DHS Creating "Disinformation Governance Board"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has there been a moment in history where foreign adversaries used our first amendment speech against our democracy so prolifically and aggressively?
Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
What about opinions propagated with the express purpose of destroying our way of life?
Are they damaging enough?
What about opinions spread for the express purpose of getting millions of Americans killed? Or for causing a catastrophic collapse of our healthcare system?
Is all of that protected speech?
I haven’t noticed this current administration use military force to stop citizens from exercising their first amendment rights…
I did see that with the last administration.
No one is currently stopping anyone from petitioning the government. I have no reason to believe a second Trump administration wouldn’t attack the people, just as he did his first time in office.
My first amendment right seem far safer with our current executive branch.

You are going to need to show your work for this claim (bolded).

And petitioning the government is not what this topic is covering. We are discussing government deciding to if something is "disinformation" as a way of censoring it. Disinformation is still covered by 1A.

For all the democrats that claim to be the most educated and smartest people in the room, you are really struggling with understanding the basic concept of our First Amendment rights.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2020/06/08/timeline-trump-church-photo-op/

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trump-barr-used-loophole-deploy-national-guard-u-s-cities-ncna1236034

There is plenty online, but honestly you shouldn’t have memory holed this to begin with, not if you are a proponent of free speech.
And disinformation, when used as a weapon against our national security isn’t protected.
Telling Americans to get not get vaccinated , in order to kill us, collapse our healthcare system, and cause chaos isn’t protected speech.

Please post the 1A case on point or stfu.

Don’t move the goalposts now. We are discussing free speech. Here is an example of Trump using the military against citizens exercising their right to peacefully protest.
If that bothers you, well good. It should bother you. Vote accordingly.

Not the topic of discussion. We are talking about Biden's Ministry of Truth and the censorship he has engaged in by proxy with SM.

And there are guardrails around when and where people can protest.

Not familiar with Biden censoring any citizens..
I AM familiar with Trump trying to censoring people on Twitter.
Are you confusing Biden with Trump?

https://thehill.com/policy/technology/3849819-trump-asked-twitter-to-take-down-derogatory-tweet-from-chrissy-teigen-whistleblower/amp/

Let me explain it to you like you are 5.

The SAME consitutional principles that prevent Trump from unduly coercing Twitter to remove a Chrissy Tiegen tweet apply to the Biden administration unduly coercing Twitter to remove tweets it didn’t like about the Hunter laptop.

Crazy I know!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has there been a moment in history where foreign adversaries used our first amendment speech against our democracy so prolifically and aggressively?
Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
What about opinions propagated with the express purpose of destroying our way of life?
Are they damaging enough?
What about opinions spread for the express purpose of getting millions of Americans killed? Or for causing a catastrophic collapse of our healthcare system?
Is all of that protected speech?
I haven’t noticed this current administration use military force to stop citizens from exercising their first amendment rights…
I did see that with the last administration.
No one is currently stopping anyone from petitioning the government. I have no reason to believe a second Trump administration wouldn’t attack the people, just as he did his first time in office.
My first amendment right seem far safer with our current executive branch.

Perhaps that is because your opinion and views are in line with this administration.

No, it’s because the guy that ran the last administration is bragging that he will invoke the Insurrection Act to put US military in the streets to quell the inevitable protests if he wins again.

We have a binary choice ahead of us.
One guy has already retaliated against protesters with the force of the military
And promises to do it again.
The other guys asked Twitter to pretty please not post Russian psyops against our citizens.
Those are the choices

Nice spin. And, when was the force of the military used? Was that during the riots of 2020? IOW - justified use?

Biden admin censored the speech of citizens..... not Russians

Spin? I’m embarrassed you are so uninformed.
Trump used force to clear peaceful protesters. He used the military to do it. You should be outraged.
The Rosenbergs were citizens too. Hansen was a citizen.

yes and Trump’s actions are exactly why we need strong 1A protections. still stumped as to why you don’t get this. is your view that 1A jurisprudence should expressly favor Democrat’s political speech? Because legally, there is not all that much difference between Stacy Abrams claiming her election was stolen and the “big lie” claims, at least as far as speech alone goes.

How am I arguing against 1A? I’m not.
But foreign agents have never had 1A protections. Why do you want them protected now? Is it because you find it politically advantageous?
Did Stacy Abram’s foment violence and attempt to subvert democracy? She did not. She sought redress in the courts, and was publicly critical. That’s how it works. That’s ok.
Coercing state officials to throw out votes is not free speech. Inciting a riot is never free speech. Inciting a riot with the express purpose of subverting a legal and fair election? Not protected speech.
I’m not ok with our government allowing foreign adversaries to harm us. They are supposed to provide for the national defense. A catastrophic collapse of our heath care system is a legitimate threat to our national security. Americans can be unknowing patsies, but they are still hurting our national security, and it’s the job of our government to protect us from that.
Freedom of speech is the bedrock of our democracy.
Allowing foreign enemies to pervert that right and use it as a tool to destroy the very fabric of our existence can’t be acceptable.

you’re assuming a whole lot here. nobody is arguing that you can’t prosecute spies. the kinds of statements that were arguably censored were not from “foreign adversaries.” questioning the covid vaccine does not make you a “foreign adversary.”

If you are sharing and amplifying Kremlin talking points, you are aiding a foreign adversary. You may not realize you are doing it, but the result and damage is the same.

Again please post a 1A case or statute on point. I assume that if there was something like a coded spy message people were unknowingly reposting, it could be removed. But the problem is the vagueness of “talking points” and “amplifying.” The Kremlin (and of course the US does this too) may try to exploit existing divisions in society. Just because there may be Kremlin propaganda on an issue does not mean the government can censor all speech on that issue. Obviously.

I read tons of trash re: vaccinesBAD! When was it verboten to discuss vaccines after Biden took office? Where has any topic been forbidden?

