Judge rules White House pressured social networks to “suppress free speech”

Re:Judge rules White House pressured social networks to “sup... by ndr on Thursday July 06, 2023 @02:23PM (#36620517)

It's still rooted in evidence, and that evidence doesn't need to be conclusive.

This was to say the injunction is not completely on a whim, agreed on everything else you wrote.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Judge rules White House pressured social networks to “sup... by DannyBee on Thursday July 06, 2023 @03:13PM (#36621284)

Kinda. It depends on whether you mean the legal definition of admissible evidence or just "stuff"

It is mostly meta evidence - statements about what evidence will show at trial. Which assumes it's valid and admissible and actually shows that and ....

In this case, this isn't on a whim but I wouldn't say it's on the evidence either - especially given the consistent misquotes.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Judge rules White House pressured social networks to “sup... by DannyBee on Saturday July 08, 2023 @11:34AM (#36645377)

FYI - Stay request was filed - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.18...

They were not particularly diplomatic on the evidence part: "Additionally, the Court’s conclusion that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment claims fails to properly apply state-action doctrine and ignores the voluminous evidence presented by Defendants that contradicts Plaintiffs’ conclusory allegations."

[ Parent | on HN ]