The judges wrote that the White House, the Surgeon General, the CDC and the FBI likely “coerced the platforms to make their moderation decisions by way of intimidating messages and threats of adverse consequences.”
The Court upheld many restrictions on the White House and Surgeon General’s office’s contacts with tech companies, finding that they ‘coerced’ platforms’ content decisions
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !technology@beehaw.org
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
The problem seems to be that the constitution does not say what free speech is and now everyone thinks they are experts on it.
‘Coercing’ someone to not spread lies and half truths is exactly their job. These judges seem to be either incompetent or crooked. Possibly both.
I believe it does say what Congress is, though, so it should be pretty obvious that the first amendment does not apply to the executive.