Talk:Murthy v. Missouri
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Background
editCollapsing discussion with block-evading user. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This article is about a specific case. It may be appropriate to mention that one of the plaintiffs was also involved in other lawsuits (though even that is debatable), but it inappropriate editorializing to try to frame this as one person's personal agenda by bringing up unrelated lawsuits he also brought. Red Slapper (talk) 16:48, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
|
SYNTH in "Lawsuit" section
editCollapsing discussion with block-evading user. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
WP:SYNTH says "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source". In the "Lawsuit" section we have:
The implied conclusion is that Missouri v. Biden was designed to bolster Schmitt's campaign - but that is a conclusion not stated in any of the sources, and thus clear SYNTH. I will add that even if it was not SYNTH it is undue weight to get into alleged motivations in an article about the case (it may be appropriate on Schmitt's article). But as this is clear SYNTH, we don't even need to go there. It is enough to say what source 3 sasy - that Missouri v. Biden is one of several high-profile lawsuits targeting the Biden administration by Schmitt Red Slapper (talk) 19:09, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
|
Neutrality
editThis article might as well be DNC press release. This website is a joke. 2607:FB91:2249:4C1:AC39:93D7:CA70:51DB (talk) 18:54, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed. Wikipedia often leans left -- that's an understatement -- and arbitrarily enforces/interprets its policies to promote that agenda. 32.209.69.132 (talk) 01:32, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- I appreciate the concern on the appearnt lack of neutrality, but 1) this is clearly a partisan topic, so we do have to identify the politics and interests of those involved in this as otherwise there would be no clarity of why this suit exists, and 2) the bulk of coverage is favoring the Biden adminstration's position here, and that's going to reflect on the article. There are very very few reliable sources that are covering this from the viewpoint of the right, and we have tried to give the reasons for the suit (without calling it out as anything else) to give the needed balance. Masem (t) 14:45, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- Well, yeah ... therein lies the problem. The bulk of coverage is favoring the Biden administration's position here, and that's going to reflect on the article. There are very very few reliable sources that are covering this from the viewpoint of the right. It is well-known that the mainstream media "leans" (euphemism on my part) left. Hence, "reliable sources" will parallel that. (The problem really is that we deem these left-leaning MSM sources as "reliable sources", when clearly they are not. But that's for another day.) At the end of the day, the Circuit Court went against the Biden Administration. And, as such, the case is "a big deal". Y'know ... them violating the First Amendment rights of everyone here in the USA ... yeah, that's a big deal. I believe the judge said it was the "worst First Amendment violation in the history of the country" or some such. If the federal court went against the Biden Admin ... how is it that "the bulk of coverage is favoring the Biden administration's position here"? LOL. Again, THAT'S the problem. 32.209.69.132 (talk) 03:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
- Please consider the writings of Michael Schellenberger at public.substack.com on the topic. 2605:A601:AA6D:6300:B0F2:5FA7:A9E8:6A40 (talk) 04:48, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- Reliable sources do not include Michael Schellenberger’s blog. Slaymaker1907 (talk) 17:23, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Infobox
editThe current Infobox only details the district court case; it should be updated to include the recent circuit court case. Thanks. 32.209.69.132 (talk) 01:34, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
michael shellenberger and matt taibbi are not conservatives
editmichael shellenberger and matt taibbi are not conservatives. use at least articles that actually investigate their political views like https://www.huffpost.com/entry/michael-shellenberger-centrist-california-governor-election-gavin-newsom_n_624a6134e4b098174502afe4 which was used on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Shellenberger . he is also a former democrat, and now an independent candidate in California which dozen of sources support. cba matt taibbi because that one is obvious, but you might force me to waste time on him as well. also mind that news articles are only reliable for statement of fact https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:NEWSORG&redirect=no, not opinion. and the Bloomberg article is not even an opinion piece that has investigated an opiniated claim such as the political views of some person in contrast to the article from HuffPost. HuffPost's article is reliable in that sense it is reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author , the article from Bloomberg isn't even reliable in that sense.
