“The Court finds that the First Amendment claim is unlikely to succeed on the merits because Google and YouTube are not state actors,” wrote Judge Trina Thompson, who was nominated to serve on the Court by Joe Biden in 2021, and confirmed by the U.S. Senate in 2022.
“Second, Plaintiff was not, and will not, be irreparably harmed if a temporary restraining order is not issued because he does not demonstrate urgency or that he will not be able to share his videos through other sites and methods.”
Here is where it gets really bad.
In the ruling, Judge Thompson also argued that even if Kennedy could establish that YouTube is a state actor, the First Amendment does not necessarily protect “medical misinformation.”
Citing previous cases that recognized a public interest consideration in First Amendment cases, Thompson wrote “the coronavirus still poses a health risk to certain individuals, and it would not serve the public interest to let medical misinformation proliferate on YouTube.”
“The Court finds...Google and YouTube are not state actors...
(X) Doubt
“Second, Plaintiff was not, and will not, be irreparably harmed...
Absolute bullshit.
...he does not demonstrate urgency
He's running for fucking president, you hack judge.
... or that he will not be able to share his videos through other sites and methods.”
Completely fucking irrelevant. So fucking stupid. So, say they were a state actor. Now Congress may abridge speech, as long as not all government entities abridge speech? This is fucking peak retard, and I'm deeply offended. Dis bitch, man.
...the First Amendment does not necessarily protect “medical misinformation.”
Death penalty. Fucking death penalty. To quote the Most Popular President Ever...“We’ve been patient, but our patience is wearing thin.”
Citing previous cases that recognized a public interest consideration...
Fuck public consideration. Fuck it hard.
...Thompson wrote “the coronavirus still poses a health risk to certain individuals, and it would not serve the public interest to let medical misinformation proliferate on YouTube.”
Ah, yes, the Constitutional clause, "unless there's a flu going around."
Dude, I'm legitimately outraged at this nonsense. More so than usual. This is just...wow. Wow.
Oh, and of course she's a diversity hire. Fuck this regime, man.
if I remember correctly from my con law class in high school, the first amendment indeed does not cover lies. all they have to do is claim that he is lying or spreading false truths and they can censor whatever they want. it doesn't matter if the person they are censoring believes they are telling the truth, let alone that what they're saying is actually the truth. if they can convince a judge that you are lying, they have plausible deniability to revoke your first amendment rights.
if I remember correctly from my con law class in high school, the first amendment indeed does not cover lies. all they have to do is claim that he is lying or spreading false truths and they can censor whatever they want. it doesn't matter if the person they are censoring believes they are telling the truth, let alone that what they're saying is actually the truth. if they can convince a judge that you are lying, they have plausible deniability to revoke your first amendment rights.
Actually, I believe that is incorrect. In 2012, United States vs Alvarez, the Supreme Court struck down the so-called Stolen Valor act (which made it illegal to lie about having received military medals), saying that it violated free speech provisions.
Can't recall if they ruled on anything else in the past decade that overturned that, but going off Alvarez you can lie and have it covered under free speech.
Here is where it gets really bad.
Astonishing.
(X) Doubt
Absolute bullshit.
He's running for fucking president, you hack judge.
Completely fucking irrelevant. So fucking stupid. So, say they were a state actor. Now Congress may abridge speech, as long as not all government entities abridge speech? This is fucking peak retard, and I'm deeply offended. Dis bitch, man.
Death penalty. Fucking death penalty. To quote the Most Popular President Ever...“We’ve been patient, but our patience is wearing thin.”
Fuck public consideration. Fuck it hard.
Ah, yes, the Constitutional clause, "unless there's a flu going around."
Dude, I'm legitimately outraged at this nonsense. More so than usual. This is just...wow. Wow.
Oh, and of course she's a diversity hire. Fuck this regime, man.
Every woman judge is a diversity hire.
Well in that case she's a double diversity hire. At least. I wonder if she's gay or something too...
I hope he can appeal because that would be a terrible precedent.
If anything, that's an understatement. This is "Tree of Liberty is looking a little parched, ain't it?" territory.
Holy shit I'm mad.
if I remember correctly from my con law class in high school, the first amendment indeed does not cover lies. all they have to do is claim that he is lying or spreading false truths and they can censor whatever they want. it doesn't matter if the person they are censoring believes they are telling the truth, let alone that what they're saying is actually the truth. if they can convince a judge that you are lying, they have plausible deniability to revoke your first amendment rights.
fuck DC, fuck California, and fuck fed jannies
Actually, I believe that is incorrect. In 2012, United States vs Alvarez, the Supreme Court struck down the so-called Stolen Valor act (which made it illegal to lie about having received military medals), saying that it violated free speech provisions.
Can't recall if they ruled on anything else in the past decade that overturned that, but going off Alvarez you can lie and have it covered under free speech.
Where does it say in the constitution anything about not protecting lies? None of the constitutional "exceptions" were meant to be there.
Court precedent
That’s not constitutional.
Your "teacher" was woefully fucking misinformed to the point of treason.
I never said what I posted was a good thing, it's just how they operate and it's disgusting.
Those are NOT lies.