I did, which is how I know you didn’t. There really wasn’t much there - even Taibbi eventually admitted that – and it requires some real dishonesty to come up with a “hard left” label.
5th circuit court of appeals just had a ruling that this indeed violated the first amendment.
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/23/23-30445-CV0.pd...
You'd think this would be much more prominent in the news.
I note that you aren’t citing examples for a reason. That’s because we both know that’s not accurate way to describe some federal government officials or campaign staff alerting Twitter to posts which clearly violated their terms of service, especially when there are other examples shown where Twitter said no without consequences.
> 5th circuit court of appeals just had a ruling that this violated the first amendment
No, they didn’t. What they did was remove 9 of the 10 injunctions a Trump appointee issued earlier this year:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.18...
The one point they did allow was substantially trimmed back, too: “So, the injunction's language must be further tailored to exclusively target illegal conduct and provide the officials with additional guidance or instruction on what behavior is prohibited.”
I think it’s important to remember that this is one of the most conservative circuit courts in the country with a history of activist rulings, and this case is an election year move by some prominent Republicans to help their party’s presidential candidate, who appointed one of the judges. The fact that even that court trimmed things down so dramatically doesn’t suggest it’s anywhere near as strong as the conservative commenters whose analysis you’re repeating would like.
>5th circuit court of appeals just had a ruling that this indeed violated the first amendment.
"A group of social-media users and two states allege that numerous federal officials coerced social-media platforms into censoring certain social- media content, in violation of the First Amendment. We agree, but only as to some of those officials."
That's on the first page for reference.
Edit: Site says I'm posting to fast, but the provision 6 is a very important provision (pp 69) and the remaining defendants are quite a long list. It seems the pontiffs named everybody they could think of and the judge whittled it down to the ones that are actually violating provision 6 (pp 72-73).
From what I'm reading, the remaining defendants are still under the injunction in regards to provision 6. If that is correct, this is certainly not a "nothing burger" as many in the media are reporting.
https://theconversation.com/im-an-mlk-scholar-and-ill-never-...
Here’s a key difference: being a lousy husband (I include sidelining his wife for sexist reasons) tarnished his reputation but it doesn’t directly undercut the civil rights movement’s primary success. It does call into question the movement calling for equal rights on race but being marginal on gender, and quite a lot has been written about that.
In contrast, most of the damage Musk has done to his reputation has been undercutting the things he’s supposedly good at by demonstrating that he isn’t. His sexual harassment or family feuds are salacious but they didn’t spoil his companies’ reputation the way things like Tesla autopilot or basically everything at Twitter had done.