The lefty censorship lobby responded with pages of unchecked hysteria that failed to address the issue after a federal judge issued an order ordering the federal government to stop” specifically flagging content or posts on social media platforms and / or forwarding such to social – media companies urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner for removal, deletion, suppressor reduction of content containing protected free speech.” Conservatives have frequently been charged with bringing on false conspiracy theories to bring about this result. If that’s the case, why stress over the outcome? What could the issue probably be if the Biden administration isn’t constantly urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing social media companies in any way for removal, deletion, suppression, and reduction of content containing protected free speech? Second, lefties and their media asserted that prohibiting censorship from the government was a violation of its right to free speech. A cold effect typically applies to government speech suppression, not the suppression of government censorship, according to the government-funded NPR, which complains that” the government’s ability to fight disinformation digitally has suffered a constitutional setback that experts say will have an effect on communications between federal agencies and social media companies.” Evelyn Douek, a professor at Stanford Law School and an authority on the regulation of virtual speech, says,” It’s difficult to think of more striking ruling.”
According to Douek, the injunction prohibits thousands of federal government employees from communicating with secret platforms about content on their services in virtually any way. The” clear message is to have this sort of chilling effect on communication between the government and platforms ,” she notes, although there are exceptions for some types of criminal content. In reality, it’s pretty clear what government employees can and cannot do. They can do most things, like send a pineapple by courier to Facebook or ask it to remove pro-ISIS propaganda, but they can’t do things like” specifically flagging content or posts on social media platforms and / or forwarding such to social – media companies urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner for removal, deletion, suppression, etc.” The term” Orwellian” is used far too frequently, but in this case the Left has chosen to contend that preventing government workers from censoring people chills their speech. One wonders how that argument would have been received by the ancient ACLU or any liberal from the 1960s. Big Tech used a different version of this justification to support Florida’s bans on internet censorship, but the state lacks perhaps an online platform. It is battling for the right to start censoring with its allies.
After a federal court ruled that the federal government must stop “specifically flagging or forwarding content or posts to social-media platforms or to social-media firms urging, encouraging or pressuring them to remove, delete, suppress or reduce content containing protected freedom of speech.” The lefty censorship movement responded with unhinged hysteria, which failed to address the problem. Conservatives were accused of promoting false conspiracy theories in order to achieve this result. Why worry about the verdict if that’s the case? The government-funded NPR complained that “the government’s capability to fight disinformation online suffered a legal blow that experts say will cause a chilling impact on communications between federal agency and social media companies.” A chilling affect generally applies to government censorship, not government suppression of speech.
She notes that while there are exceptions for certain types of criminal content, overall, the “clear message” is to have this sort of chilling effect on communication between the government and platforms. It’s pretty obvious what government employees are allowed to do. They can send a pineapple by courier to Facebook or ask it to remove pro-ISIS propaganda. They can do the majority of things, like sending a pineapple by courier to Facebook or asking it to remove pro ISIS propaganda. What they can’t is “specifically flagging or posting content on social-media platforms or forwarding to social-media firms urging, encouraging or pressuring in any way for removal, suppression, reduction or reduction of protected free speech.” Pretty clear. One wonders if the old ACLU, or any 1960s liberal, would have agreed with that argument. Big Tech used a variant of this argument in Florida to ban internet censorship. But the government didn’t have a platform. It and its allies fight for the right to censor.
