Supreme Court tosses claim Biden admin coerced social media to remove content
nbcnews.com
nbcnews.com
I think an important thing here is the ruling is pretty specific - they are essentially saying it still could be litigated. If there was a future case where speech was suppressed and a government official was complicit, that would be grounds for a 1A lawsuit. But you can't just sue because you are butthurt that Facebook takes down your post but not Fauci's.
And they're ultimately saying that the plaintiffs don't have standing because they couldn't trace their bans to government action... which is pretty close to a merits finding, as the lack of a government role is pretty dispositive as to whether or not that role was impermissible.
Speaking of trying to make this political... this decision says nothing of the sort.
Yes, and they did. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/elon-tru...
> Oftentimes, requests would demand Twitter stop “shadowbanning” certain conservative accounts, or that the company reinstate banned or suspended right-wing personas. Other times, offices of senior Trump administration officials would send emails seeking to remove tweets that they believed to be “hate speech” or death threats aimed at their principals. And over the years, the knowledgeable sources say, staffers for Republican officials would regularly flag to Twitter content that they believed violated the app’s terms of service or other policies, including on spreading “misinformation” or “disinformation.”
Tech companies can, and regularly do, say "no", as the First Amendment explicitly permits.
Support this at your own peril.
This is a mockery of how the courts are supposed to work.
The original "injunction" was put in place by a Trump appointed "judge" as the result of legal action from Republican Attorney Generals in Louisiana and Missouri --- all without any evidence to support the allegation of "coercion".
The right-wing SCOTUS seems to have determined it was a bit too much.
To their credit, yes they did.
The total lack of evidence did not support any such broad injunction. This case should never have made it to the SC docket. The fact it did just reeks of influence peddling and partisan gamesmanship.