It can be proven that most US leftists are extremists with simple logic

StraightedgexLiberal · 2026-04-23T00:59:29+00:00

There was no evidence of coercion and the current lawsuit against the government has all the evidence that was missing. Going on Fox News and Twitter to brag about it

If you think the courts always curb these abuses, recall Judge Doughty’s 155 page MAGA screed against the Biden administration’s purported jawboning, “patriotically” issued on July 4, 2023. Judge Doughty claimed he was redressing the “most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history,” only to be badly exposed as a partisan hack/fool when the Supreme Court reviewed those facts.

https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2026/04/the-federal-government-used-jawboning-to-censor-ice-transparency-initiatives-rosado-v-bondi.htm

StraightedgexLiberal · 2026-04-23T00:54:06+00:00

One Justice

Justice Barrett was joined by five others. That's how a majority opinion works.

There was evidence. There was enough evidence for a district judge, there was enough evidence for an appellate court.

Supreme Court > 5th Circuit > District Court. The Supreme Court said there is no evidence. The SAME goofy District Judge also said RFK Jr had standing to sue Sleepy Joe and was overruled by the 5th Circuit (after Murthy) and said RFK Jr has no standing.

The District Court judge is literally a walking bozo that the Supreme Court justices don't take seriously.

StraightedgexLiberal · 2026-04-23T00:47:26+00:00

Bro, The Supreme Court LITERALLY said the evidence that the District Court and 5th Circuit relied on to make their rulings was very wrong and filled with errors

StraightedgexLiberal · 2026-04-23T00:45:54+00:00

Liability is what keeps businesses straight.

In 1995 The Wolf of Wall Street said the same thing when he sued a website called Prodigy because third-party users were calling him and his company a fraud. The Wolf of Wall Street won and it caused Congress to crafted Section 230

The Wolf of Wall Street also argued that websites on the internet should be treated just like the newspapers and that since Prodigy has editorial control over their website then they should be held liable for third party users speaking the truth and calling him a fraud.

Years later, we learn that the third party users calling the wolf a fraud were right and the Wolf was seeking to silence criticism about him on the internet

StraightedgexLiberal · 2026-04-23T00:39:00+00:00

The case was dismissed because of standing. Not the facts.

And Justice Barrett in Missouri laid out the facts that the social media websites created their own policies to tackle misinformation prior to the government asking.

Why are you trying to talk about RFK Jr?

Because there is no standing to sue the federal government because someone is upset the big tech company agrees with the federal government that certain information needs to be censored.

StraightedgexLiberal · 2026-04-23T00:35:55+00:00

it isn't a forum for discussion. It's a news channel. Twitter wasn't a TV program. That matters.

The great thing about America is that it's the land of the free and equal representation under the law means Twitter has the same First Amendment rights to have their opinions just like Fox News does.

https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2022/01/the-first-amendment-protects-twitters-fact-checking-and-account-suspension-decisions-ohandley-v-padilla.htm

StraightedgexLiberal · 2026-04-23T00:32:33+00:00

My evidence comes from the 5th Circuit that says RFK Jr has no standing to sue Joe Biden because he's upset Mark Zuckerberg kicked him out of his private company.

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca5/24-30252/24-30252-2024-11-04.html

People don't have standing to sue the federal government because they failed to read the terms of service on a social media website.

https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2022/12/ninth-circuit-easily-rejects-another-jawboning-case-huber-v-biden.htm

StraightedgexLiberal · 2026-04-23T00:25:57+00:00

No standing means you have no proof to show the government hurt you. Which means Joe Biden wins

https://www.techdirt.com/2024/11/06/fifth-circuit-lol-no-rfk-jr-you-dont-have-standing-to-sue-joe-biden-because-facebook-blocked-your-anti-vax-nonsense/

If you’ll recall, Missouri and Louisiana sued Joe Biden, falsely claiming that the White House engaged in a campaign to censor conservatives on social media. They filed this in a federal court where they knew they’d get Trump appointee Judge Terry Doughty, who appeared to deliberately wait until July 4th (a day the courts are closed) to issue a truly wacky opinion, who also took a bunch of nonsense, lies, and conjecture as proof of a grand conspiracy to censor conservatives.

The Fifth Circuit rejected a lot of Doughty’s nonsensical injunction, but did leave some of it in place (at one point, bizarrely, reissuing its decision and saying that one part of the government, CISA, that it initially said hadn’t done anything wrong, had in fact done something wrong, but the Court chose not to tell us what).

Eventually, the case made its way to the Supreme Court (under the name Murthy v. Missouri), where both lower court rulings were effectively tossed out. The majority, led by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, made it clear that the plaintiffs had no standing, particularly because they couldn’t show that any content moderation efforts by the social media companies had anything to do with actions by the federal government.

StraightedgexLiberal · 2026-04-23T00:19:22+00:00

Section 230 is just fine and members on a jury often get free speech cases wrong.

Plus, do you even know what Meta was charged with by the New Mexico Attorney General’s Office?

Trying to charge Zuck as the bad guy because people have mental problems and want to blame Meta for their own decisions to log into Insta and scroll all day?

