And the Supreme Court ruled so it doesn’t matter what the Louisiana Judge decide. See, you cannot split hairs. And until you decide to communicate with an actual name attached, I will not correspond with you.
I read your citation on the Supreme Court's decision in this case. And it shows your claim that the Biden administration was found guilty of silencing voices during Covid is false. No court found this, not even the federal judge you cited. if you disagree with the Biden administration's actions, then make your case based on the facts instead of mis-stating the court's findings. If you're going to make your contrary arguments here, you just have to do a better job of it.
"Writing for the majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett cited the lack of any “concrete link” between the restrictions that the plaintiffs complained of and the conduct of government officials – and in any event, she concluded, a court order blocking communication between government officials and social media companies likely would not have any effect on decision-making by those platforms, which can continue to enforce their policies."
Barrett, writing for the majority:
“Facebook was targeting [the plaintiff's] pages before almost all of its communications with the White House and the CDC, which weakens the inference that her subsequent restrictions are likely traceable to ‘government-coerced enforcement’ of Facebook’s policies.”
And:
“no more than conjecture” to project that Hines will be harmed by content moderation attributable to the federal government again."
(As an aside, I continue to be disappointed by most right-wing critics of Biden. Why do I say this when my views are liberal/progressive? Because I still like reading and hearing well-formulated, rational opinions from a variety of perspectives, including those with which I may disagree. It opens up my world a bit, and I can see more things. But that result depends on the quality of critics' arguments, which need to be thought-out, logical, based on facts, and make an attempt at common-sense persuasion. I rarely see Biden critics, or Trump supporters, make such arguments. As such, I remain disappointed.)
“Rather than delving into the weighty First Amendment questions raised by the case, the court ruled that the state and social media users who challenged the Biden administration did not have standing to sue.”
So, when you wrote “The Supreme Court rules for Biden administration in a social media dispute with conservative states” there exist a bit of misleading information within. The Supreme Court did not rule for Biden, it said those who challenged Biden administration had no legal right to do so, they lacked standing to sue.
A bit like a forfeit in baseball when the game ends prematurely, and victory is awarded to one team due to specific rule breaches by the opposing team.
In this case the team that wanted to challenge the Biden administration lacked right to do so. Therefore, they could not play, game goes to the Biden administration and the issue is left unresolved.
W, you’re quite correct that the case was dismissed due to lack of standing by the plaintiffs, and that its central issues remain unresolved.
But it’s important to note the court’s explanation for its ruling — an explanation that, I think, pokes substantial holes in the plaintiff’s arguments. There’s more to the story than the "team that wanted to challenge the Biden administration lacked right to do so." This, from the SCOTUSBlog:
— the plaintiff’s inability to show "substantial risk that, in the near future, at least one platform will restrict the speech of at least one plaintiff in response to the actions of at least one Government defendant.” The court stated "that is a tall order."
— "even if government officials sometimes influenced content-moderation decisions – “the platforms moderated similar content long before any of the Government defendants engaged in the challenged conduct.” Barrett explained that most of those claims generally did not create the kind of connection needed to establish standing."
— "Barrett wrote, “the officials’ communications about COVID-19 misinformation had slowed to a trickle.” And it is therefore “no more than conjecture” to project that Hines will be harmed by content moderation attributable to the federal government again…."
— "Barrett quickly dismissed the plaintiffs’ arguments that they also have standing due to their right to read content by other speakers on social media. “This theory,” Barrett wrote, is “startlingly broad,” because it would allow virtually all users of social media to bring a lawsuit to challenge censorship of someone else. “This Court,” Barrett stressed, “has never accepted such a boundless theory of standing.”
Sure, the plaintiff’s may get to play another game, but so far they don’t seem to have a winning strategy, at least according to the umpires. I think it’s correct to cite the ruling as ‘for the Biden administration’.
HI Bob, thanks for the link. Using my baseball analogy a forfeit will go down in the books as a win for the opposing team (in this case Biden administration) and if I were looking at it as a simple win/loss, I would have no choice but to agree with you. Ruling for Biden administration.
Although that is not how I am looking at it. I am looking at it as an action, something in motion.
If one puts a straw into a glass of water and sucks on the straw, the water in the glass moves up the straw. So is the water pulled up the straw by the sucking action or is it pushed up the straw by air pressing down on the water in the glass leaving it no place to go but up the straw.
Both are reasonable explanations for the motion of the water in the glass. although one is an accurate account for the movement of the water and one is not.
You wrote “the plaintiff’s inability to show” and taken from your link “Barrett explained, the plaintiffs’ lawsuit could only go forward it they could show”. So here the action is against the plaintiff and not for the defendant (Biden administration) . The defendant benefits but the action is against the plaintiff. They cannot move forward, Game over.
