poison public discourse and have extraordinary reach.
He labeled social-media-based misinformation an urgent public health
threat that was literally costing . . . lives and asked social media >companies to operate with greater transparency and accountability,
monitor misinformation more closely, and consistently take action
against misinformation super-spreaders on their platforms.
The next day, President Biden said the platforms were killing people
by not acting on misinformation.
The court said the social media companies in the face of this pressure
acted with total compliance, writing that they capitulated to the >officials allegations.
The attorneys general of Louisiana and Missouri filed a lawsuit against
Biden and other administration officials in May for allegedly working
with social media companies including Meta, Twitter and YouTube to
censor and suppress free speech on topics such as COVID-19 and election >integrity.
Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee are requesting documents
that include communications between the Biden administration and social
media companies as part of the panels investigation into what the GOP
says were efforts to suppress free speech and censor content online.
Michael Ejercito wrote:
https://www.reddit.com/r/LockdownSkepticism/comments/1c3banv/appeals_court_rules_government_likely_violated/
Appeals court rules government likely violated First Amendment in
vaccine misinformation campaign
BY IAN SWANSON - 09/08/23 8:20 PM ET
A U.S. appeals court on Friday ruled several government entities
including the White House, the FBI, the Surgeon General and the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention likely violated the First Amendment
by pressuring social media companies to moderate their content on
misinformation surrounding vaccines.
In a decision issued Friday evening, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
said government actors “likely coerced or encouraged” social media
companies to moderate their content, affirming a decision by a lower
court with respect to the White House, the FBI, the CDC and the Surgeon
General. The three judges issuing the decision were all appointed by
Republicans.
The decision represents a significant win for conservatives who have
long argued the government has gone too far in pressuring social media
companies to make content decisions in lockstep with government opinion.
At the same time, the court largely vacated an injunction by a lower
court that prohibited the government from contacting social media
companies about their content, ruling the previous injunction was both
too broad and vague.
It issued a modified injunction that prohibits parts of the government >>from coercing or significantly encouraging a social media platform’s
content moderation decisions. It said this conduct would include threats
of adverse consequences, even if those threats were not verbalized or
did not materialize, “so long as a reasonable person would construe a
government’s message as alluding to some form of punishment.”
The decision also said the government could not “supervise a platform’s >> content moderation decisions or directly involve themselves in the
decision itself.”
The White House in a statement said the Department of Justice was
reviewing the decision and its options going forward.
“This Administration has promoted responsible actions to protect public
health, safety, and security when confronted by challenges like a deadly
pandemic and foreign attacks on our elections,” the statement said. “Our >> consistent view remains that social media platforms have a critical
responsibility to take account of the effects their platforms are having
on the American people, but make independent choices about the
information they present.”
The pressure mentioned in the decision largely took place in 2021, as
the Biden administrations sought to convince the public to take vaccines
as protection from the coronavirus pandemic.
In striking language, the decision harshly criticized the campaign by
the government to pressure social media companies to moderate their
content on vaccines, writing that it did not take its decision lightly
and that “the Supreme Court has rarely been faced with a coordinated
campaign of this magnitude orchestrated by federal officials that
jeopardized a fundamental aspect of American life.”
It said the earlier court was right it its assessment that “unrelenting
pressure” of certain government officials likely “had the intended
result of suppressing millions of protected free speech postings by
American citizens.”
It also agreed that the plaintiffs in the case had shown they were
likely to have suffered an irreparable injury from the campaign, and
that they were likely to suffer a future injury without an injunction.
In upholding the modified injunction, the court said that while
officials “have an interest in engaging with social media companies
including on issues such as misinformation and election interference,”
it is “not permitted to advance these interests to the extent that it
engages in viewpoint suppression.”
The decision emphasized that it was limited and that it was not
upholding the injunction on all officials. While the court ruled the
White House, FBI, CDC and Surgeon General had likely violated the First
Amendment, it ruled other government entities including the State
Department had not.
Moving forward, the new injunction would cover a host of officials in
the executive office of the president, spelled out specifically by the
court.