Do some research. Read up on Missouri v Biden. Lots of information there about government censorship under Biden.

I’ve been reading. It’s not a great ruling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has there been a moment in history where foreign adversaries used our first amendment speech against our democracy so prolifically and aggressively?
Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
What about opinions propagated with the express purpose of destroying our way of life?
Are they damaging enough?
What about opinions spread for the express purpose of getting millions of Americans killed? Or for causing a catastrophic collapse of our healthcare system?
Is all of that protected speech?
I haven’t noticed this current administration use military force to stop citizens from exercising their first amendment rights…
I did see that with the last administration.
No one is currently stopping anyone from petitioning the government. I have no reason to believe a second Trump administration wouldn’t attack the people, just as he did his first time in office.
My first amendment right seem far safer with our current executive branch.

Perhaps that is because your opinion and views are in line with this administration.

No, it’s because the guy that ran the last administration is bragging that he will invoke the Insurrection Act to put US military in the streets to quell the inevitable protests if he wins again.

We have a binary choice ahead of us.
One guy has already retaliated against protesters with the force of the military
And promises to do it again.
The other guys asked Twitter to pretty please not post Russian psyops against our citizens.
Those are the choices

Nice spin. And, when was the force of the military used? Was that during the riots of 2020? IOW - justified use?

Biden admin censored the speech of citizens..... not Russians

Spin? I’m embarrassed you are so uninformed.
Trump used force to clear peaceful protesters. He used the military to do it. You should be outraged.
The Rosenbergs were citizens too. Hansen was a citizen.

yes and Trump’s actions are exactly why we need strong 1A protections. still stumped as to why you don’t get this. is your view that 1A jurisprudence should expressly favor Democrat’s political speech? Because legally, there is not all that much difference between Stacy Abrams claiming her election was stolen and the “big lie” claims, at least as far as speech alone goes.

How am I arguing against 1A? I’m not.
But foreign agents have never had 1A protections. Why do you want them protected now? Is it because you find it politically advantageous?
Did Stacy Abram’s foment violence and attempt to subvert democracy? She did not. She sought redress in the courts, and was publicly critical. That’s how it works. That’s ok.
Coercing state officials to throw out votes is not free speech. Inciting a riot is never free speech. Inciting a riot with the express purpose of subverting a legal and fair election? Not protected speech.
I’m not ok with our government allowing foreign adversaries to harm us. They are supposed to provide for the national defense. A catastrophic collapse of our heath care system is a legitimate threat to our national security. Americans can be unknowing patsies, but they are still hurting our national security, and it’s the job of our government to protect us from that.
Freedom of speech is the bedrock of our democracy.
Allowing foreign enemies to pervert that right and use it as a tool to destroy the very fabric of our existence can’t be acceptable.

you’re assuming a whole lot here. nobody is arguing that you can’t prosecute spies. the kinds of statements that were arguably censored were not from “foreign adversaries.” questioning the covid vaccine does not make you a “foreign adversary.”

If you are sharing and amplifying Kremlin talking points, you are aiding a foreign adversary. You may not realize you are doing it, but the result and damage is the same.

Since the Kremlin doesn't publish all their talking points, anything you label a Kremlin talking point should be censored?

Are you aware we have an intelligence service? We have a national security apparatus. We have career professionals who doggedly remain apolitical doing tireless work on our behalf.
Anything I label? No. I’m just an internet rando.

The same intelligence services that were certain about WMDs in Iraq? The same intelligence services that said COVID might have come from a Wuhan lab?

https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Declassified-Assessment-on-COVID-19-Origins.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Covid truths" like microchips and mind control 😆

The PP who thinks she's on the righteous side of truth and justice for continually yammering on about "yabut covid came from China" sounds like a master of the obvious but an absolute idiot.

You know damn well that very few people bought into the microchips or mind control (that is a new one to me).

We do know that, among other things, Covid likely came from a lab; having the vaccine does not prevent one from spreading the virus; masks are not effective in stopping the spread of Covid; Hydroxychloroquine is associated with lower Covid mortality in a recent French study; there are side effects associated with the vaccine - myocarditis and irregular menstrual bleeding being just two; and the laptop does belong to Hunter Biden.

Many of the statements above were censored on social media - and in media in general.

Start here: https://voterga.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Press-Release-GA-Supreme-Court-Rules-VoterGA-Petitioners-Have-Standing.pdf
Polling shows 70% of Republicans believe the "election was stolen" LIE.

It's a LIE. And it was directly responsible for the violence of J6. It was a violent, destructive lie that got people killed.

Stop with your LIES that "very few people believe that stuff."

Stop pretending that it's all free fair game to tell whatever lies you like no matter the consequences. You are part of the problem.

So, claiming that the election was stolen or illegitimate is speech that should be censored? Is that what you are saying?

There was very little actual censoring even going on. The right wing freaked out over fact checks while leaving the content uncensored. Outraged over the lies being called out.

However when there is damage, destruction, loss of life caused by a lie, those central to the lie should be held accountable. IMHO Trump, Stone and others should be prosecuted as accessory to murder over J6.

Dp- is fraud protected speech?

Fraudulent statements are speech that the government can take narrowly tailored measure to prohibit & prosecute. But an overly broad interpretation of fraud would run into 1A problems. For example a doctor posting online questioning the efficacy of the covid vaccine and paxlovid could not be prosecuted for “fraud” under an attenuated theory like that she would benefit from increased sick patients. But generally the state & federal fraud statutes require a high level of causaility and intention - so it’s going to be rare that there is a 1A issue.

this is a good summary of unprotected speech: https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/unprotected-speech-synopsis

Bottom line is there is no "absolute" freedom of speech as claimed upthread and there are in fact many types of speech which are illegal. Those goal posts are already moved.

Speech directly threatening to kill or harm someone is a felony in most US jurisdictions. So why wouldn't speech that does in fact result in someone getting killed be completely exempt and unimpeachable? Trump's Big Lie got people killed. Anti-vaxxer lies got people killed.

