40 Comments

Not “liking” this post. Love, love, loving it!!!

Expand full comment

And not just one "like" but a thousand likes!!!

Expand full comment

The heart button conveys "love" which usually overstates ones feeling about a post. Substack needs a thumbs up button that represents a more moderate "liking" reaction.

Expand full comment

The judge clearly meant to send a message just for today.

Expand full comment

There is no better way to celebrate our nation's birthday than with a renewed commitment to free speech!

Expand full comment

It’s a win. But it falls short. Where is the punishment for those that need it? No punishment means they will just do it again

Expand full comment

This is the start of it. More to come is my guess. First we have to wake up those who are still sleeping and get their attention.

Expand full comment

What a GLORIOUS victory for We the People!!👏🏻👏🏻🇺🇸🇺🇸

Expand full comment

YES YES YES!!!!!! Woohoo!!! May open champagne. Thank you to all those working, no doubt tirelessly, on this case 🙏🏼🤗 🥳

Expand full comment

I'm hoping the social media companies are also enjoined from working with the gov't to engage in censorship. My concern is the gov't could be more likely to press on with the censorship relying on sovereign immunity or whatever, whereas private companies are more likely to have counsel advising them of the risk of increased damages...

Expand full comment

Hope this answers your question - from the article:

"In short: the government will NO LONGER be able to censor you over social media."

Expand full comment

It doesn't. But this does:

"The private party, social-media platforms are not defendants in the instant suit, so the issue here is not whether the social-media platforms are government actors, but whether the government can be held responsible for the private platforms’ decisions.

Expand full comment
Jul 4, 2023·edited Jul 4, 2023

I would think that an entity cannot be held responsible for what another entity wants. The point in the quote I cited means that govt will not be able to collude with social media any longer, as they have been doing for so long on Twitter, Facebook, etc. The govt has been telling these platforms who and what to censor. That is completely unconstitutional for starters. The govt cannot ask or command social media what to censor but holding them responsible for a platform's decisions doesn't seem reasonable to me. Govt needs to be prosecuted for interference or lack of freedom of speech on social media but not for what social media decides to do about it. That's up to social media IMO. This may seem like a small thing, but it's an important distinction I think.

Expand full comment

Judge basically found gov't was responsible for "coercing" compliance by social media companies, based on the threat of prosecution for, among other things, antitrust. The opinion really needs to be read to be believed.

Expand full comment

THANK YOU for this info! I stand corrected. I haven't finished reading the whole opinion yet - if govt is coercing that is an entirely different story and yes they should be held responsible and accountable. I'll be sure to finish reading this!

Expand full comment

Awesome!

Expand full comment

Happy Fucking Fourth of July Fuckerberg!! ❤️🤍💙

Expand full comment

Let freedom ring!!! Happy July 4th everyone!!!!

Expand full comment

Major Yayness!!

Expand full comment

Wow. Great ruling!

I think we all knew this will end up with a SCOTUS ruling, either side would appeal. Which means now we get to see if the nation's highest court stands with the US Constitution and the very essence of our nation's founding? Or if they are just as committed to a "reimagining" of our nation as a "soft" totalitarian one following a "living, breathing constitution" that allows for the most linguistically acrobatic judges, Olympic gold medal-caliber linguistic acrobats to go into the Orwellian land of "Freedom is slavery" territory? They were all selected for their agility with words as much as their philosophy of jurisprudence.

And if they do, what We, The People will do in response? Obey. Or disobey. As the nation's founders chose to do.

Expand full comment

Here's a suggestion if the SCOTUS overturns this ruling on appeal:

https://news.yahoo.com/arizona-attorney-general-kris-mayes-140030478.html

We don't comply. Even with SCOTUS rulings. They don't comply with rulings true to the original Constitution. We don't comply with rulings that are untrue to the original Constitution. Easy. Peasy.

Expand full comment

Huge!!!

Expand full comment

Yikes....we need an expanded explanation of this. Thanks.

Expand full comment

wow!

Expand full comment