The Meta CEO tried to paint the censorship as well-intentioned, claiming:
"I still think it's good for more people to get the vaccine. I'm not sure in that case how much of it was like a personal political gain that they were going for. I think that they had a kind of goal that they thought was in the interests of the country."
But Rogan wasn't having it. He fired back:
"Well, there's a bunch of problems with that," //
"There's the emergency use authorization that they needed in order to get this pushed through. And you can't have that without valid therapeutics being available. And so they suppressed valid therapeutics." //
"This was Fauci's game plan. I mean, this is the movie Dallas Buyers Club. That's Fauci in that movie. That was with the AIDS crisis. This exact same game plan that was played out with the COVID vaccine." //
They pushed one solution, this only one, suppressed all therapeutics through propaganda, through suppressing monoclonal antibodies, like all of it. And that was done, in my opinion, for profit. The amount of money that was made was extraordinary during that time." //
While Zuckerberg tried to frame the censorship as serving the greater good, Rogan exposed how it actually served to create a vaccine monopoly by eliminating discussion of alternative treatments.
For conservatives who have warned about the dangers of Big Tech-government collusion, this conversation provided smoking-gun evidence. It showed how content moderation policies were used to enforce a single narrative about COVID treatment, even when that meant suppressing legitimate medical information. //
Gordon of Cartoon
13 hours ago
Fascism is the systemic coordination of totalitarian government with monopolistic big business to crush competition and individual liberty. Naturally the thugs in charge get rich. //
Neil_
9 hours ago
Zuck is pulling back now because he probably realized colluding with the government in the way that he did is the definition of fascism. The Biden Administration and most leftist governments in Europe and around the world proved that leftists CAN be fascists.
mopani Neil_
a minute ago edited
It's because he doesn't want to cooperate with the next [Trump] administration, and free speech will be his defense.
He will pivot back to fascism and cooperation with the government as soon as the next Democrat administration counts along, he just won't advertise it like he is advertising the embrace of free speech.
David135
13 hours ago
Name names. Produce emails of all WH and Fed emails employees who were pressuring him and his company. Give them to the Taibbi gang to sort through. That would help a little.
bpbatch David135
12 hours ago
Yep, this. Musk put himself in danger with the Biden regime by exposure through the Twitter Files. Commission a "Facebook Files" type investigation and let the cards fall where they may, despite the political outcome. Do this, and I'll trust Zuck more, otherwise he's proving he's moving towards the constitutional right only for financial reasons and to save FB from the overturning of Section 230. //
veritaseequitas
2 hours ago
A) He must be losing money
B) He will change back if and when the Communist Democrats get back in office
C) He's a wuss who was too afraid to be a trail blazer. //
Mark Clancey
10 hours ago
What Could Mark Zuckerberg Do to Convince People He's Turned Into a Defender of Liberty?
Get on his knees and beg God and this nation for forgiveness that he spent $450 million to rig and steal the 2020 election. Until then he's just a garden variety Marxist twerp looking for secular salvation that will not come. //
Political-Paige
42 minutes ago edited
A tale of two billionaires.
Faced with the exact same pressures, Zuckerberg censored, lied, undermined a presidential election, and sentenced us to 4 years of national rot, while Musk spent 44 billion dollars of his own money to restore free speech across the globe and brought us back from the brink.
Before I go full throttle with my story, here's something I like to tell my kids when they wonder which side is telling the truth: The side that's trying to silence others are the liars. This is a complete rip-off from the teachings of the great Dennis Prager, but it consistently holds true.
And, oh how Zuck did silence us. //
Turns out, we weren't the only ones who amused themselves during lockdown by mocking our enfeebled president.
The botched Afghanistan withdrawal was our undoing. Zuck just wasn't going to let you criticize Joe Biden over this. //
Sorry, but Zuck's newfound love of free speech is just words at this point. His half-hearted pledge to improve things rings hollow to conservatives who have been under the ban hammer for at least a decade. An apology would be a good place to start, but being a leftist means never having to apologize.
There was some talk on X Tuesday about Facebook providing reparations to all the conservative accounts they damaged over the years, and I'm all for it. Zuck should put some money where his mouth is and prove he's serious about stopping the censorship.