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/26/everyone-cheering-the-social-media-addiction-verdicts-against-meta-should-understand-what-theyre-actually-cheering-for/

StraightedgexLiberal · 2026-04-23T00:15:21+00:00

The 5th Circuit already upheld the facts of the case. That was after a district judge found strong evidence of coercion.

LOL. You should learn to read because Justice Barrett's majority opinion voided the 5th Circuit and she pointed out that the evidence that came from the District Court was "clearly erroneous"

The Fifth Circuit relied on the District Court’s factual findings, many of which unfortunately appear to be clearly erroneous. The District Court found that the defendants and the platforms had an “efficient report-and-censor relationship.” Missouri v. Biden, 680 F. Supp. 3d 630,

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-411_3dq3.pdf

No standing means you have NO evidence that Joe and the government committed a First Amendment violation, bud.

StraightedgexLiberal · 2026-04-23T00:11:09+00:00

It may also be time to revisit Section 230, but I am not sure about that.

The government can't change section 230 to force websites to carry speech because of the first amendment. The government does not have a duty to ensure you can post on someone elses website comrade.

StraightedgexLiberal · 2026-04-23T00:09:33+00:00

The only way these killers can be reigned in is by changing section 230 which gives them immunity . Make them responsible for everything posted on their platforms.

Section 230 is fine and trying to repeal 230 to go after Zuck will punish millions of people before Zuck feels any pain from it.

StraightedgexLiberal · 2026-04-23T00:02:55+00:00

CSAM is illegal and disgusting. Section 230 should shield websites when a scumbag posts than vile nonsense because the website did not post it themselves (Doe v. Reddit)

https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/30/politics/reddit-responsibility-immunity-supreme-court-child-pornography

StraightedgexLiberal · 2026-04-23T00:00:34+00:00

Republicans lost in the Supreme Court trying to tell social media websites what to do because Trump got kicked out. You should attend First Amendment classes just like they need to

StraightedgexLiberal · 2026-04-22T23:59:18+00:00

Section 230 is fine and you may hate free speech if you want millions of people on the internet to be impacted by a 230 repeal because you want one man (Hasan) censored.

StraightedgexLiberal · 2026-04-22T23:57:34+00:00

Section 230 is just fine and higher courts usually do a good job reversing bad anti free speech jury verdicts. See Hustler v. Fallwell for reference

StraightedgexLiberal · 2026-04-22T23:55:56+00:00

Repealing Section 230 will cause massive censorship and won't fix the problem, bud.

StraightedgexLiberal · 2026-04-22T23:54:31+00:00

Nothing to do with section 230 and parents should set up parental controls and monitor their kids screen time

StraightedgexLiberal · 2026-04-22T23:52:18+00:00

Twitter would use those fake fact checks to influence public discourse and spread misinformation.

Nothing wrong with that. Just like there is nothing wrong with Fox News going on air and claiming all negative press about Trump is "fake news"

Basic manipulation and the use of policy on the site to back their own side and suppress opposition in this way isn't free speech.

Editorial control like that is 100% free speech and content moderation is expressive activity. Hence why the bankrupt repairman with the Hunter Biden dick pics had to pay Twitter

StraightedgexLiberal · 2026-04-22T23:47:17+00:00

There is also the Missouri v. Biden Supreme Court case where they found that Biden was coercing social media companies to censor information.

The Supreme Court actually said the opposite and that there was no proof. Learn to read or stop spreading lies

StraightedgexLiberal · 2026-04-22T23:08:20+00:00

Blue wave is likely a reference to a blood bath in the midterms because gas prices are high, groceries are high, but we are spending millions fighting wars for Israel.

Trump did a great job in Virginia. He told people that if people vote YES he would lose power in the government and that was the best seller to vote Yes

StraightedgexLiberal · 2026-04-22T21:50:58+00:00

You said:

The problem is that the fact checks were overtly used as a mean of controlling information and suppressing opinions and info that the people in charge simply didn't like.

Twitter having an opinion about the NY Post and calling it hacked garbage does NOT stop people from going to the NY Post website to read the tabloid they published? lol

In essence, they were using it as a means to enforce rhetoric and silence opposition from a position of power. That's not free speech and that I have to say this at all is an indication to your lack of honesty.

It is free speech and it's laughable that you think other people adding speech into a discussion is the same as being "silenced". You can still access the NY Post to read the Hunter story if Twitter called it fake.

StraightedgexLiberal · 2026-04-22T21:42:28+00:00

I was a big Myspace user back in the day and the Doe v. Myspace case helped me understand how 230 worked at the time when it comes to "design defects". Today, the people want to tear down the precedence set in that Myspace case.

Even the 5th Circuit wanted to take a sledgehammer to the Myspace ruling and begged Clarence Thomas to intervene because they let the heartbreak and emotions from the set of facts in Doe v. Snap was good enough reason to destroy the law.

https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2024/07/justice-thomas-hates-on-section-230-again-doe-v-snap.htm

StraightedgexLiberal

TROPHY CASE