the premise is too r-slurred to even make a comment on

!transphobes lol

British police turn up at Christian man’s home with a psychologist because ‘there was a report about beliefs being expressed.’

Police:

“People have raised concerns about your views…That you’re concerned about what’s going on in Australia.”

The man had posted on social media… pic.twitter.com/ql0xFxLhAx

— Oli London (@OliLondonTV) April 19, 2024

Really makes you think who's pulling the strings here.

!latinx

EXCLUSIVE: Katherine Maher says that she abandoned a "free and open" internet as the mission of Wikipedia, because those principles recapitulated a "white male Westernized construct" and "did not end up living into the intentionality of what openness can be." pic.twitter.com/Ved9mgGvJH

— Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ (@realchrisrufo) April 18, 2024

NPR’s new CEO: “Our reverence for the truth might be a distraction getting in the way of finding common ground & getting things done.”

This gets to the heart of the cultural divide in the modern West: whether you believe truth is a priority or a hindrancepic.twitter.com/Pkwy5kkNWy

— Vivek Ramaswamy (@VivekGRamaswamy) April 17, 2024

Part 1

https://rdrama.net/h/pol/post/262216/npr-ceo-the-number-one-challenge

EXCLUSIVE: Katherine Maher says the "the number one challenge" in her fight against disinformation is "the First Amendment in the United States," which makes it "a little bit tricky" to censor "bad information" and "the influence peddlers" who spread it.

NPR's censor-in-chief. pic.twitter.com/0vY6hIpbmO

— Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ (@realchrisrufo) April 17, 2024

Economic advisers close to former President Donald Trump are actively debating ways to devalue the U.S. dollar if he's elected to a second term — a dramatic move that could boost U.S. exports but also reignite inflation and threaten the dollar's position as the world's dominant currency.

!neolibs

!lgbt

That sweeps in an enormous range of U.S. businesses that provide wifi to their customers and therefore have access to equipment on which communications transit. Barber shops, laundromats, fitness centers, hardware stores, dentist’s offices… the list goes on and on. 7/25

— Elizabeth Goitein (@LizaGoitein) April 15, 2024

https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1c4nxvo/justice_thomas_misses_supreme_court_session/

This is Unfucking real. The FBI plotted to get Trump’s valet “sweaty” before going back to see Trump to fool Trump into thinking the valet was out jogging, instead of being in a secret grilling by the FBI. https://t.co/7lkbJaVoNc pic.twitter.com/6X8ikkWxVH

— Mike Benz (@MikeBenzCyber) April 12, 2024

Oh, no.

The largest office building in St. Louis has sold for $3.5 million, per WSJ.

In 2006, it sold for $205 million. pic.twitter.com/Io87rdptw8

— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) April 11, 2024

Whoa: the White House is calling the 4th Amendment of the Constitution a threat to National Security. This is a real memo sent out today: the yellow-highlighted sections just translate euphemism ("the Biggs Amendment") to plain language (Biggs' warrant req). (Source below in QT) https://t.co/IFMDyeW6C8 pic.twitter.com/bzRhqYnEIt

— Edward Snowden (@Snowden) April 12, 2024

Read what I put in bold, and weep with joy now that Twitter harassment is now easier than ever against shithead politicians. @Landlord_Messiah @The_Homocracy because I know y'all have twitter.

How did SCOTUS rule? The Court issued one ruling for both cases. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for a unanimous court in Lindke v. Freed, and sent it and O'Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier back to lower courts for judges to revisit in light of SCOTUS' new guidance.

The Court issued a two-part test for evaluating the public or private status of a public official's social media account. Barrett wrote: “When a government official posts about job-related topics on social media, it can be difficult to tell whether the speech is official or private. We hold that such speech is attributable to the State only if the official (1) possessed actual authority to speak on the State's behalf, and (2) purported to exercise that authority when he spoke on social media.” In circumstances that satisfy both conditions, a government official could be sued for blocking or deleting comments on a social media account.

Barrett used a hypothetical involving a school board president to illustrate the distinction between private and public forums. Barrett wrote: “A school board president announces at a school board meeting that the board has lifted pandemic-era restrictions on public schools. The next evening, at a backyard barbecue with friends whose children attend public schools, he shares that the board has lifted the pandemic-era restrictions.” Barrett wrote the former constitutes state action, while the latter does not.

In the case of public officials' social media accounts, Barrett said context matters: “Had Freed's account carried a label (e.g., ‘this is the personal page of James R. Freed') or a disclaimer (e.g., ‘the views expressed are strictly my own'), he would be entitled to a heavy (though not irrebuttable) presumption that all of the posts on his page were personal.”

Additionally, Barrett said the way blocking works on different platforms can matter for judges trying to figure out if an account triggers the state-action doctrine. On some platforms, a blocked user can still see posts but cannot comment. On others, a blocked user is prevented from seeing any posts on the account. According to Barrett, “If page-wide blocking is the only option, a public official might be unable to prevent someone from commenting on his personal posts without risking liability for also preventing comments on his official posts.”

Socialist professor explains how to get a PS5 under socialism.

Yeah, no thanks. pic.twitter.com/jpramvLIiI

— Dylan Allman (@DylanMAllman) April 6, 2024

!anticommunists !commies