Again, we aren't talking about "you want to censor conservatives" bullshit. Since when does being a conservative require you to tell lies that get people killed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has there been a moment in history where foreign adversaries used our first amendment speech against our democracy so prolifically and aggressively?
Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
What about opinions propagated with the express purpose of destroying our way of life?
Are they damaging enough?
What about opinions spread for the express purpose of getting millions of Americans killed? Or for causing a catastrophic collapse of our healthcare system?
Is all of that protected speech?
I haven’t noticed this current administration use military force to stop citizens from exercising their first amendment rights…
I did see that with the last administration.
No one is currently stopping anyone from petitioning the government. I have no reason to believe a second Trump administration wouldn’t attack the people, just as he did his first time in office.
My first amendment right seem far safer with our current executive branch.

You are going to need to show your work for this claim (bolded).

And petitioning the government is not what this topic is covering. We are discussing government deciding to if something is "disinformation" as a way of censoring it. Disinformation is still covered by 1A.

For all the democrats that claim to be the most educated and smartest people in the room, you are really struggling with understanding the basic concept of our First Amendment rights.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2020/06/08/timeline-trump-church-photo-op/

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trump-barr-used-loophole-deploy-national-guard-u-s-cities-ncna1236034

There is plenty online, but honestly you shouldn’t have memory holed this to begin with, not if you are a proponent of free speech.
And disinformation, when used as a weapon against our national security isn’t protected.
Telling Americans to get not get vaccinated , in order to kill us, collapse our healthcare system, and cause chaos isn’t protected speech.

Please post the 1A case on point or stfu.

Don’t move the goalposts now. We are discussing free speech. Here is an example of Trump using the military against citizens exercising their right to peacefully protest.
If that bothers you, well good. It should bother you. Vote accordingly.

Not the topic of discussion. We are talking about Biden's Ministry of Truth and the censorship he has engaged in by proxy with SM.

And there are guardrails around when and where people can protest.

Not familiar with Biden censoring any citizens..
I AM familiar with Trump trying to censoring people on Twitter.
Are you confusing Biden with Trump?

https://thehill.com/policy/technology/3849819-trump-asked-twitter-to-take-down-derogatory-tweet-from-chrissy-teigen-whistleblower/amp/

Let me explain it to you like you are 5.

The SAME consitutional principles that prevent Trump from unduly coercing Twitter to remove a Chrissy Tiegen tweet apply to the Biden administration unduly coercing Twitter to remove tweets it didn’t like about the Hunter laptop.

Crazy I know!

Who did Chrissy Tiegen or Hunter's laptop kill? Can we at least stick to toxic lies that DID get people killed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Covid truths" like microchips and mind control 😆

The PP who thinks she's on the righteous side of truth and justice for continually yammering on about "yabut covid came from China" sounds like a master of the obvious but an absolute idiot.

You know damn well that very few people bought into the microchips or mind control (that is a new one to me).

We do know that, among other things, Covid likely came from a lab; having the vaccine does not prevent one from spreading the virus; masks are not effective in stopping the spread of Covid; Hydroxychloroquine is associated with lower Covid mortality in a recent French study; there are side effects associated with the vaccine - myocarditis and irregular menstrual bleeding being just two; and the laptop does belong to Hunter Biden.

Many of the statements above were censored on social media - and in media in general.

Start here: https://voterga.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Press-Release-GA-Supreme-Court-Rules-VoterGA-Petitioners-Have-Standing.pdf
Polling shows 70% of Republicans believe the "election was stolen" LIE.

It's a LIE. And it was directly responsible for the violence of J6. It was a violent, destructive lie that got people killed.

Stop with your LIES that "very few people believe that stuff."

Stop pretending that it's all free fair game to tell whatever lies you like no matter the consequences. You are part of the problem.

So, claiming that the election was stolen or illegitimate is speech that should be censored? Is that what you are saying?

There was very little actual censoring even going on. The right wing freaked out over fact checks while leaving the content uncensored. Outraged over the lies being called out.

However when there is damage, destruction, loss of life caused by a lie, those central to the lie should be held accountable. IMHO Trump, Stone and others should be prosecuted as accessory to murder over J6.

Dp- is fraud protected speech?

Fraudulent statements are speech that the government can take narrowly tailored measure to prohibit & prosecute. But an overly broad interpretation of fraud would run into 1A problems. For example a doctor posting online questioning the efficacy of the covid vaccine and paxlovid could not be prosecuted for “fraud” under an attenuated theory like that she would benefit from increased sick patients. But generally the state & federal fraud statutes require a high level of causaility and intention - so it’s going to be rare that there is a 1A issue.

this is a good summary of unprotected speech: https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/unprotected-speech-synopsis

Bottom line is there is no "absolute" freedom of speech as claimed upthread and there are in fact many types of speech which are illegal. Those goal posts are already moved.

Speech directly threatening to kill or harm someone is a felony in most US jurisdictions. So why wouldn't speech that does in fact result in someone getting killed be completely exempt and unimpeachable? Trump's Big Lie got people killed. Anti-vaxxer lies got people killed.

Again, we aren't talking about "you want to censor conservatives" bullshit. Since when does being a conservative require you to tell lies that get people killed?

Because your take on how speech “got people killed” is incredibly attenuated and is far, far from passing 1A scrutiny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has there been a moment in history where foreign adversaries used our first amendment speech against our democracy so prolifically and aggressively?
Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
What about opinions propagated with the express purpose of destroying our way of life?
Are they damaging enough?
What about opinions spread for the express purpose of getting millions of Americans killed? Or for causing a catastrophic collapse of our healthcare system?
Is all of that protected speech?
I haven’t noticed this current administration use military force to stop citizens from exercising their first amendment rights…
I did see that with the last administration.
No one is currently stopping anyone from petitioning the government. I have no reason to believe a second Trump administration wouldn’t attack the people, just as he did his first time in office.
My first amendment right seem far safer with our current executive branch.