In discussing the pressure campaign, the decision said frustration in
the administration over vaccine misinformation reached a boiling point
at a press conference in July 2021.
It noted that the Surgeon General at that press conference described
social media platforms as being “one of the biggest obstacles” to
controlling the COVID pandemic because they had “enabled misinformation
to poison” public discourse and “have extraordinary reach.”
He labeled social-media-based misinformation an “urgent public health
threat” that was “literally costing . . . lives” and asked social media
companies to “operate with greater transparency and accountability,”
“monitor misinformation more closely,” and “consistently take action >> against misinformation super-spreaders on their platforms.”
The next day, President Biden said the platforms were “killing people” >> by not acting on misinformation.
The court said the social media companies in the face of this pressure
acted “with total compliance,” writing that they “capitulated to the >> officials’ allegations.”
The attorneys general of Louisiana and Missouri filed a lawsuit against
Biden and other administration officials in May for “allegedly working” >> with social media companies — including Meta, Twitter and YouTube — to >> censor and suppress free speech on topics such as COVID-19 and election
integrity.
Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee are requesting documents
that include communications between the Biden administration and social
media companies as part of the panel’s investigation into what the GOP
says were efforts to “suppress free speech and censor content online.”
In the interim, we are 100% prepared/protected in the "full armor of
GOD" (Ephesians 6:11) which we put on as soon as we use Apostle Paul's
secret (Philippians 4:12). Though masking is less protective, it helps
us avoid the appearance of doing the evil of spreading airborne
pathogens while there are people getting sick because of not being
100% protected. It is written that we're to "abstain from **all**
appearance of doing evil" (1 Thessalonians 5:22 w/**emphasis**).
Meanwhile, the only *perfect* (Matt 5:47-8 ) way to eradicate the
COVID-19 virus, thereby saving lives, in the US & elsewhere is by
rapidly (i.e. use the "Rapid COVID-19 Test" ) finding out at any given moment, including even while on-line, who among us are unwittingly
contagious (i.e pre-symptomatic or asymptomatic) in order to
"convince it forward" (John 15:12) for them to call their doctor and self-quarantine per their doctor in hopes of stopping this pandemic.
Thus, we're hoping for the best while preparing for the worse-case
scenario of the Alpha lineage mutations and others like the Omicron,
Gamma, Beta, Epsilon, Iota, Lambda, Mu & Delta lineage mutations
combining via slip-RNA-replication to form hybrids like "Deltamicron"
that may render current COVID vaccines/monoclonals/medicines/pills no
longer effective.
Indeed, I am wonderfully hungry ( https://groups.google.com/g/sci.med.cardiology/c/6ZoE95d-VKc/m/14vVZoyOBgAJ
) and hope you, Michael, also have a healthy appetite too.
So how are you ?
HeartDoc Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
Michael Ejercito wrote:
https://www.reddit.com/r/LockdownSkepticism/comments/1c3banv/appeals_court_rules_government_likely_violated/
Appeals court rules government likely violated First Amendment in
vaccine misinformation campaign
BY IAN SWANSON - 09/08/23 8:20 PM ET
A U.S. appeals court on Friday ruled several government entities
including the White House, the FBI, the Surgeon General and the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention likely violated the First Amendment
by pressuring social media companies to moderate their content on
misinformation surrounding vaccines.
In a decision issued Friday evening, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
said government actors likely coerced or encouraged social media
companies to moderate their content, affirming a decision by a lower
court with respect to the White House, the FBI, the CDC and the Surgeon
General. The three judges issuing the decision were all appointed by
Republicans.
The decision represents a significant win for conservatives who have
long argued the government has gone too far in pressuring social media
companies to make content decisions in lockstep with government opinion. >>>
At the same time, the court largely vacated an injunction by a lower
court that prohibited the government from contacting social media
companies about their content, ruling the previous injunction was both
too broad and vague.
It issued a modified injunction that prohibits parts of the government >>>from coercing or significantly encouraging a social media platforms
content moderation decisions. It said this conduct would include threats >>> of adverse consequences, even if those threats were not verbalized or
did not materialize, so long as a reasonable person would construe a
governments message as alluding to some form of punishment.
