Louisiana Federal judge's conclusions re: social media / free speech suppression

I think this and other currently related conflicts ( the current huge ideological divide) are what they're always about...power retention and funding. In reality, individuals are going to support 'their guys' on these issues; that support is sometimes governed by their real heartfelt and tangible ideological principles ( maybe the original basis for most affiliations); but at some point, over time the machine breaks down or runs out of lube causing all us fallible humans to inherently fall victim to the appeal of power/ privelege. It's a natural human tendency. So, the electorate votes reps in or out based on their envisioned scenario of 'right and wrong' as THEY define it; then we bunch up and begin to toss turds at the opposition. It's necessary and historical..and occasionally appears stupid, particularly to the opposition.

    Charles - I would have thought by now that you would have realized that trying to have a sane, logical, truthful, and factual discussion with Lewis is a complete waste of time and effort. Dealing with this psycho is akin to dealing with a drug addict who is a family member - eventually one accepts the fact that their efforts are for naught and it is best for all concerned to refuse to support the addict and their addiction. I admire your effort, but you will finally come to the conclusion ( that I know is already in the back of your mind) that continued dealings with Lewis is senseless - Lewis is mentally ill and has gotten progressively worse and will never be sane. Whether you decide to give creedence to what I say here today or in the future, you will eventually recognize the truth of what is being said here.  

David...I've been fighting hopeless battles my entire life, like the rest of the population. Why stop now?

Kevin..Nope..it's an infringement of free speech ( noble or not).

  Why?  This is why --  lost cause noun a person or thing that can no longer hope to succeed or be changed for the better.

Well, then...I guess you need to look up the legal and dictionary definitions of "infringement." Our rights aren't absolute, nor should they be. 

I'm sorry...I can't dress up the current debate as based on "heartfelt" "principles" because the crap that has been spewed on social media the last few years has been neither. Surely, Charles, you must admit that the covid conspiracy theorists, election deniers, etc. don't even believe their own nonsense? Hell, Millerscum is an idiot asshole, but it's obvious that even he doesn't believe most of his own crap.

So should we protect the "rights" of people to start arguments, even if it costs lives?

The fallacy you're touting is that this is a battle between two sides whose positions have equal legitimacy. It isn't, not when one side abuses its free speech rights.

I don't need to and won't look it up ( the definition of infringement). I know and  you do as well the intended use / context. You used  a standard liberal phrasing, too; "our rights aren't absolute".  Of course that's the way it is...ie exercising rights doesn't provide for breaking other laws and/or inflicting harm. What idiot would argue with that? IMO, that's not what happened with this censorship issue. Conservatives were just flat shut down, regarless of the veracity or lack thereof from their participation attempts.

What monetary and psychological harm was potentially created when the conservative SM contributors were censored? You mentioned the potential thousands of people who would have theoretically died had the evil conservative questions / comments/ approaches been allowed/ not restricted. To arrive at an answer  we have to introduce all the arguments about the so-called science surrounding the early days of the C-19 pandemic. The public on the whole were frightened and uncertain about the propagandized beast they were actually facing; the scientists threw out a plethora of stuff that was innacurate after a trial and error period that we are all aware of now.. Why didn't they just say " we don't know what the hell is going on with this virus, folks" because that was the truth in spite of the fact that the citizenry wanted direction and sought answers from the government. Some government reps are just too damned arrogant / power hungry to respond with " I don't know"..it would hurt/ shrivel their pee-pees too much. There's times when "I don't know" is honestly and truthfully THE best answer to ameliorate future conflicts. Politicians and bureaucrats don't see it that way..often.

Early on, the guv didn't really have many answers because of the novelty of the virus. Some of those conservative contributors were just asking and searching for potential answers outside the governmental box / approach. Sure, there were some right-leaning nutjobs among those asking questions/ commenting..indeed. A small subset of those contributors however were indeed trained experts / scientists ( eg the partial plaintiffs in this case, as an example). So, conservatives were punished via shutdown for offering / questioning outside the governmental progressive and liberal narrative/ box/ mantra. Your arguments on this issue assigns too much power to the perceived almighty government; as citizens we have the right to question what they're doing / suggesting to us. The founders gave us free speech rights to do just that..and they warned the citizenry, their colleagues, and their enemies about it..many times.

Call it what all this really is..just a typical disagreement regarding one of those opaque political issues humans encounter daily when they're on conflicting sides. Neither view is gonna change..there's no point in arguing it further because it's all already been materially said. I'd rather have a bowl of meat + bean chili, if you don't mind. With tortilla chips and some salsa..and maybe a Michelob.

Charles...it's hard to blow up false equivalence arguments without losing sight of the real issue, but yours is...combustible. You equate government and academic experts with random attention-seeking nimrods on the internet and tell us that all their opinions are equally valid because heck shucky darn, them scientists wuz wrong, so why should we listen to them now? Dawwwk, hyuk hyuk.

Not one in ten thousand of the goobers who posted covid "advice" on the interblab had any knowledge or anything useful to offer. And people who took them seriously got sick and died. Sorry, Charles, but that's intolerable.

Why isn't "Our rights aren't absolute" standard conservative phrasing as well? It's the fucking truth!

Update:

This temporary injunction in the cited case here has been paused by a higher court " until further orders of the court" ( by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans). This temporary stay was classified as an "administrative stay" and was issued by a panel of three 5th Circuit judges without any comments. A different panel drawn from this court, which has 17 active members, will hear arguments on a longer stay of the injunction. The court called for arguments in this case on an expedited basis ( which may not mean anything, in effect). So..take a hill..lose a hill. We'll see.

Charles: this is where your reasoning is suffering from dry rot. You say "conservatives were shut down." Now, the legitimacy of the ruling basically depended on one of two things, but not the other, being true:

1) The social media posters were shut down because they were all conservatives, and the eeeevil LIBURRUL gummint was on a crusade to crush their God-and-Rudy-given right to noble free speech (yours and the LA court's interpretation);

2) The social media posters were shut down because the disinformation they were spreading was dangerous, and the government was trying to protect the public. The political leanings of the posters didn't enter into it.

I would say that free speech covers political ideology but not disinformation that kills people. And here's the Gordian knot-cutter--in an effort to counter/squelch/stifle disinformation, just because nearly all the purveyors of that disinformation are of the same political leanings, that doesn't mean that said effort is politically targeted.

Your final remark is telling. Do you really see this as truly a free speech issue? Do you think that the (indisputable!) right of people to babble nonsense extends past the point where that nonsense is actively dangerous? And I don't say that its veracity matters--its potential to do harm is what matters.