You are going to need to show your work for this claim (bolded).

And petitioning the government is not what this topic is covering. We are discussing government deciding to if something is "disinformation" as a way of censoring it. Disinformation is still covered by 1A.

For all the democrats that claim to be the most educated and smartest people in the room, you are really struggling with understanding the basic concept of our First Amendment rights.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2020/06/08/timeline-trump-church-photo-op/

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trump-barr-used-loophole-deploy-national-guard-u-s-cities-ncna1236034

There is plenty online, but honestly you shouldn’t have memory holed this to begin with, not if you are a proponent of free speech.
And disinformation, when used as a weapon against our national security isn’t protected.
Telling Americans to get not get vaccinated , in order to kill us, collapse our healthcare system, and cause chaos isn’t protected speech.

Please post the 1A case on point or stfu.

Don’t move the goalposts now. We are discussing free speech. Here is an example of Trump using the military against citizens exercising their right to peacefully protest.
If that bothers you, well good. It should bother you. Vote accordingly.

Not the topic of discussion. We are talking about Biden's Ministry of Truth and the censorship he has engaged in by proxy with SM.

And there are guardrails around when and where people can protest.

Not familiar with Biden censoring any citizens..
I AM familiar with Trump trying to censoring people on Twitter.
Are you confusing Biden with Trump?

https://thehill.com/policy/technology/3849819-trump-asked-twitter-to-take-down-derogatory-tweet-from-chrissy-teigen-whistleblower/amp/

Let me explain it to you like you are 5.

The SAME consitutional principles that prevent Trump from unduly coercing Twitter to remove a Chrissy Tiegen tweet apply to the Biden administration unduly coercing Twitter to remove tweets it didn’t like about the Hunter laptop.

Crazy I know!

Who did Chrissy Tiegen or Hunter's laptop kill? Can we at least stick to toxic lies that DID get people killed?

I think you might feel calmer if you actually informed yourself about how the 1A handles “dangerous” speech. https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/core-first-amendment-rights-are-implicated-in-this-supreme-court-case-about-true-threats

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has there been a moment in history where foreign adversaries used our first amendment speech against our democracy so prolifically and aggressively?
Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
What about opinions propagated with the express purpose of destroying our way of life?
Are they damaging enough?
What about opinions spread for the express purpose of getting millions of Americans killed? Or for causing a catastrophic collapse of our healthcare system?
Is all of that protected speech?
I haven’t noticed this current administration use military force to stop citizens from exercising their first amendment rights…
I did see that with the last administration.
No one is currently stopping anyone from petitioning the government. I have no reason to believe a second Trump administration wouldn’t attack the people, just as he did his first time in office.
My first amendment right seem far safer with our current executive branch.

You are going to need to show your work for this claim (bolded).

And petitioning the government is not what this topic is covering. We are discussing government deciding to if something is "disinformation" as a way of censoring it. Disinformation is still covered by 1A.

For all the democrats that claim to be the most educated and smartest people in the room, you are really struggling with understanding the basic concept of our First Amendment rights.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2020/06/08/timeline-trump-church-photo-op/

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trump-barr-used-loophole-deploy-national-guard-u-s-cities-ncna1236034

There is plenty online, but honestly you shouldn’t have memory holed this to begin with, not if you are a proponent of free speech.
And disinformation, when used as a weapon against our national security isn’t protected.
Telling Americans to get not get vaccinated , in order to kill us, collapse our healthcare system, and cause chaos isn’t protected speech.

Please post the 1A case on point or stfu.

Don’t move the goalposts now. We are discussing free speech. Here is an example of Trump using the military against citizens exercising their right to peacefully protest.
If that bothers you, well good. It should bother you. Vote accordingly.

Not the topic of discussion. We are talking about Biden's Ministry of Truth and the censorship he has engaged in by proxy with SM.

And there are guardrails around when and where people can protest.

Not familiar with Biden censoring any citizens..
I AM familiar with Trump trying to censoring people on Twitter.
Are you confusing Biden with Trump?

https://thehill.com/policy/technology/3849819-trump-asked-twitter-to-take-down-derogatory-tweet-from-chrissy-teigen-whistleblower/amp/

Let me explain it to you like you are 5.

The SAME consitutional principles that prevent Trump from unduly coercing Twitter to remove a Chrissy Tiegen tweet apply to the Biden administration unduly coercing Twitter to remove tweets it didn’t like about the Hunter laptop.

Crazy I know!

There was no Biden administration when the laptop was be “censored”. That was the Trump administration

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Covid truths" like microchips and mind control 😆

The PP who thinks she's on the righteous side of truth and justice for continually yammering on about "yabut covid came from China" sounds like a master of the obvious but an absolute idiot.

You know damn well that very few people bought into the microchips or mind control (that is a new one to me).

We do know that, among other things, Covid likely came from a lab; having the vaccine does not prevent one from spreading the virus; masks are not effective in stopping the spread of Covid; Hydroxychloroquine is associated with lower Covid mortality in a recent French study; there are side effects associated with the vaccine - myocarditis and irregular menstrual bleeding being just two; and the laptop does belong to Hunter Biden.

Many of the statements above were censored on social media - and in media in general.

Start here: https://voterga.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Press-Release-GA-Supreme-Court-Rules-VoterGA-Petitioners-Have-Standing.pdf
Polling shows 70% of Republicans believe the "election was stolen" LIE.

It's a LIE. And it was directly responsible for the violence of J6. It was a violent, destructive lie that got people killed.

Stop with your LIES that "very few people believe that stuff."

Stop pretending that it's all free fair game to tell whatever lies you like no matter the consequences. You are part of the problem.

So, claiming that the election was stolen or illegitimate is speech that should be censored? Is that what you are saying?

