Social media companies have some leeway to censor users on their own due to the way the courts have interpreted section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, but if that is in any way coordinated or coerced by government, that makes the social media company an agent of the government and a direct violation of First Amendment protections.
Attorney General of Missouri Eric Schmitt as well as the AG of Louisiana Jeff Landry have filed suit citing collusion between dozens of Biden Administration officials colluding with social media to censor people, including naming accounts they wanted banned or shadow banned.
Upon discovering how wide spread the collusion is, the state attorney generals have asked the court for more discovery to see just how far it goes and the court has granted their motion.. The Biden Administration is not happy, but this court takes the First Amendment seriously.
Attorney Robert Gouveia gives an excellent analysis of how how far this has gone as well as an explanation of the court filings:
President Biden’ “V for Vendetta” styled “Enemies of the State” speech did not poll well among independents with 62.4 present saying it, “Represents a dangerous escalation in rhetoric and is designed to incite conflict among Americans” according to a Trafalgar Group poll of likely voters.
70.8 percent of Democrat likely voters said that the speech was “acceptable campaign messaging,” while 18.7 percent said that it was “designed to incite conflict.”
89.1 percent of Republican likely voters said that Biden’s speech “represents a dangerous escalation,” with just 4.7 percent saying it was “acceptable,” and 6.2 percent saying they weren’t sure.
Under the new law, entire categories of crime, such as aggravated batteries, robberies, burglaries, hate crimes, aggravated DUIs, vehicular homicide, drug induced homicides, all drug offenses, including delivery of fentanyl and trafficking cases, are not eligible for detention no matter the severity of the crime or the defendant’s risk to a specific person or the community, unless the People prove by clear and convincing evidence the person has a “high likelihood of willful flight to avoid prosecution.”
Additionally, in cases involving non-probationable forcible felonies, such as murder and armed robbery, judges may only detain a defendant under the new law if the prosecution proves by clear and convincing evidence the defendant “poses a real and present threat to the safety of a specific, identifiable person or persons.”
Imagine the defendant who murdered his wife, to whom he no longer poses a threat, being released because of this ridiculously limited legal standard. Even more absurd, judges may no longer issue a warrant when a defendant fails to come to court. Instead, an absent defendant must next be served with a court order asking them again to appear and then fail to appear a second time before a warrant may be issued.
“If you are not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.” – Malcolm X