Better summary of original July 4 ruling
edithttps://fedsoc.org/commentary/fedsoc-blog/missouri-v-biden-the-crossroads-between-misinformation-and-free-speech 2603:3003:3AA8:0:89F0:49A6:800D:5FD5 (talk) 14:46, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
More accurate summary of Sept 8 appellate decision
editThe wiki summary of the Appellate decision is incomplete and misleading. This is what stands.
"Defendants, and their employees and agents, shall take no actions, formal or informal, directly or indirectly, to coerce or significantly encourage social-media companies to remove, delete, suppress, or reduce, including through altering their algorithms, posted social-media content containing protected free speech. That includes, but is not limited to, compelling the platforms to act, such as by intimating that some form of punishment will follow a failure to comply with any request, or supervising, directing, or otherwise meaningfully controlling the social-media companies’ decision-making processes."
See full appellate decision here.
https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:VA6C2:b48ed42f-fbde-4156-8338-9b1eee16d950 2603:3003:3AA8:0:89F0:49A6:800D:5FD5 (talk) 15:06, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- We can't use court documents directly, we need sources to summarize for us. Masem (t) 16:11, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- That doesn't make sense. The most accurate representation of the ruling is the court document. 2605:A601:AA6D:6300:2125:E180:580E:2682 (talk) 00:55, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- We are not supposed to be legal experts (per WP:NOR), so outside what is obvious on the cover pages of the slip opinion (things like the holding language) we should not be the ones to interprete or pick and choose quotes to use from the decision. It is very easy for one to twist wording into a POV as well. Masem (t) 01:02, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- And I have just found a ref that quotes that part in full, so I've included that statement. Masem (t) 01:07, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- We are not supposed to be legal experts (per WP:NOR), so outside what is obvious on the cover pages of the slip opinion (things like the holding language) we should not be the ones to interprete or pick and choose quotes to use from the decision. It is very easy for one to twist wording into a POV as well. Masem (t) 01:02, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- That doesn't make sense. The most accurate representation of the ruling is the court document. 2605:A601:AA6D:6300:2125:E180:580E:2682 (talk) 00:55, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- isn't it possible to find some law news outlet summarizing it more objectively? 213.237.82.182 (talk) 14:28, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Rename pending
editI'm waiting to see which case name is going to be the lead one for SCOTUS before renaming to reflect that. Masem (t) 02:30, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
"Misinformation" and "lacks standing".
editFor those who do not know - when dealing with the government or partner corporations the word "misinformation" means "truth that would undermine our agenda". And when dealing with the courts "lacks standing" means "we know you are right - so we need an excuse to not provide a remedy for this wrong". It is not just used in cases involving the government using companies as proxy censers (to negate the First Amendment), it is also extensively used in election fraud cases - with even a candidate being told they "lack standing". The Attorney Generals of many States were told they "lacked standing" to legally challenge the election fraud of the 2020 United States Presidential Election - so the courts could refuse to hear the evidence. PaulvMarks (talk) 17:37, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- Unless you have any reliable sources to back up this claim, this is just nonsense that will not be added to the article at all. Masem (t) 17:53, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
There is a lot that is out of date, or omitted, and some things that are wrong here
editKate Starbird was not deposed or subpoenaed in any coverage that I have seen, where is that from? The injunction by the district court judge was almost entirely vacated by the Fifth Circuit, including the parts against the academic centers. CISA was also removed at first but then the plaintiffs appealed, and then the appellate court added it back.
The most important part of the Supreme Court decision was the opinion not the dissent but it's almost not even discussed here. The allegations that the plaintiffs made about being censored were not supported by the evidence and the opinion explains that in detail.
Please, editors who work on this article, read the coverage by TechDirt and Tech Policy Press that closely covered the case, and especially the lack of evidence, and update it to more accurately describe the facts.
https://www.techdirt.com/2023/07/06/the-good-the-bad-and-the-incredibly-ugly-in-the-court-ruling-regarding-government-contacts-with-social-media/ https://www.techdirt.com/2023/09/11/5th-circuit-cleans-up-district-courts-silly-jawboning-ruling-about-the-biden-admin-trims-it-down-to-more-accurately-reflect-the-1st-amendment/ https://www.justsecurity.org/93487/a-conspiracy-theory-goes-to-the-supreme-court-how-did-murthy-v-missouri-get-this-far/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.9.110.1 (talk) 05:40, 13 July 2024 (UTC)