The decision also said the government could not supervise a platforms
content moderation decisions or directly involve themselves in the
decision itself.
The White House in a statement said the Department of Justice was
reviewing the decision and its options going forward.
This Administration has promoted responsible actions to protect public
health, safety, and security when confronted by challenges like a deadly >>> pandemic and foreign attacks on our elections, the statement said. Our >>> consistent view remains that social media platforms have a critical
responsibility to take account of the effects their platforms are having >>> on the American people, but make independent choices about the
information they present.
The pressure mentioned in the decision largely took place in 2021, as
the Biden administrations sought to convince the public to take vaccines >>> as protection from the coronavirus pandemic.
In striking language, the decision harshly criticized the campaign by
the government to pressure social media companies to moderate their
content on vaccines, writing that it did not take its decision lightly
and that the Supreme Court has rarely been faced with a coordinated
campaign of this magnitude orchestrated by federal officials that
jeopardized a fundamental aspect of American life.
It said the earlier court was right it its assessment that unrelenting
pressure of certain government officials likely had the intended
result of suppressing millions of protected free speech postings by
American citizens.
It also agreed that the plaintiffs in the case had shown they were
likely to have suffered an irreparable injury from the campaign, and
that they were likely to suffer a future injury without an injunction.
In upholding the modified injunction, the court said that while
officials have an interest in engaging with social media companies
including on issues such as misinformation and election interference,
it is not permitted to advance these interests to the extent that it
engages in viewpoint suppression.
The decision emphasized that it was limited and that it was not
upholding the injunction on all officials. While the court ruled the
White House, FBI, CDC and Surgeon General had likely violated the First
Amendment, it ruled other government entities including the State
Department had not.
Moving forward, the new injunction would cover a host of officials in
the executive office of the president, spelled out specifically by the
court.
In discussing the pressure campaign, the decision said frustration in
the administration over vaccine misinformation reached a boiling point
at a press conference in July 2021.
It noted that the Surgeon General at that press conference described
social media platforms as being one of the biggest obstacles to
controlling the COVID pandemic because they had enabled misinformation
to poison public discourse and have extraordinary reach.
He labeled social-media-based misinformation an urgent public health
threat that was literally costing . . . lives and asked social media
companies to operate with greater transparency and accountability,
monitor misinformation more closely, and consistently take action
against misinformation super-spreaders on their platforms.
The next day, President Biden said the platforms were killing people
by not acting on misinformation.
The court said the social media companies in the face of this pressure
acted with total compliance, writing that they capitulated to the
officials allegations.
The attorneys general of Louisiana and Missouri filed a lawsuit against
Biden and other administration officials in May for allegedly working
with social media companies including Meta, Twitter and YouTube to
censor and suppress free speech on topics such as COVID-19 and election
integrity.
Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee are requesting documents
that include communications between the Biden administration and social
media companies as part of the panels investigation into what the GOP
says were efforts to suppress free speech and censor content online.
In the interim, we are 100% prepared/protected in the "full armor of
GOD" (Ephesians 6:11) which we put on as soon as we use Apostle Paul's
secret (Philippians 4:12). Though masking is less protective, it helps
us avoid the appearance of doing the evil of spreading airborne
pathogens while there are people getting sick because of not being
100% protected. It is written that we're to "abstain from **all**
appearance of doing evil" (1 Thessalonians 5:22 w/**emphasis**).
Meanwhile, the only *perfect* (Matt 5:47-8 ) way to eradicate the
COVID-19 virus, thereby saving lives, in the US & elsewhere is by
rapidly (i.e. use the "Rapid COVID-19 Test" ) finding out at any given
moment, including even while on-line, who among us are unwittingly
contagious (i.e pre-symptomatic or asymptomatic) in order to
"convince it forward" (John 15:12) for them to call their doctor and
self-quarantine per their doctor in hopes of stopping this pandemic.
