Shitty headline. The SCOTUS doesn’t wade into things.
this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2023
56 points (96.7% liked)
Technology
59123 readers
2973 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
No, they row.
Not that either.
Alas.
They did for the last 50 years, and now suddenly don't
Does anyone know what is actually at issue? Like, is the main question Should public figures be allowed to "block" members of the public? I'm a strong believer in Rendering that which is Caesar's unto Caesar so Imma have a real hard time accepting as the corrollary Be blocked by Caesar even as and after you have rendered unto him that which was his
Deosn't sound like "Caesar rendering that which is yours unto you" is terribky prescient in the current satus quo
That's one of the three in the article. The other two are, "Should service providers be able to block officials?" and, "Should officials be able to apply pressure to service providers about their policies?"
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The cases feature public officials with significantly lower profiles than Trump: members of a school district board of trustees in Southern California and a city manager in Michigan.
Later in the court's term, which runs until June, the justices will hear oral arguments over the constitutionality of Republican-backed laws in Florida and Texas that seek to prevent social media companies from banning users for contentious rhetoric.
Finally, the court will consider claims that the Biden administration has unlawfully put pressure on social media platforms to remove content with which it disagrees, a form of coercion dubbed "jawboning" — on issues such as criticism of the government response to the pandemic.
Again, the case raises free speech claims, on this occasion brought by states and individuals asserting the First Amendment right of users to be able to post their chosen content without government interference.
Conservative outrage that led to the Florida and Texas laws being enacted in 2021 was fueled in part by the decisions of Twitter, Facebook and others to ban Trump after his effort to overturn the 2020 presidential election results ended in his supporters storming the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
In contrast with the previous Twitter management, Musk has allied himself with conservative critics of the platform and allowed various banned users, including Trump, to return, while abandoning efforts to limit the spread of disinformation.
The original article contains 967 words, the summary contains 229 words. Saved 76%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!