And in this case there is plenty of purported evidence that the federal government is performing de facto censorship by coordinating with “three social-media companies-Facebook, Google, and Twitter.”īut even a cursory reading of the complaint lays bare the fact that this is a ridiculously inaccurate representation of the events in question. Such injunctions are intended to stop a behavior the plaintiffs allege is illegal, and if a judge believes a suit is likely to succeed, they can preemptively block (or “enjoin”) it to prevent further harm. The Washington Post first reported the news that the White House, per the injunction, must refrain from “urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech.” The lawsuit this decision is part of, it must be said, is quite mad. Over the July 4 holiday, it emerged that a judge in Louisiana had issued an injunction preventing the White House from speaking to social media companies in certain ways. To correct this mistake, the two cases are now separately treated. While my assessment of the RFK Jr suit stands, the other is the earlier and more substantial case, though equally political or disingenuous. I wrote this article based on one, but the injunction was issued in the other (where a separate injunction was being considered).
In fact it has been proposed that they be consolidated.
Update: Bizarrely, there are actually two cases before this same judge, both advancing extremely similar legal arguments, precedents, and evidence. Update 2: 10 days later, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has paused the injunction pending oral arguments in that jurisdiction.
0 kommentar(er)