There was very little actual censoring even going on. The right wing freaked out over fact checks while leaving the content uncensored. Outraged over the lies being called out.

However when there is damage, destruction, loss of life caused by a lie, those central to the lie should be held accountable. IMHO Trump, Stone and others should be prosecuted as accessory to murder over J6.

Dp- is fraud protected speech?

Fraudulent statements are speech that the government can take narrowly tailored measure to prohibit & prosecute. But an overly broad interpretation of fraud would run into 1A problems. For example a doctor posting online questioning the efficacy of the covid vaccine and paxlovid could not be prosecuted for “fraud” under an attenuated theory like that she would benefit from increased sick patients. But generally the state & federal fraud statutes require a high level of causaility and intention - so it’s going to be rare that there is a 1A issue.

this is a good summary of unprotected speech: https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/unprotected-speech-synopsis

Bottom line is there is no "absolute" freedom of speech as claimed upthread and there are in fact many types of speech which are illegal. Those goal posts are already moved.

Speech directly threatening to kill or harm someone is a felony in most US jurisdictions. So why wouldn't speech that does in fact result in someone getting killed be completely exempt and unimpeachable? Trump's Big Lie got people killed. Anti-vaxxer lies got people killed.

Again, we aren't talking about "you want to censor conservatives" bullshit. Since when does being a conservative require you to tell lies that get people killed?

Because your take on how speech “got people killed” is incredibly attenuated and is far, far from passing 1A scrutiny.

1 million dead Americans disagree with this post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Covid truths" like microchips and mind control 😆

The PP who thinks she's on the righteous side of truth and justice for continually yammering on about "yabut covid came from China" sounds like a master of the obvious but an absolute idiot.

You know damn well that very few people bought into the microchips or mind control (that is a new one to me).

We do know that, among other things, Covid likely came from a lab; having the vaccine does not prevent one from spreading the virus; masks are not effective in stopping the spread of Covid; Hydroxychloroquine is associated with lower Covid mortality in a recent French study; there are side effects associated with the vaccine - myocarditis and irregular menstrual bleeding being just two; and the laptop does belong to Hunter Biden.

Many of the statements above were censored on social media - and in media in general.

Start here: https://voterga.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Press-Release-GA-Supreme-Court-Rules-VoterGA-Petitioners-Have-Standing.pdf
Polling shows 70% of Republicans believe the "election was stolen" LIE.

It's a LIE. And it was directly responsible for the violence of J6. It was a violent, destructive lie that got people killed.

Stop with your LIES that "very few people believe that stuff."

Stop pretending that it's all free fair game to tell whatever lies you like no matter the consequences. You are part of the problem.

So, claiming that the election was stolen or illegitimate is speech that should be censored? Is that what you are saying?

There was very little actual censoring even going on. The right wing freaked out over fact checks while leaving the content uncensored. Outraged over the lies being called out.

However when there is damage, destruction, loss of life caused by a lie, those central to the lie should be held accountable. IMHO Trump, Stone and others should be prosecuted as accessory to murder over J6.

Dp- is fraud protected speech?

Fraudulent statements are speech that the government can take narrowly tailored measure to prohibit & prosecute. But an overly broad interpretation of fraud would run into 1A problems. For example a doctor posting online questioning the efficacy of the covid vaccine and paxlovid could not be prosecuted for “fraud” under an attenuated theory like that she would benefit from increased sick patients. But generally the state & federal fraud statutes require a high level of causaility and intention - so it’s going to be rare that there is a 1A issue.

this is a good summary of unprotected speech: https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/unprotected-speech-synopsis

Bottom line is there is no "absolute" freedom of speech as claimed upthread and there are in fact many types of speech which are illegal. Those goal posts are already moved.

Speech directly threatening to kill or harm someone is a felony in most US jurisdictions. So why wouldn't speech that does in fact result in someone getting killed be completely exempt and unimpeachable? Trump's Big Lie got people killed. Anti-vaxxer lies got people killed.

Again, we aren't talking about "you want to censor conservatives" bullshit. Since when does being a conservative require you to tell lies that get people killed?

Because your take on how speech “got people killed” is incredibly attenuated and is far, far from passing 1A scrutiny.

1 million dead Americans disagree with this post.

So, I am no longer allowed to disagree with the government health policies?

The same government that decided saturated fat was bad and a low fat, high sugar diet is fine?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9794145/

Hiow many millions has this killed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Covid truths" like microchips and mind control 😆

The PP who thinks she's on the righteous side of truth and justice for continually yammering on about "yabut covid came from China" sounds like a master of the obvious but an absolute idiot.

You know damn well that very few people bought into the microchips or mind control (that is a new one to me).

We do know that, among other things, Covid likely came from a lab; having the vaccine does not prevent one from spreading the virus; masks are not effective in stopping the spread of Covid; Hydroxychloroquine is associated with lower Covid mortality in a recent French study; there are side effects associated with the vaccine - myocarditis and irregular menstrual bleeding being just two; and the laptop does belong to Hunter Biden.

Many of the statements above were censored on social media - and in media in general.

Start here: https://voterga.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Press-Release-GA-Supreme-Court-Rules-VoterGA-Petitioners-Have-Standing.pdf
Polling shows 70% of Republicans believe the "election was stolen" LIE.

It's a LIE. And it was directly responsible for the violence of J6. It was a violent, destructive lie that got people killed.

Stop with your LIES that "very few people believe that stuff."

Stop pretending that it's all free fair game to tell whatever lies you like no matter the consequences. You are part of the problem.

So, claiming that the election was stolen or illegitimate is speech that should be censored? Is that what you are saying?

There was very little actual censoring even going on. The right wing freaked out over fact checks while leaving the content uncensored. Outraged over the lies being called out.

However when there is damage, destruction, loss of life caused by a lie, those central to the lie should be held accountable. IMHO Trump, Stone and others should be prosecuted as accessory to murder over J6.