Thus, we're hoping for the best while preparing for the worse-case
scenario of the Alpha lineage mutations and others like the Omicron,
Gamma, Beta, Epsilon, Iota, Lambda, Mu & Delta lineage mutations
combining via slip-RNA-replication to form hybrids like "Deltamicron"
that may render current COVID vaccines/monoclonals/medicines/pills no
longer effective.
Indeed, I am wonderfully hungry (
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.med.cardiology/c/6ZoE95d-VKc/m/14vVZoyOBgAJ >> ) and hope you, Michael, also have a healthy appetite too.
So how are you ?
I am wonderfully hungry!
Michael Ejercito wrote:
HeartDoc Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
Michael Ejercito wrote:
https://www.reddit.com/r/LockdownSkepticism/comments/1c3banv/appeals_court_rules_government_likely_violated/In the interim, we are 100% prepared/protected in the "full armor of
Appeals court rules government likely violated First Amendment in
vaccine misinformation campaign
BY IAN SWANSON - 09/08/23 8:20 PM ET
A U.S. appeals court on Friday ruled several government entities
including the White House, the FBI, the Surgeon General and the Centers >>>> for Disease Control and Prevention likely violated the First Amendment >>>> by pressuring social media companies to moderate their content on
misinformation surrounding vaccines.
In a decision issued Friday evening, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals >>>> said government actors “likely coerced or encouraged” social media >>>> companies to moderate their content, affirming a decision by a lower
court with respect to the White House, the FBI, the CDC and the Surgeon >>>> General. The three judges issuing the decision were all appointed by
Republicans.
The decision represents a significant win for conservatives who have
long argued the government has gone too far in pressuring social media >>>> companies to make content decisions in lockstep with government opinion. >>>>
At the same time, the court largely vacated an injunction by a lower
court that prohibited the government from contacting social media
companies about their content, ruling the previous injunction was both >>>> too broad and vague.
It issued a modified injunction that prohibits parts of the government
from coercing or significantly encouraging a social media platform’s >>>> content moderation decisions. It said this conduct would include threats >>>> of adverse consequences, even if those threats were not verbalized or
did not materialize, “so long as a reasonable person would construe a >>>> government’s message as alluding to some form of punishment.”
The decision also said the government could not “supervise a platform’s
content moderation decisions or directly involve themselves in the
decision itself.”
The White House in a statement said the Department of Justice was
reviewing the decision and its options going forward.
“This Administration has promoted responsible actions to protect public >>>> health, safety, and security when confronted by challenges like a deadly >>>> pandemic and foreign attacks on our elections,” the statement said. “Our
consistent view remains that social media platforms have a critical
responsibility to take account of the effects their platforms are having >>>> on the American people, but make independent choices about the
information they present.”
The pressure mentioned in the decision largely took place in 2021, as
the Biden administrations sought to convince the public to take vaccines >>>> as protection from the coronavirus pandemic.
In striking language, the decision harshly criticized the campaign by
the government to pressure social media companies to moderate their
content on vaccines, writing that it did not take its decision lightly >>>> and that “the Supreme Court has rarely been faced with a coordinated >>>> campaign of this magnitude orchestrated by federal officials that
jeopardized a fundamental aspect of American life.”
It said the earlier court was right it its assessment that “unrelenting >>>> pressure” of certain government officials likely “had the intended >>>> result of suppressing millions of protected free speech postings by
American citizens.”
It also agreed that the plaintiffs in the case had shown they were
likely to have suffered an irreparable injury from the campaign, and
that they were likely to suffer a future injury without an injunction. >>>>
In upholding the modified injunction, the court said that while
officials “have an interest in engaging with social media companies
including on issues such as misinformation and election interference,” >>>> it is “not permitted to advance these interests to the extent that it >>>> engages in viewpoint suppression.”
The decision emphasized that it was limited and that it was not
upholding the injunction on all officials. While the court ruled the
White House, FBI, CDC and Surgeon General had likely violated the First >>>> Amendment, it ruled other government entities including the State
Department had not.
Moving forward, the new injunction would cover a host of officials in
the executive office of the president, spelled out specifically by the >>>> court.
