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

Yes..it's a  free speech issue. I've made that clear from my perch over here. And it won't change..any more than your stance on it will. Which final remark? The take a hill, lose a hill comment? Yeah..it is telling...and true.

Democrats said spreading lies about COVID vaccines was a step too far for free speech,

Republicans said a Bud Light ad with a dude in a dress was a step too far for free speech.

Who wore it better?

Well, isn't that the issue in a nutshell? For liberals, "free speech" means, "as long as it doesn't harm anyone else." For conservatives, it means "unless we don't approve of it."

True advocates of free speech will defend, even passionately, the right of others to say things they disagree with. Conservatives, on the other hand, say that free speech should only be allowed if it doesn't offend their religious/moral/"ethical" (HAHAHAHAHAHA) sensibilities. Charles is apparently on that bandwagon.

But then, conservatives say that you're allowed to gun down someone in cold blood if he looks at you funny. I guess "freedom" is a malleable concept? It doesn't include the right to say what happens to your own body, for example?

So how do you see the government's motivation here? Genuine attempt to protect the public, or anti-conservative witch hunt? (I hope we can have a hiatus wherein that phrase isn't used at all until, say, 2723, but not likely.)

(I could answer that question myself by pointing out that a substantial portion of those who were shut down were in fact liberal commentators, but I don't want to inject logic and rationality into what is clearly an emotional issue for you.)

I guess what I object to is your depiction of this being the forces of good and light (conservatives) nobly defending free speech against the onslaught of the liberal forces of darkness. It does get viewers of the Conserative Babble Channel et al. to put money in the collection plate, though.

Yeah, our church ( properly labeled the Reorganized Church of Conservative Latter Day First Stone Casters) has a lengthy list of expenses; power bills..building fund..new member and convert recruitment expenses..pot luck supper fund to maintain..summer camp funding, constant ongoing pastor and church deacon board replacement fund..etc; we have to have contributors pad the coffers during the current inflationary environment ( the good thing is most of the contributions have historically been legally tax-refundable; under the current administration, that might be reversed, however; but that's just another separate never - ending argument and issue for later engagement) .

Any  liberal commentators / contributors from your religious sect side of the spectrum that were shut down, without knowing any specifics (name them, then we can compare list lengths; you'll lose big time within the scope of this incident ), were wrongfully shut down as well most likely. I think a portion of the government reps who were up to their necks in these decisions may have sincerely thought and believed they were protecting the public..their approach crossed the line, however, according to the free speech clause. Hell, Jesus himself was persecuted / hung for speaking out; so why should we be surprised conservatives ( even liberals for that matter) experience a regular dose of it?  I've already conceded earlier in this thread that there were indeed some conservative-leaning nutjobs who were rightfully silenced; just not to the scale you're defending. Did you look at the court case evidence? Apparently not, but it doesn't matter; again, don't waste your time as that evidence might incite you to set fire to our temple. Do you look good in orange?

There was a portion of your congregation members, however, who didn't want conservative sources questioning their mantra or edicts in any form or fashion whatsoever..so they silenced them in corroboration with SM platforms in order to protect the leaders, philosophies, and power retention efforts of their flock. This entire conflict , imho, epitomizes the need to limit the reach of our government into , not only free speech rights, but any over-intervention in  citizens lives. As a conservative, what else am I going to say? Go back and peruse what the founders said and warned us all about  that issue. Filter through the Federalist Papers as one potential source reference.The latter represents the rock wall this free speech argument between the two factions /religious organizations are historically, currently, and repetitively banging their respective heads against. And, imo,  this argument in and of itself also epitomizes the essence of the free speech clause; again the rights provided by it invite dispute and disagreement. You thought the Crusades were over several centuries ago? Wrong, Margaret. Ascribe to whatever doctrinal sect and philosophies you choose..I'll do the same. Then we can order a hot dog, or something.

The decision to restrict disinformation on social media had nothing to do with ideology, or religion, or anything else other than a concern for the harm said disinformation was causing. Period. But since most of the disinformation sources WERE in fact conservatives, they adopted the tiresome and I guess, inevitable bleat that they were being "persecuted" because of their beliefs.

It's about as disingenuous as the Jan 6 murderers saying that they were being oppressed because of their ideology. Yeah. Not because of what they had done or anything irrelevant like that.

Did you read the opinions in the two Supreme Court cases I cited? It's interesting, because they fundamentally disagree with each other. Not that I view ANY Supreme Court decision as a final, definitive ruling on whatever. The recent horrid anti-abortion ruling is one screaming example. If this case does in fact slither up to SCOTUS, they'll rubber-stamp the lower court's decision, not because of any careful consideration of the law, but from ideology and fealty to the conservative "cause" (belch grunt snort). Hyper-partisan to a shameful degree.

You obviously reject the concept that the restrictions were put into place to protect the public. That's because your masters have taught you to believe that LIBURRULS only care about doing their own special brand of EEEEEEVUL. Fair enough. You are, in fact, allowed to harbor whatever beliefs you wish.

Here's the logic I use, though. Those restrictions were temporary and were lifted after the pandemic passed. If they had been an anti-conservative crusade, they never would have been lifted, right? Right? RIGHT???

(I wouldn't answer that one if I were you.)

Both pious entities ( left and right) exercised  their  rights to free speech in those two separate incidents you referred to. There was a significant portion of right-leaning consumers who bought a lot less Bud Light in that aftermath..we know that was a resulting real consequence for Budweiser. I can't possibly know the real statistical incidence of consequences from the C-19 speech restrictions. And I don't know whom to ask to discover the truthful answer to that. The New York Times editor? The Breitbart editor? Not likely from either. As I've offered previously ( you don't have to accept it), the free speech clause invites disagreement; we see it in action every damned time the news cycle crises evolves from one calamity to the next( every few minutes it seems0. 

It's a tie..both sides win and lose a little..simultaneously. Maybe that's a part of the inevitable democratic republic point. *l*. Carry on, as I'm off to refill my ordinance box for future unknown incursions.

The Right's response was more than boycotting Bud Light.   THe governor of Florida is seeking a lawsuit against that company for that ad.    And thats after he's banned books in school that teach factual black history.  Roberto Clemente's biography is outlawed in FLorida schools now.

And DeSantis is currently revamping the entire curriculum of Florida's public education system to balance the narrative of historical slavery in AMerica with all of the good things that came from that era and those peoples' enslavement.    Because slavery had both good and bad attributes to it according to the good governor.

SO, yeah, maybe you can argue there has been infringements of free speech from both sides in recent years.  But I dont think I'd put equal weight on both sides of that scale.    Democrats corrected lies with their infringement.  Republicans spread lies and division with theirs. 

Charles, we know what the consequences of covid disinformation were, and pretty accurately at that. To wit: let's compare the US to other Western democracies with similar wealth, health care systems, etc. So: Western Europe, Canada, Japan, Australia. (For the sake of fairness, leave out NZ.) Our covid death and hospitalization rates were double those of the abovementioned nations. So we could argue that of our 1,000,000 deaths, 500,000 were preventable.

Then we look for the independent variable. The only salient variable is that of all these nations, the US was the only one with a major political party and the nation's chief executive actively campaigning against covid precautions and restrictions. So: what was the cost of freedumb?

Half a million souls. The harm that the Biden administration tried to stop, or at least mitigate.