I remember in Murthy v. Missouri we had states arguing that the federal government influenced social media platforms to suppress speech they didn't like... and they felt that was wrong.
SCOTUS ruled (IMO correctly) that simply any contact between the feds (some of the evidence was just that phone calls had taken place) does not mean they had coerced these media sources. After all politicians do call news people and so on to say "hey your story was wrong" and that's normal.
Several conservative judges dissented and wanted to rule that the feds had coerced these media orgs and were wrong to do so.
So here we are today, the feds threatening news people, arranging their buddies buy media orgs and outright saying they should manipulate the information available.
Doubt they have much to say about it ... because of course it's ok when it is their guy.
duxup•4mo ago
SCOTUS ruled (IMO correctly) that simply any contact between the feds (some of the evidence was just that phone calls had taken place) does not mean they had coerced these media sources. After all politicians do call news people and so on to say "hey your story was wrong" and that's normal.
Several conservative judges dissented and wanted to rule that the feds had coerced these media orgs and were wrong to do so.
So here we are today, the feds threatening news people, arranging their buddies buy media orgs and outright saying they should manipulate the information available.
Doubt they have much to say about it ... because of course it's ok when it is their guy.