In discussing the pressure campaign, the decision said frustration in
the administration over vaccine misinformation reached a boiling point >>>> at a press conference in July 2021.
It noted that the Surgeon General at that press conference described
social media platforms as being “one of the biggest obstacles” to
controlling the COVID pandemic because they had “enabled misinformation >>>> to poison” public discourse and “have extraordinary reach.”
He labeled social-media-based misinformation an “urgent public health >>>> threat” that was “literally costing . . . lives” and asked social media
companies to “operate with greater transparency and accountability,” >>>> “monitor misinformation more closely,” and “consistently take action >>>> against misinformation super-spreaders on their platforms.”
The next day, President Biden said the platforms were “killing people” >>>> by not acting on misinformation.
The court said the social media companies in the face of this pressure >>>> acted “with total compliance,” writing that they “capitulated to the >>>> officials’ allegations.”
The attorneys general of Louisiana and Missouri filed a lawsuit against >>>> Biden and other administration officials in May for “allegedly working”
with social media companies — including Meta, Twitter and YouTube — to >>>> censor and suppress free speech on topics such as COVID-19 and election >>>> integrity.
Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee are requesting documents
that include communications between the Biden administration and social >>>> media companies as part of the panel’s investigation into what the GOP >>>> says were efforts to “suppress free speech and censor content online.” >>>
GOD" (Ephesians 6:11) which we put on as soon as we use Apostle Paul's
secret (Philippians 4:12). Though masking is less protective, it helps
us avoid the appearance of doing the evil of spreading airborne
pathogens while there are people getting sick because of not being
100% protected. It is written that we're to "abstain from **all**
appearance of doing evil" (1 Thessalonians 5:22 w/**emphasis**).
Meanwhile, the only *perfect* (Matt 5:47-8 ) way to eradicate the
COVID-19 virus, thereby saving lives, in the US & elsewhere is by
rapidly (i.e. use the "Rapid COVID-19 Test" ) finding out at any given
moment, including even while on-line, who among us are unwittingly
contagious (i.e pre-symptomatic or asymptomatic) in order to
"convince it forward" (John 15:12) for them to call their doctor and
self-quarantine per their doctor in hopes of stopping this pandemic.
Thus, we're hoping for the best while preparing for the worse-case
scenario of the Alpha lineage mutations and others like the Omicron,
Gamma, Beta, Epsilon, Iota, Lambda, Mu & Delta lineage mutations
combining via slip-RNA-replication to form hybrids like "Deltamicron"
that may render current COVID vaccines/monoclonals/medicines/pills no
longer effective.
Indeed, I am wonderfully hungry (
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.med.cardiology/c/6ZoE95d-VKc/m/14vVZoyOBgAJ >>> ) and hope you, Michael, also have a healthy appetite too.
So how are you ?
I am wonderfully hungry!
While wonderfully hungry in the Holy Spirit, Who causes (Deuteronomy
8:3) us to hunger, I note that you, Michael, are rapture ready (Luke
17:37 means no COVID just as eagles circling over their food have no
COVID) and pray (2 Chronicles 7:14) that our Everlasting (Isaiah 9:6)
Father in Heaven continues to give us "much more" (Luke 11:13) Holy
Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23) so that we'd have much more of His Help to
always say/write that we're "wonderfully hungry" in **all** ways
including especially caring to "convince it forward" (John 15:12) with
all glory (Psalm112:1) to GOD (aka HaShem, Elohim, Abba, DEO), in
the name (John 16:23) of LORD Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Amen.
Laus DEO !
HeartDoc Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
Michael Ejercito wrote:
HeartDoc Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
Michael Ejercito wrote:
https://www.reddit.com/r/LockdownSkepticism/comments/1c3banv/appeals_court_rules_government_likely_violated/In the interim, we are 100% prepared/protected in the "full armor of
Appeals court rules government likely violated First Amendment in
vaccine misinformation campaign
BY IAN SWANSON - 09/08/23 8:20 PM ET
A U.S. appeals court on Friday ruled several government entities
including the White House, the FBI, the Surgeon General and the Centers >>>>> for Disease Control and Prevention likely violated the First Amendment >>>>> by pressuring social media companies to moderate their content on
misinformation surrounding vaccines.
