Supreme Court rules states have no standing in social media case

Twitter


Basically they whimped out.

Maybe they want a better case.

Many are saying they said government could manipulate social media but that is untrue.

They ruled there is no standing/harm.

Other, possibly better cases, can be heard in future.

Both sides are misrepresenting. Here is decision:

Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the opinion for a 6-3 majority.

“To establish standing, the plaintiffs must demonstrate a substantial risk that, in the near future, they will suffer an injury that is traceable to a government defendant and redressable by the injunction they seek,” Barrett wrote. “Because no plaintiff has carried that burden, none has standing to seek a preliminary injunction.

Not the bee seems to have best take on this: Link

Supreme Court tosses case that would prevent government from coercing social media to censor people.

Other links:
NPR
CNN

a reply to: pianopraze

Shameful

Cowards backing away from ruling in support of the First Amendment, of all things.

originally posted by: Tolkien
a reply to: pianopraze

Shameful

Cowards backing away from ruling in support of the First Amendment, of all things.

I think so, yes.

And the media on both sides lying about the ruling.

This is like the Texas vs I think Pennsylvania case - Supreme Court just decided not to rule.

They did not say government could coerce social media. They did not "side" with anyone.

They said the people bringing the suit were not harmed and have no standing.

It is circled in red in my OP.

a reply to: pianopraze

Laws either have teeth or they don't. You don't get to say the law must be kept here, but it's okay to let it go over there.

Same with states attacking the Bill of Rights. NO WAY any state should be able to deny your rights while another state enshrines them. It's all utter BS.

No more talks of packing the court, anyone notice that? Everyone is playing ball is some shape or form. You simply cannot have this level of corruption and expect justice. It's not possible.

originally posted by: VariedcodeSole
a reply to: pianopraze

Laws either have teeth or they don't. You don't get to say the law must be kept here, but it's okay to let it go over there.

Same with states attacking the Bill of Rights. NO WAY any state should be able to deny your rights while another state enshrines them. It's all utter BS.

No more talks of packing the court, anyone notice that? Everyone is playing ball is some shape or form. You simply cannot have this level of corruption and expect justice. It's not possible.

I no longer expect justice in any court.

Corruption is at all levels.

a reply to: pianopraze

It's definitely a bad ruling, and it shows at least 3 of the judges haven't read the case record yet.

I think it's largely based on the oral arguments at the hearing. Which I've heard were not done well on the State's side.

But this is just a ruling on the Injunction, the case will still go on. It's still in the "preliminary discovery" phase.

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: pianopraze

It's definitely a bad ruling, and it shows at least 3 of the judges haven't read the case record yet.

I think it's largely based on the oral arguments at the hearing. Which I've heard were not done well on the State's side.

But this is just a ruling on the Injunction, the case will still go on. It's still in the "preliminary discovery" phase.

Exactly.

A much better summary than any news article I’ve seen so far.

Maybe they are planning on handing Trump a few big wins and they kicked the can down the road to look impartial.

a reply to: pianopraze

Happy to help.

The case was a perfect setup to make The Justices do what they did. It was argued wrong on purpose. They're getting clever. 😬 The "overturned" case was the setup. Read it real real close and see how they did it!!!!!! Somebody predicted this a while back when the case was filed. 💀

They wimped out, AGAIN.

Seems the Court doesn't want to make the hard choices that THEY really do want to make until the climate is a bit different.

THEY KNOW that the MAJORITY of Americans DO NOT agree with their rulings.

The Court should go out and buy a big mirror and take a good look at themselves.

And it's time to take a good long look at nine Justices assets and "gifts". Seems like, it you got the money, you can buy a decision or two with this court.

a reply to: pianopraze

So, nothing changes.

At least Musk in charge now instead of Jack Dorsey, who helped cheat Biden into office financially and using censorship.

Klaus Schwab said their biggest concern is freedom of speech, paraphrasing. Whether it was how the case was presented or a bad ruling it did its job.