this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2024
-32 points (20.4% liked)

Conservative

374 readers
30 users here now

A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff

  1. Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.

  2. We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.

  3. Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.

A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

I am surprised this made it to SCOTUS. When the government is demanding it, it becomes a 1st amendment issue. Meta is acting as an agent of the government. This should have never happened.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 6 points 7 months ago

Well, the 5th Circuit found that to be the case...but the 5th Circuit is where the law goes to be corrupted, so I'm extremely skeptical that actually happened. Like, the FBI merely asking constitutes an implicit threat:

In the case of the FBI, it found the agency had coerced and significantly encouraged the social media sites to take down content, arguing that because it was a law enforcement agency, any request to take down content came with the implicit threat that it could take legal action.

That's nonsense, and yet...here we are..