In a decision issued Friday evening, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals >>>>> said government actors likely coerced or encouraged social media
companies to moderate their content, affirming a decision by a lower >>>>> court with respect to the White House, the FBI, the CDC and the Surgeon >>>>> General. The three judges issuing the decision were all appointed by >>>>> Republicans.
The decision represents a significant win for conservatives who have >>>>> long argued the government has gone too far in pressuring social media >>>>> companies to make content decisions in lockstep with government opinion. >>>>>
At the same time, the court largely vacated an injunction by a lower >>>>> court that prohibited the government from contacting social media
companies about their content, ruling the previous injunction was both >>>>> too broad and vague.
It issued a modified injunction that prohibits parts of the government >>>> >from coercing or significantly encouraging a social media platforms >>>>> content moderation decisions. It said this conduct would include threats >>>>> of adverse consequences, even if those threats were not verbalized or >>>>> did not materialize, so long as a reasonable person would construe a >>>>> governments message as alluding to some form of punishment.
The decision also said the government could not supervise a platforms >>>>> content moderation decisions or directly involve themselves in the
decision itself.
The White House in a statement said the Department of Justice was
reviewing the decision and its options going forward.
This Administration has promoted responsible actions to protect public >>>>> health, safety, and security when confronted by challenges like a deadly >>>>> pandemic and foreign attacks on our elections, the statement said. Our >>>>> consistent view remains that social media platforms have a critical
responsibility to take account of the effects their platforms are having >>>>> on the American people, but make independent choices about the
information they present.
The pressure mentioned in the decision largely took place in 2021, as >>>>> the Biden administrations sought to convince the public to take vaccines >>>>> as protection from the coronavirus pandemic.
In striking language, the decision harshly criticized the campaign by >>>>> the government to pressure social media companies to moderate their
content on vaccines, writing that it did not take its decision lightly >>>>> and that the Supreme Court has rarely been faced with a coordinated >>>>> campaign of this magnitude orchestrated by federal officials that
jeopardized a fundamental aspect of American life.
It said the earlier court was right it its assessment that unrelenting >>>>> pressure of certain government officials likely had the intended
result of suppressing millions of protected free speech postings by
American citizens.
It also agreed that the plaintiffs in the case had shown they were
likely to have suffered an irreparable injury from the campaign, and >>>>> that they were likely to suffer a future injury without an injunction. >>>>>
In upholding the modified injunction, the court said that while
officials have an interest in engaging with social media companies
including on issues such as misinformation and election interference, >>>>> it is not permitted to advance these interests to the extent that it >>>>> engages in viewpoint suppression.
The decision emphasized that it was limited and that it was not
upholding the injunction on all officials. While the court ruled the >>>>> White House, FBI, CDC and Surgeon General had likely violated the First >>>>> Amendment, it ruled other government entities including the State
Department had not.
Moving forward, the new injunction would cover a host of officials in >>>>> the executive office of the president, spelled out specifically by the >>>>> court.
In discussing the pressure campaign, the decision said frustration in >>>>> the administration over vaccine misinformation reached a boiling point >>>>> at a press conference in July 2021.
It noted that the Surgeon General at that press conference described >>>>> social media platforms as being one of the biggest obstacles to
controlling the COVID pandemic because they had enabled misinformation >>>>> to poison public discourse and have extraordinary reach.
He labeled social-media-based misinformation an urgent public health >>>>> threat that was literally costing . . . lives and asked social media >>>>> companies to operate with greater transparency and accountability, >>>>> monitor misinformation more closely, and consistently take action >>>>> against misinformation super-spreaders on their platforms.
The next day, President Biden said the platforms were killing people >>>>> by not acting on misinformation.
The court said the social media companies in the face of this pressure >>>>> acted with total compliance, writing that they capitulated to the >>>>> officials allegations.