Dp- is fraud protected speech?

Fraudulent statements are speech that the government can take narrowly tailored measure to prohibit & prosecute. But an overly broad interpretation of fraud would run into 1A problems. For example a doctor posting online questioning the efficacy of the covid vaccine and paxlovid could not be prosecuted for “fraud” under an attenuated theory like that she would benefit from increased sick patients. But generally the state & federal fraud statutes require a high level of causaility and intention - so it’s going to be rare that there is a 1A issue.

this is a good summary of unprotected speech: https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/unprotected-speech-synopsis

Bottom line is there is no "absolute" freedom of speech as claimed upthread and there are in fact many types of speech which are illegal. Those goal posts are already moved.

Speech directly threatening to kill or harm someone is a felony in most US jurisdictions. So why wouldn't speech that does in fact result in someone getting killed be completely exempt and unimpeachable? Trump's Big Lie got people killed. Anti-vaxxer lies got people killed.

Again, we aren't talking about "you want to censor conservatives" bullshit. Since when does being a conservative require you to tell lies that get people killed?

Because your take on how speech “got people killed” is incredibly attenuated and is far, far from passing 1A scrutiny.

1 million dead Americans disagree with this post.

So, I am no longer allowed to disagree with the government health policies?

The same government that decided saturated fat was bad and a low fat, high sugar diet is fine?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9794145/

Hiow many millions has this killed?

Disagree all you like. Tons of people disagreed during the height of Covid.
But this case is going to the Supreme Court and the fifth circuit has made a mess of it.
There has been no evidence the Biden WH coerced anyone. The government has a first amendment right as well. The government is allowed an opinion both public AND private.
They can and should share information with companies in the interest of public safety and national security.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Covid truths" like microchips and mind control 😆

The PP who thinks she's on the righteous side of truth and justice for continually yammering on about "yabut covid came from China" sounds like a master of the obvious but an absolute idiot.

You know damn well that very few people bought into the microchips or mind control (that is a new one to me).

We do know that, among other things, Covid likely came from a lab; having the vaccine does not prevent one from spreading the virus; masks are not effective in stopping the spread of Covid; Hydroxychloroquine is associated with lower Covid mortality in a recent French study; there are side effects associated with the vaccine - myocarditis and irregular menstrual bleeding being just two; and the laptop does belong to Hunter Biden.

Many of the statements above were censored on social media - and in media in general.

Start here: https://voterga.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Press-Release-GA-Supreme-Court-Rules-VoterGA-Petitioners-Have-Standing.pdf
Polling shows 70% of Republicans believe the "election was stolen" LIE.

It's a LIE. And it was directly responsible for the violence of J6. It was a violent, destructive lie that got people killed.

Stop with your LIES that "very few people believe that stuff."

Stop pretending that it's all free fair game to tell whatever lies you like no matter the consequences. You are part of the problem.

So, claiming that the election was stolen or illegitimate is speech that should be censored? Is that what you are saying?

There was very little actual censoring even going on. The right wing freaked out over fact checks while leaving the content uncensored. Outraged over the lies being called out.

However when there is damage, destruction, loss of life caused by a lie, those central to the lie should be held accountable. IMHO Trump, Stone and others should be prosecuted as accessory to murder over J6.

Dp- is fraud protected speech?

Fraudulent statements are speech that the government can take narrowly tailored measure to prohibit & prosecute. But an overly broad interpretation of fraud would run into 1A problems. For example a doctor posting online questioning the efficacy of the covid vaccine and paxlovid could not be prosecuted for “fraud” under an attenuated theory like that she would benefit from increased sick patients. But generally the state & federal fraud statutes require a high level of causaility and intention - so it’s going to be rare that there is a 1A issue.

this is a good summary of unprotected speech: https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/unprotected-speech-synopsis

Bottom line is there is no "absolute" freedom of speech as claimed upthread and there are in fact many types of speech which are illegal. Those goal posts are already moved.

Speech directly threatening to kill or harm someone is a felony in most US jurisdictions. So why wouldn't speech that does in fact result in someone getting killed be completely exempt and unimpeachable? Trump's Big Lie got people killed. Anti-vaxxer lies got people killed.

Again, we aren't talking about "you want to censor conservatives" bullshit. Since when does being a conservative require you to tell lies that get people killed?

Because your take on how speech “got people killed” is incredibly attenuated and is far, far from passing 1A scrutiny.

1 million dead Americans disagree with this post.

So, I am no longer allowed to disagree with the government health policies?

The same government that decided saturated fat was bad and a low fat, high sugar diet is fine?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9794145/

Hiow many millions has this killed?

Seems to me that you don't understand how science works. Maybe you are used to things like religious dogma where there are supposed eternal truths or something, and that any time something to the contrary is shown it's somehow a big lie that was orchestrated from the start?

Seems you also are confusing government with science as well.

We learn new things about nutrition all the time. But science being science, often comes across as murky, often with seemingly conflicting and contradictory information, because most research is typically a very narrow dive into one specific thing, and doesn't step back to look at all of the other adjacent research and present that out as well, in a way that the general public can understand. This for example is why people like you got confused about things like covid and myocarditis. You saw a study that showed rare instances of myocarditis found in people who got vaccinated. But then you didn't step back and look at the adjacent research that found that myocarditis was also found in unvaccinated people who got covid, and at MUCH higher rates than that of people who got vaccinated.

And either way, there have been few governmental mandates around nutrition anyhow. And even when we did try to get people consuming more healthy foods, you shrieked and freaked out and rebelled in the most ludicrous and self-destructive ways.



So, you of all people have very little leg to stand on here.

Again, over a million Americans died because of covid, many of those deaths could have been preventable but they were killed through ignorance, lies and conspiracy theories. Whereas, Hunter's laptop wasn't suppressed by the Biden administration, and didn't kill anyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Covid truths" like microchips and mind control 😆

The PP who thinks she's on the righteous side of truth and justice for continually yammering on about "yabut covid came from China" sounds like a master of the obvious but an absolute idiot.