Nov 10·edited Nov 10Liked by Will Doolittle, Ken Tingley
Thanks for the plug Will! Just as clarification, I am pretty much always joking but the vast majority of jokes in this world are not very funny, they’re true.
But (and this is NOT a joke) folks can visit, Like and/or Follow “Adirondack Regional Immigration Collaborative - ARIC” on Facebook. The group’s website is under construction, may be live now, and there should be a link on the FB page.
An uplifting column Will. Thanks for the reminder that there are still people out there willing to do the good work helping immigrants who come to our shores to seek a better life for their family and those good people willing to defend our planet in hopes of keeping a sustainable Earth for future generations.
Will wrote: "The Trump administration will be trying to silence that voice as of Jan. 20. We must stop that from happening."
There is reason not to despair, and to keep pushing back. Per the NYT this morning:
"Lawyers for immigrants said they have been preparing for months for the possibility of large-scale workplace raids, roundups in immigrant enclaves, new restrictions on asylum, the expansion of detention and the termination of programs temporarily shielding some people from deportation. “The Trump team might think they are ready,” said Camille Mackler, chief executive of Immigration Arc, who sent an SOS email that brought hundreds of lawyers to Kennedy Airport that day in 2017. “But so are we.”
"Having battled one Trump administration, she and her allies are ready for a second, Ms. Heller said. “We literally have a blueprint of what they are planning to do, and so we had months and months to figure out how to protect people,” she said."
What you're suggesting is 100% correct Will. After a period grieving, I will look for something I can do to RESIST!!! I have realized after this event that I must keep my gratitude and hope intact and the way for me to do that is to focus only on what I can contribute to one day at a time and stop paying attention to mainstream news, it's dishonest to it's core. Thanks for all that you and Ken do.
Our mental health will suffer if we fail to find a way to fight the progressive fight. Thank you for the inspiration.
I must add that I was a very young senior doctor at the NYC hospital where Dr. Chris Hoy did his internship and residency. He was special then, as he seems to be still. Please say a big "Hello" for me.
I was finished with my training,had my board certifications, and was newly in private practice. Yes, I am so ancient that private practice was the norm. It worked better for the patients, and it worked better for me. It was all about responsibility.
As a writer you will appreciate my observing that our chart notes actually SAID something, unlike the dreadful Electronic Health Record. The EHR generates robotic, repetitive, and often irrelevant commentary. It impedes thinking. It leads to doctor burn-out, and hence a scarcity of doctors. Astute medical care has become too difficult for most of us to access. I'm sure Chris joins me in missing what was, and I wish him FUN in his retirement!
Great column, Will! We need immigrants! They fill the many, many jobs that Americans won't do. Their children go to school, get educated and in a few years, they are the nurses, the engineers, the entrepreneurs of our country. And, for heaven's sake, they are fleeing violence, poverty, war. Grow a heart, people.
Also, thanks ever so much for the uplifting excerpt from The Lemon Sky. It has been a while since I've read about brains exploding out of some guy's head.
Thank you for this information, Will! My husband and I are relatively new to Glens Falls, and are looking for ways to get involved in positive community action. Feeling even more urgency since the election!
There is an all day and possibly multi day climate direct action in Albany on Dec. 10, a sit in, to pressure Gov. Hochul to sign the climate Superfund Act which since being passed by both NYS houses still awaits her signature . It also supports the Federal Polluters Pay Climate Fund Act. It is in the Capitol Building. For information you can write: oxherders@icloud.com. The Governor needs a great deal of public input immediately during this window of time before Jan 2025 to accelerate reintroduction, support and passage of any beneficial climate bills, like the NY Heat Act and the Better Bottle Bill.
When I inherited some money 20 years ago I thought that I had divested completely by only investing in CD's and not the stock market, but it didnt occur to me until I started to work with a NYS chapter of Third Act to divest also from both my car and home insurances. I now engage Utica National which does not invest in fossil fuels.
That is False - The Supreme Court rules for Biden administration in a social media dispute with conservative states. And here is the problem. As long as disinformation is allowed to be posted and published people believe the lies. It is past time to call out the lies. https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-social-media-biden-administration-453b6ae8794548f960c4ebf72a534aff
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/06/26/politics/social-media-disinformation-supreme-court-ruling
And the Supreme Court ruled so it doesn’t matter what the Louisiana Judge decide. See, you cannot split hairs. And until you decide to communicate with an actual name attached, I will not correspond with you.
I read your citation on the Supreme Court's decision in this case. And it shows your claim that the Biden administration was found guilty of silencing voices during Covid is false. No court found this, not even the federal judge you cited. if you disagree with the Biden administration's actions, then make your case based on the facts instead of mis-stating the court's findings. If you're going to make your contrary arguments here, you just have to do a better job of it.