The attorneys general of Louisiana and Missouri filed a lawsuit against >>>>> Biden and other administration officials in May for allegedly working >>>>> with social media companies including Meta, Twitter and YouTube to >>>>> censor and suppress free speech on topics such as COVID-19 and election >>>>> integrity.
Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee are requesting documents >>>>> that include communications between the Biden administration and social >>>>> media companies as part of the panels investigation into what the GOP >>>>> says were efforts to suppress free speech and censor content online. >>>>
GOD" (Ephesians 6:11) which we put on as soon as we use Apostle Paul's >>>> secret (Philippians 4:12). Though masking is less protective, it helps >>>> us avoid the appearance of doing the evil of spreading airborne
pathogens while there are people getting sick because of not being
100% protected. It is written that we're to "abstain from **all**
appearance of doing evil" (1 Thessalonians 5:22 w/**emphasis**).
Meanwhile, the only *perfect* (Matt 5:47-8 ) way to eradicate the
COVID-19 virus, thereby saving lives, in the US & elsewhere is by
rapidly (i.e. use the "Rapid COVID-19 Test" ) finding out at any given >>>> moment, including even while on-line, who among us are unwittingly
contagious (i.e pre-symptomatic or asymptomatic) in order to
"convince it forward" (John 15:12) for them to call their doctor and
self-quarantine per their doctor in hopes of stopping this pandemic.
Thus, we're hoping for the best while preparing for the worse-case
scenario of the Alpha lineage mutations and others like the Omicron,
Gamma, Beta, Epsilon, Iota, Lambda, Mu & Delta lineage mutations
combining via slip-RNA-replication to form hybrids like "Deltamicron"
that may render current COVID vaccines/monoclonals/medicines/pills no
longer effective.
Indeed, I am wonderfully hungry (
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.med.cardiology/c/6ZoE95d-VKc/m/14vVZoyOBgAJ
) and hope you, Michael, also have a healthy appetite too.
So how are you ?
I am wonderfully hungry!
While wonderfully hungry in the Holy Spirit, Who causes (Deuteronomy
8:3) us to hunger, I note that you, Michael, are rapture ready (Luke
17:37 means no COVID just as eagles circling over their food have no
COVID) and pray (2 Chronicles 7:14) that our Everlasting (Isaiah 9:6)
Father in Heaven continues to give us "much more" (Luke 11:13) Holy
Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23) so that we'd have much more of His Help to
always say/write that we're "wonderfully hungry" in **all** ways
including especially caring to "convince it forward" (John 15:12) with
all glory (Psalm112:1) to GOD (aka HaShem, Elohim, Abba, DEO), in
the name (John 16:23) of LORD Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Amen.
Laus DEO !
Thank you for noting that I have no COVID.
HeartDoc Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
Subject: The LORD says "Blessed are you who hunger now ..."
Shame on andrew, look at his red face.
He is trying to pull a fast one. His scripture bit is found among these:
'14 Bible verses about Spiritual Hunger'
Psalms
81:10 I am the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt: >open thy mouth wide, and I will fill it.
Proverbs
13:25 The righteous has enough to satisfy his appetite, But the stomach of >the wicked is in need.
Joel
2:26 And ye shall eat in plenty, and be satisfied, and praise the name of
the LORD your God, that hath dealt wondrously with you: and my
people shall never be ashamed.
Psalms
107 For he satisfies the thirsty and fills the hungry with good things.
Acts
14:17 "Yet he did not leave himself without witness, for he did good by >giving you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying
your hearts with food and gladness."
someone eternally condemned & ever more cursed by GOD perseverated:
HeartDoc Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
Subject: a very very very simple definition of sin ...
Does andrew's "definition" agree with scripture? Let's see in 1 John:
John wrote this to christians. The greek grammer (sic) speaks of an ongoing >> status. He includes himself in that status.
1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is
not in us.
1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, >> and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is >> not in us.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 302 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 121:32:37 |
| Calls: | 6,769 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 12,299 |
| Messages: | 5,376,787 |
| Posted today: | 2 |