You know damn well that very few people bought into the microchips or mind control (that is a new one to me).

We do know that, among other things, Covid likely came from a lab; having the vaccine does not prevent one from spreading the virus; masks are not effective in stopping the spread of Covid; Hydroxychloroquine is associated with lower Covid mortality in a recent French study; there are side effects associated with the vaccine - myocarditis and irregular menstrual bleeding being just two; and the laptop does belong to Hunter Biden.

Many of the statements above were censored on social media - and in media in general.

Start here: https://voterga.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Press-Release-GA-Supreme-Court-Rules-VoterGA-Petitioners-Have-Standing.pdf
Polling shows 70% of Republicans believe the "election was stolen" LIE.

It's a LIE. And it was directly responsible for the violence of J6. It was a violent, destructive lie that got people killed.

Stop with your LIES that "very few people believe that stuff."

Stop pretending that it's all free fair game to tell whatever lies you like no matter the consequences. You are part of the problem.

So, claiming that the election was stolen or illegitimate is speech that should be censored? Is that what you are saying?

There was very little actual censoring even going on. The right wing freaked out over fact checks while leaving the content uncensored. Outraged over the lies being called out.

However when there is damage, destruction, loss of life caused by a lie, those central to the lie should be held accountable. IMHO Trump, Stone and others should be prosecuted as accessory to murder over J6.

Dp- is fraud protected speech?

Fraudulent statements are speech that the government can take narrowly tailored measure to prohibit & prosecute. But an overly broad interpretation of fraud would run into 1A problems. For example a doctor posting online questioning the efficacy of the covid vaccine and paxlovid could not be prosecuted for “fraud” under an attenuated theory like that she would benefit from increased sick patients. But generally the state & federal fraud statutes require a high level of causaility and intention - so it’s going to be rare that there is a 1A issue.

this is a good summary of unprotected speech: https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/unprotected-speech-synopsis

Bottom line is there is no "absolute" freedom of speech as claimed upthread and there are in fact many types of speech which are illegal. Those goal posts are already moved.

Speech directly threatening to kill or harm someone is a felony in most US jurisdictions. So why wouldn't speech that does in fact result in someone getting killed be completely exempt and unimpeachable? Trump's Big Lie got people killed. Anti-vaxxer lies got people killed.

Again, we aren't talking about "you want to censor conservatives" bullshit. Since when does being a conservative require you to tell lies that get people killed?

Because your take on how speech “got people killed” is incredibly attenuated and is far, far from passing 1A scrutiny.

1 million dead Americans disagree with this post.

So, I am no longer allowed to disagree with the government health policies?

The same government that decided saturated fat was bad and a low fat, high sugar diet is fine?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9794145/

Hiow many millions has this killed?

Disagree all you like. Tons of people disagreed during the height of Covid.
But this case is going to the Supreme Court and the fifth circuit has made a mess of it.
There has been no evidence the Biden WH coerced anyone. The government has a first amendment right as well. The government is allowed an opinion both public AND private.
They can and should share information with companies in the interest of public safety and national security.

You clearly have not read the opinions and briefs in the case. The entanglement between the government and the social media platforms was intense. The government was basically managing moderation - both individual decisions on posts and moderation policy. I’m not sure how the case will turn out, but it was an extremely troubling amount of control the government was imposing over speech. Notably the government does not claim that the removed posts had no First Amendment protections. They claim they were just engaged in “persuasion.” Ask yourself how happy you would be if this degree of “persuasion” was exercised by the Trump Admin to control social media posts on an issue you care about?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Covid truths" like microchips and mind control 😆

The PP who thinks she's on the righteous side of truth and justice for continually yammering on about "yabut covid came from China" sounds like a master of the obvious but an absolute idiot.

You know damn well that very few people bought into the microchips or mind control (that is a new one to me).

We do know that, among other things, Covid likely came from a lab; having the vaccine does not prevent one from spreading the virus; masks are not effective in stopping the spread of Covid; Hydroxychloroquine is associated with lower Covid mortality in a recent French study; there are side effects associated with the vaccine - myocarditis and irregular menstrual bleeding being just two; and the laptop does belong to Hunter Biden.

Many of the statements above were censored on social media - and in media in general.

Start here: https://voterga.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Press-Release-GA-Supreme-Court-Rules-VoterGA-Petitioners-Have-Standing.pdf
Polling shows 70% of Republicans believe the "election was stolen" LIE.

It's a LIE. And it was directly responsible for the violence of J6. It was a violent, destructive lie that got people killed.

Stop with your LIES that "very few people believe that stuff."

Stop pretending that it's all free fair game to tell whatever lies you like no matter the consequences. You are part of the problem.

So, claiming that the election was stolen or illegitimate is speech that should be censored? Is that what you are saying?

There was very little actual censoring even going on. The right wing freaked out over fact checks while leaving the content uncensored. Outraged over the lies being called out.

However when there is damage, destruction, loss of life caused by a lie, those central to the lie should be held accountable. IMHO Trump, Stone and others should be prosecuted as accessory to murder over J6.

Dp- is fraud protected speech?

Fraudulent statements are speech that the government can take narrowly tailored measure to prohibit & prosecute. But an overly broad interpretation of fraud would run into 1A problems. For example a doctor posting online questioning the efficacy of the covid vaccine and paxlovid could not be prosecuted for “fraud” under an attenuated theory like that she would benefit from increased sick patients. But generally the state & federal fraud statutes require a high level of causaility and intention - so it’s going to be rare that there is a 1A issue.

this is a good summary of unprotected speech: https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/unprotected-speech-synopsis

Bottom line is there is no "absolute" freedom of speech as claimed upthread and there are in fact many types of speech which are illegal. Those goal posts are already moved.