"Writing for the majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett cited the lack of any “concrete link” between the restrictions that the plaintiffs complained of and the conduct of government officials – and in any event, she concluded, a court order blocking communication between government officials and social media companies likely would not have any effect on decision-making by those platforms, which can continue to enforce their policies."
Barrett, writing for the majority:
“Facebook was targeting [the plaintiff's] pages before almost all of its communications with the White House and the CDC, which weakens the inference that her subsequent restrictions are likely traceable to ‘government-coerced enforcement’ of Facebook’s policies.”
And:
“no more than conjecture” to project that Hines will be harmed by content moderation attributable to the federal government again."
See my aside above.
Thanks for pointing out how some people use disinformation to make their false accusations about disinformation. Is it ironic, or malicious? Or both?
(As an aside, I continue to be disappointed by most right-wing critics of Biden. Why do I say this when my views are liberal/progressive? Because I still like reading and hearing well-formulated, rational opinions from a variety of perspectives, including those with which I may disagree. It opens up my world a bit, and I can see more things. But that result depends on the quality of critics' arguments, which need to be thought-out, logical, based on facts, and make an attempt at common-sense persuasion. I rarely see Biden critics, or Trump supporters, make such arguments. As such, I remain disappointed.)
Rene the following taken from the link you supplied https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/06/26/politics/social-media-disinformation-supreme-court-ruling
“Rather than delving into the weighty First Amendment questions raised by the case, the court ruled that the state and social media users who challenged the Biden administration did not have standing to sue.”
So, when you wrote “The Supreme Court rules for Biden administration in a social media dispute with conservative states” there exist a bit of misleading information within. The Supreme Court did not rule for Biden, it said those who challenged Biden administration had no legal right to do so, they lacked standing to sue.
A bit like a forfeit in baseball when the game ends prematurely, and victory is awarded to one team due to specific rule breaches by the opposing team.
In this case the team that wanted to challenge the Biden administration lacked right to do so. Therefore, they could not play, game goes to the Biden administration and the issue is left unresolved.
W, you’re quite correct that the case was dismissed due to lack of standing by the plaintiffs, and that its central issues remain unresolved.
But it’s important to note the court’s explanation for its ruling — an explanation that, I think, pokes substantial holes in the plaintiff’s arguments. There’s more to the story than the "team that wanted to challenge the Biden administration lacked right to do so." This, from the SCOTUSBlog:
— the plaintiff’s inability to show "substantial risk that, in the near future, at least one platform will restrict the speech of at least one plaintiff in response to the actions of at least one Government defendant.” The court stated "that is a tall order."
— "even if government officials sometimes influenced content-moderation decisions – “the platforms moderated similar content long before any of the Government defendants engaged in the challenged conduct.” Barrett explained that most of those claims generally did not create the kind of connection needed to establish standing."
— "Barrett wrote, “the officials’ communications about COVID-19 misinformation had slowed to a trickle.” And it is therefore “no more than conjecture” to project that Hines will be harmed by content moderation attributable to the federal government again…."
— "Barrett quickly dismissed the plaintiffs’ arguments that they also have standing due to their right to read content by other speakers on social media. “This theory,” Barrett wrote, is “startlingly broad,” because it would allow virtually all users of social media to bring a lawsuit to challenge censorship of someone else. “This Court,” Barrett stressed, “has never accepted such a boundless theory of standing.”
Sure, the plaintiff’s may get to play another game, but so far they don’t seem to have a winning strategy, at least according to the umpires. I think it’s correct to cite the ruling as ‘for the Biden administration’.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/justices-side-with-biden-over-governments-influence-on-social-media-content-moderation/
HI Bob, thanks for the link. Using my baseball analogy a forfeit will go down in the books as a win for the opposing team (in this case Biden administration) and if I were looking at it as a simple win/loss, I would have no choice but to agree with you. Ruling for Biden administration.
Although that is not how I am looking at it. I am looking at it as an action, something in motion.
If one puts a straw into a glass of water and sucks on the straw, the water in the glass moves up the straw. So is the water pulled up the straw by the sucking action or is it pushed up the straw by air pressing down on the water in the glass leaving it no place to go but up the straw.
Both are reasonable explanations for the motion of the water in the glass. although one is an accurate account for the movement of the water and one is not.
You wrote “the plaintiff’s inability to show” and taken from your link “Barrett explained, the plaintiffs’ lawsuit could only go forward it they could show”. So here the action is against the plaintiff and not for the defendant (Biden administration) . The defendant benefits but the action is against the plaintiff. They cannot move forward, Game over.
Well, as Casey Stengel said, "there are three things you can do in a baseball game. You can win, or you can lose, or it can rain."
