Aunburdened said:
sycasey said:
BearGoggles said:
The FCC commissioners comments are wrong and dangerous. Threatening companies with regulatory reprisals based on the content of speech is wrong. It is remarkable that liberals are now reaching this conclusion after watching the Biden Admin (and before him Obama) do exact the same thing - with the silence (if not encouragement) of these same now outraged liberals. The only difference was that Biden and Obama hid what they were doing, whereas Carr is openly admitting it (which shows its own level of stupidity and arrogance).
No, the difference is that no one could find a real example of anyone being harmed by the Biden policies (that's why the case that came before SCOTUS failed for lack of standing), but now we've got a big glaring example of the Trump administration's demands directly leading to a curtailing of speech.
That's the thing: Biden's people talked a lot about it but never actually did anything. Trump's team just did something.
That's a massive overstatement. I am here to help with the research:
"
What the consent decree actually doesThe decree prohibits the U.S. Surgeon General, CDC, and CISA from threatening social media companies into removing or suppressing constitutionally protected speech on Facebook, Instagram, X, LinkedIn, and YouTube, and also bars these agencies from directing or vetoing the companies' content moderation choices.
It also affirms that labeling speech "misinformation," "disinformation," or "malinformation" does not render it constitutionally unprotected.
The limitations
IT'S NARROW
Critics from both sides point out the decree is quite narrow. It only applies to three government agencies the CDC, CISA, and the Surgeon General leaving out DHS, the CIA, the FBI, and the White House. And it's enforceable only by the five remaining plaintiffs, not the general public. The irony noted by some observers is that the Trump administration agreed to constrain the agencies most associated with public health and election security, rather than the White House or law enforcement channels, which arguably carry greater coercive weight.
Is it a black mark on Biden?This is genuinely contested. Supporters of the decree frame it as a meaningful rebuke. One legal commentator argued the decree "reveals that the current Department of Justice recognizes the federal government violated the First Amendment when its agents induced social media platforms to engage in censorship, shadow banning, visibility demotion, and algorithmic suppression."
A BIG POINT FOLLOWS BELOW
But importantly, the settlement shouldn't be mistaken for a resolution of whether actual government coercion occurred the Supreme Court never ruled on those merits. The 2024 Supreme Court decision threw the case out on standing grounds, meaning the core question of whether Biden-era officials actually crossed a constitutional line was never answered by a court. A consent decree is an agreement between parties, not a judicial finding of wrongdoing.
So the honest answer is: conservatives and free-speech advocates treat it as a vindication of their claims against the Biden administration, while others argue it's a narrow procedural settlement that doesn't establish Biden officials actually broke the law. The underlying constitutional question remains unresolved.
Schmitt is a damn liar
VOTE BLUE AND VOTE GAVIN