Speech directly threatening to kill or harm someone is a felony in most US jurisdictions. So why wouldn't speech that does in fact result in someone getting killed be completely exempt and unimpeachable? Trump's Big Lie got people killed. Anti-vaxxer lies got people killed.

Again, we aren't talking about "you want to censor conservatives" bullshit. Since when does being a conservative require you to tell lies that get people killed?

Because your take on how speech “got people killed” is incredibly attenuated and is far, far from passing 1A scrutiny.

1 million dead Americans disagree with this post.

So, I am no longer allowed to disagree with the government health policies?

The same government that decided saturated fat was bad and a low fat, high sugar diet is fine?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9794145/

Hiow many millions has this killed?

Seems to me that you don't understand how science works. Maybe you are used to things like religious dogma where there are supposed eternal truths or something, and that any time something to the contrary is shown it's somehow a big lie that was orchestrated from the start?

Seems you also are confusing government with science as well.

We learn new things about nutrition all the time. But science being science, often comes across as murky, often with seemingly conflicting and contradictory information, because most research is typically a very narrow dive into one specific thing, and doesn't step back to look at all of the other adjacent research and present that out as well, in a way that the general public can understand. This for example is why people like you got confused about things like covid and myocarditis. You saw a study that showed rare instances of myocarditis found in people who got vaccinated. But then you didn't step back and look at the adjacent research that found that myocarditis was also found in unvaccinated people who got covid, and at MUCH higher rates than that of people who got vaccinated.

And either way, there have been few governmental mandates around nutrition anyhow. And even when we did try to get people consuming more healthy foods, you shrieked and freaked out and rebelled in the most ludicrous and self-destructive ways.



So, you of all people have very little leg to stand on here.

Again, over a million Americans died because of covid, many of those deaths could have been preventable but they were killed through ignorance, lies and conspiracy theories. Whereas, Hunter's laptop wasn't suppressed by the Biden administration, and didn't kill anyone.

The more you post the more ignorant you seem about the actual constitutional issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Covid truths" like microchips and mind control 😆

The PP who thinks she's on the righteous side of truth and justice for continually yammering on about "yabut covid came from China" sounds like a master of the obvious but an absolute idiot.

You know damn well that very few people bought into the microchips or mind control (that is a new one to me).

We do know that, among other things, Covid likely came from a lab; having the vaccine does not prevent one from spreading the virus; masks are not effective in stopping the spread of Covid; Hydroxychloroquine is associated with lower Covid mortality in a recent French study; there are side effects associated with the vaccine - myocarditis and irregular menstrual bleeding being just two; and the laptop does belong to Hunter Biden.

Many of the statements above were censored on social media - and in media in general.

Start here: https://voterga.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Press-Release-GA-Supreme-Court-Rules-VoterGA-Petitioners-Have-Standing.pdf
Polling shows 70% of Republicans believe the "election was stolen" LIE.

It's a LIE. And it was directly responsible for the violence of J6. It was a violent, destructive lie that got people killed.

Stop with your LIES that "very few people believe that stuff."

Stop pretending that it's all free fair game to tell whatever lies you like no matter the consequences. You are part of the problem.

So, claiming that the election was stolen or illegitimate is speech that should be censored? Is that what you are saying?

There was very little actual censoring even going on. The right wing freaked out over fact checks while leaving the content uncensored. Outraged over the lies being called out.

However when there is damage, destruction, loss of life caused by a lie, those central to the lie should be held accountable. IMHO Trump, Stone and others should be prosecuted as accessory to murder over J6.

Dp- is fraud protected speech?

Fraudulent statements are speech that the government can take narrowly tailored measure to prohibit & prosecute. But an overly broad interpretation of fraud would run into 1A problems. For example a doctor posting online questioning the efficacy of the covid vaccine and paxlovid could not be prosecuted for “fraud” under an attenuated theory like that she would benefit from increased sick patients. But generally the state & federal fraud statutes require a high level of causaility and intention - so it’s going to be rare that there is a 1A issue.

this is a good summary of unprotected speech: https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/unprotected-speech-synopsis

Bottom line is there is no "absolute" freedom of speech as claimed upthread and there are in fact many types of speech which are illegal. Those goal posts are already moved.

Speech directly threatening to kill or harm someone is a felony in most US jurisdictions. So why wouldn't speech that does in fact result in someone getting killed be completely exempt and unimpeachable? Trump's Big Lie got people killed. Anti-vaxxer lies got people killed.

Again, we aren't talking about "you want to censor conservatives" bullshit. Since when does being a conservative require you to tell lies that get people killed?

Because your take on how speech “got people killed” is incredibly attenuated and is far, far from passing 1A scrutiny.

1 million dead Americans disagree with this post.

So, I am no longer allowed to disagree with the government health policies?

The same government that decided saturated fat was bad and a low fat, high sugar diet is fine?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9794145/

Hiow many millions has this killed?

Disagree all you like. Tons of people disagreed during the height of Covid.
But this case is going to the Supreme Court and the fifth circuit has made a mess of it.
There has been no evidence the Biden WH coerced anyone. The government has a first amendment right as well. The government is allowed an opinion both public AND private.
They can and should share information with companies in the interest of public safety and national security.

You clearly have not read the opinions and briefs in the case. The entanglement between the government and the social media platforms was intense. The government was basically managing moderation - both individual decisions on posts and moderation policy. I’m not sure how the case will turn out, but it was an extremely troubling amount of control the government was imposing over speech. Notably the government does not claim that the removed posts had no First Amendment protections. They claim they were just engaged in “persuasion.” Ask yourself how happy you would be if this degree of “persuasion” was exercised by the Trump Admin to control social media posts on an issue you care about?

I wouldn’t characterize the outreach from the government as “intense”.
The government has a duty to defend and protect. I’m much more concerned with one billionaire and a gaggle of tech twits making these decisions. Which is legally how it has to be, but it’s not great for the health of our democracy.