Inspirational… as retired folks, we would like to join in this good work. Please tell us how to get in touch with these amazing retirees.
Third Act is a big organization -- thirdact.org on the web.
Adirondack welcome circle is at adirondackwelcomecircle.org or reachable by email at adirondackwelcomecircle@gmail.com
Thanks for the plug Will! Just as clarification, I am pretty much always joking but the vast majority of jokes in this world are not very funny, they’re true.
But (and this is NOT a joke) folks can visit, Like and/or Follow “Adirondack Regional Immigration Collaborative - ARIC” on Facebook. The group’s website is under construction, may be live now, and there should be a link on the FB page.
Thanks again!
The buck tale and photo - oh LOL (laugh out loud!)
and for more about the Adirondack Regional Immigration Collaborative - go to
www.ARIC.network
and for more about seniors and climate action - look up Third Act
An uplifting column Will. Thanks for the reminder that there are still people out there willing to do the good work helping immigrants who come to our shores to seek a better life for their family and those good people willing to defend our planet in hopes of keeping a sustainable Earth for future generations.
There are still many, many good people in this world… Good to know 💙
we want to get involved, how do we connect?
Will wrote: "The Trump administration will be trying to silence that voice as of Jan. 20. We must stop that from happening."
There is reason not to despair, and to keep pushing back. Per the NYT this morning:
"Lawyers for immigrants said they have been preparing for months for the possibility of large-scale workplace raids, roundups in immigrant enclaves, new restrictions on asylum, the expansion of detention and the termination of programs temporarily shielding some people from deportation. “The Trump team might think they are ready,” said Camille Mackler, chief executive of Immigration Arc, who sent an SOS email that brought hundreds of lawyers to Kennedy Airport that day in 2017. “But so are we.”
"Having battled one Trump administration, she and her allies are ready for a second, Ms. Heller said. “We literally have a blueprint of what they are planning to do, and so we had months and months to figure out how to protect people,” she said."
Oh God...thank you...time to reread all the Travis McGee novels...love love love them...
A good escape when you need one
What you're suggesting is 100% correct Will. After a period grieving, I will look for something I can do to RESIST!!! I have realized after this event that I must keep my gratitude and hope intact and the way for me to do that is to focus only on what I can contribute to one day at a time and stop paying attention to mainstream news, it's dishonest to it's core. Thanks for all that you and Ken do.
Our mental health will suffer if we fail to find a way to fight the progressive fight. Thank you for the inspiration.
I must add that I was a very young senior doctor at the NYC hospital where Dr. Chris Hoy did his internship and residency. He was special then, as he seems to be still. Please say a big "Hello" for me.
I will next time I speak with him ... or perhaps he will see your comment. That is cool, though. What is a "senior doctor"?
I was finished with my training,had my board certifications, and was newly in private practice. Yes, I am so ancient that private practice was the norm. It worked better for the patients, and it worked better for me. It was all about responsibility.
As a writer you will appreciate my observing that our chart notes actually SAID something, unlike the dreadful Electronic Health Record. The EHR generates robotic, repetitive, and often irrelevant commentary. It impedes thinking. It leads to doctor burn-out, and hence a scarcity of doctors. Astute medical care has become too difficult for most of us to access. I'm sure Chris joins me in missing what was, and I wish him FUN in his retirement!
Great column, Will! We need immigrants! They fill the many, many jobs that Americans won't do. Their children go to school, get educated and in a few years, they are the nurses, the engineers, the entrepreneurs of our country. And, for heaven's sake, they are fleeing violence, poverty, war. Grow a heart, people.
Also, thanks ever so much for the uplifting excerpt from The Lemon Sky. It has been a while since I've read about brains exploding out of some guy's head.
Right?
Always enjoyed the Travis McGee series. Haven't read them in years however.
Thank you for this information, Will! My husband and I are relatively new to Glens Falls, and are looking for ways to get involved in positive community action. Feeling even more urgency since the election!
There is an all day and possibly multi day climate direct action in Albany on Dec. 10, a sit in, to pressure Gov. Hochul to sign the climate Superfund Act which since being passed by both NYS houses still awaits her signature . It also supports the Federal Polluters Pay Climate Fund Act. It is in the Capitol Building. For information you can write: oxherders@icloud.com. The Governor needs a great deal of public input immediately during this window of time before Jan 2025 to accelerate reintroduction, support and passage of any beneficial climate bills, like the NY Heat Act and the Better Bottle Bill.
When I inherited some money 20 years ago I thought that I had divested completely by only investing in CD's and not the stock market, but it didnt occur to me until I started to work with a NYS chapter of Third Act to divest also from both my car and home insurances. I now engage Utica National which does not invest in fossil fuels.