72
Trump Judge Effectively Names Himself President
(prospect.org)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2023
72 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
65 readers
5 users here now
@politics on kbin.social is a magazine to share and discuss current events news, opinion/analysis, videos, or other informative content related to politicians, politics, or policy-making at all levels of governance (federal, state, local), both domestic and international. Members of all political perspectives are welcome here, though we run a tight ship. Community guidelines and submission rules were co-created between the Mod Team and early members of @politics. Please read all community guidelines and submission rules carefully before engaging our magazine.
founded 2 years ago
Title is a bit disingenuous, the ruling actually says they are prohibited
Government should not be cohering social media companies to silence speech, this seems fine to me.
So for instance a politician saying, "hey Facebook maybe should stop promoting ISIS" would be strictly forbidden.
Got it.
ISIS probably isn't the best example, because promoting terrorism and advocating violence isn't protected free speech. Regardless, I don't think this would apply to a politician making a general statement like this, but government agencies working behind closed doors to suppress legal content.
It actually is protected free speech in the USA to promote violence. It is not protected free speech to promote or incite violence with the imminent threat of harm.
The American Nazi Party and the KKK won their SCOTUS fight over that, thanks in part to the ACLU.