A Consent Decree in Missouri v. Biden now bars the CDC, CISA, and the U.S. Surgeon General from coercing social media platforms to suppress protected speech for the next decade.
I have the same question. If these practices are unlawful, there should not be an implication they can resume in 10 years. Perhaps it's only the oversight required by the Consent Decree that ends in a decade.
Sorry, this is all useless. Violating our constitutional rights is a crime. They did that with impunity. Why would they not violate this decree now? Until people are thrown in prison for their crimes, they will continue to repeat those crimes.
A consent decree that makes up for the cowardice of the Supreme Court which ruled it was okay to censor Americans. Maybe within 10 years the Supremes will gain the backbone to do what's right.
Progress, but Congress needs to repeal the Smith Mundt Modenization Act, which makes it legal for US government to propagandize Americans. In addition, Congress needs to make it illegal for any government agency to pressure, coerce, or order tech or media companies to censor any individual.
In Russia, people have become accustomed to Kremlin officials constantly violating the Constitution. For example, right now, police are breaking into farmers' homes and slaughtering perfectly healthy cows and sheep. In other words, the Russian government is orchestrating a famine in our country as part of its "population reduction" agenda. Putin, as always, remains silent, despite numerous appeals. And the courts in Russia never go against the authorities: they're afraid.
I guess it's too much to ask why they would want to starve people in the middle of a war. One would think Putin would want to keep the food plentiful, at least until it's over.
This is not a win. It is a twisting of reality. The gov't violated the 1st Amendment, and needs to be held accountable! And it sounds like these social media platforms were a DARPA creation using tax money, and illegally given to private parties.
And what is this saying? In a decade, the gov't can censor again???
Better to shrink the size of gov't (not replace with ai) by getting rid of these agencies.
There have been several twisted ideas, such as a national Constitutional carry, which is what 2A already is!...
On Facebook (Meta), Mark Zuckerberg hides all my posts and comments. I want to share this thought with you. Officials are planning to replace government, courts, medicine, and education in schools and universities with artificial intelligence. I believe AI is the legalization of irresponsibility. How can you punish an AI if it makes a criminal (unjust) decision?
After all, you can't imprison an AI or demote it to the level of a janitor...
This is from District Court Judge Terry A. Doughty, who has issued at least one other great decision. But can't it be overruled by Circuit or Supremes? Or can we assume that there's nobody in the Federal government who would want to pursue this?
When will "X" (Twitter) retract? Before the sun burns out? (They "suspended" me for suggesting HUMANS might use ivermectin for onchocersiasis. 5 years ago! Yes, I've appealed repeatedly. They suggest deleting the suggestion.)
It has become routine for lawmakers - and apparently judges - to hedge on making important changes by sunsetting them. Spineless and disgusting, but it's better than nothing.
Why only 10 years? This is a consent decree. In other words this what the parties agreed. The judge simply formalised the agreement by an order. Presumably the parties agreed because of the risk of going through a full hearing and getting a judgement one or other would not like.
Why only a decade?
Agree 100%. Free speech is a first amendment right!
Beyond that, there is no entity that can take away free speech. It is always government overreach to protect its boundless corruption and lies.
Why not forever.
I have the same question. If these practices are unlawful, there should not be an implication they can resume in 10 years. Perhaps it's only the oversight required by the Consent Decree that ends in a decade.
Exactly my question!
That was my question, too.
Sorry, this is all useless. Violating our constitutional rights is a crime. They did that with impunity. Why would they not violate this decree now? Until people are thrown in prison for their crimes, they will continue to repeat those crimes.
I am guessing that AI and all of these data centers is the work around in some way.
You hit the nail on the head with a 100 pound sledge hammer. No real consequences for crimes committed.
Great , better than nothing… but how about FOREVER.
Why just 10 yrs?
A consent decree that makes up for the cowardice of the Supreme Court which ruled it was okay to censor Americans. Maybe within 10 years the Supremes will gain the backbone to do what's right.
This shouldn't be limited by a number of years.
Should be for ever
Progress, but Congress needs to repeal the Smith Mundt Modenization Act, which makes it legal for US government to propagandize Americans. In addition, Congress needs to make it illegal for any government agency to pressure, coerce, or order tech or media companies to censor any individual.
The First Amendment already does that for all time, not just for a decade. Where are the lawsuits for civil rights violations by these people?
In Russia, people have become accustomed to Kremlin officials constantly violating the Constitution. For example, right now, police are breaking into farmers' homes and slaughtering perfectly healthy cows and sheep. In other words, the Russian government is orchestrating a famine in our country as part of its "population reduction" agenda. Putin, as always, remains silent, despite numerous appeals. And the courts in Russia never go against the authorities: they're afraid.
I guess it's too much to ask why they would want to starve people in the middle of a war. One would think Putin would want to keep the food plentiful, at least until it's over.
This is not a win. It is a twisting of reality. The gov't violated the 1st Amendment, and needs to be held accountable! And it sounds like these social media platforms were a DARPA creation using tax money, and illegally given to private parties.
And what is this saying? In a decade, the gov't can censor again???
Better to shrink the size of gov't (not replace with ai) by getting rid of these agencies.
There have been several twisted ideas, such as a national Constitutional carry, which is what 2A already is!...
On Facebook (Meta), Mark Zuckerberg hides all my posts and comments. I want to share this thought with you. Officials are planning to replace government, courts, medicine, and education in schools and universities with artificial intelligence. I believe AI is the legalization of irresponsibility. How can you punish an AI if it makes a criminal (unjust) decision?
After all, you can't imprison an AI or demote it to the level of a janitor...
2a doesn't work on it, either. I very much agree.
This is from District Court Judge Terry A. Doughty, who has issued at least one other great decision. But can't it be overruled by Circuit or Supremes? Or can we assume that there's nobody in the Federal government who would want to pursue this?
When will "X" (Twitter) retract? Before the sun burns out? (They "suspended" me for suggesting HUMANS might use ivermectin for onchocersiasis. 5 years ago! Yes, I've appealed repeatedly. They suggest deleting the suggestion.)
Very pleased, but like others, it sounds strange to put a time limit on it. I would also like to know why.
It has become routine for lawmakers - and apparently judges - to hedge on making important changes by sunsetting them. Spineless and disgusting, but it's better than nothing.
?????????......."for the next decade."
Umm.....they might want to READ THE FUCKING CONSTITUTION!!
It.......NEVER EXPIRES! (unless WE, THE PEOPLE.....SAY that it does!)
Why only 10 years? This is a consent decree. In other words this what the parties agreed. The judge simply formalised the agreement by an order. Presumably the parties agreed because of the risk of going through a full hearing and getting a judgement one or other would not like.