Reparations for conservatives! //
Robert A Hahn
3 hours ago
All true, but we can't forget Dog 101: When the dog finally does something you've been trying to get him to do, give him a treat.
Doesn't have to be a big treat.
We’ve reached a point where it’s just too many mistakes and too much censorship. So we are going to get back to our roots, focus on reducing mistakes, simplifying our policies, and restoring free expression on our platforms.
This was disputed by the former fact-checkers in a New York Times article headlined, and I swear I'm not making this up, Mark Zuckerberg Says Meta Fact-Checkers Were the Problem. Fact-Checkers Rule That False. //
While the fact-checkers may be technically correct that they didn't have the authority to meddle with content on Facebook and Instagram, that is sort of like the guy working in the Zyklon B factory claiming he never gassed anyone. Of course, they knew what the result of their work product was, and of course, they acted with political bias. //
When we first reported rumors of a lab leak at Wuhan, we were forced to choose between staying in business and withdrawing a post. Both Mike Ford and I had posts pulled that dealt with January 6. These people were not only evil, but most of them were profoundly stupid. They literally did not understand the subject matter they were reviewing and made no effort to do so; on the bright side, there was no internal check on their journalistic terrorism by Meta, so YOLO; //
On Wednesday morning, the International Fact-Checking Network (there actually is such a thing) will convene an emergency meeting of its members to decide what to do. The money stream has dried up, and the few remaining clients for KGB-like editorial control don't have deep pockets. Most of them will, if there is justice, spend a long period of time unemployed and suffer financial devastation. //
Zuckerberg knows he's up to his eyebrows in highly questionable censorship activity at the behest of the Biden administration and that no one is around to rescue him now.
Hopefully, this will change the culture in Big Tech from defaulting toward fascistic government control to favoring individual freedom. Only time will tell.
Donald Trump has won again. ABC News and George Stephanopoulos have settled the defamation lawsuit brought by the incoming president, with the news network agreeing to pay $15 million in damages while also issuing an apology.
The lawsuit was first filed after Stephanopoulos claimed as a matter of fact that Trump had “raped” E. Jean Carroll. The comment came during an interview with Rep. Nancy Mace. [who is an actual rape victim]
Of course, the issue was that Trump has never been charged or convicted of rape criminally nor has he been found liable for rape in any civil suit. Stephanopoulos made it up in an attempt to bait Mace, and it ended up being the basis of the now-settled civil suit against he and ABC News.
Bash Ars Scholae Palatinae
20y
1,191
Freedom of speech does not include the right:
- To incite imminent lawless action.
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969). - To make or distribute obscene materials.
Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957). - To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest.
United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968). - To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration. Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).
- Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event. Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).
- Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event.
Morse v. Frederick, U.S. (2007).
What Does Free Speech Mean?
Among other cherished values, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech. Learn about what this means.
www.uscourts.gov
In my estimation, Elon Musk is easily one of the most influential people in Western Culture, equal to, if not more so, than Donald Trump. He is a man who is taking us into the future by rectifying quite a few problems here in the present, be that our lagging behind on becoming a space-faring species, or the fight against censorship and the protection of our human right to free speech.
Musk's business and ideological aims align with the right, and as it so happens, that's the side Trump is on, and so logic would follow that Musk and Trump, two men of vast influence and vision, would find themselves allied and working together. //
But if you take a step back and look at what Musk is actually stating, you'll start to realize that the influence they think Musk is spreading isn't his. He is not the source, merely a recipient like many other people.
In truth, Musk was, like many other people in the Western world, "red-pilled" by experience, leftist incompetence and hatred, and a drive for success that was being hampered by leftist entities. //
Take, for example, this post he made on Tuesday where he was commenting on the head of NPR, Katherine Maher, and her infamous words about the need for censorship.
“I think our reverence for the truth might have become a bit of a distraction that is preventing us from finding consensus and getting important things done,” Maher told a crowd during a speech.
This prompted Musk to ask a simple question.
"Should your tax dollars really be paying for an organization run by people who think the truth is a 'distraction,'" he asked. //
There is no ignoring Musk like they ignore us, but Musk is just saying what we're saying, and if they hate what he has to say that much, then what does that say about their attitudes toward you?
But it is a third theory for Trump’s resounding victory, posited by many on the left, that should cause grave concern to liberty lovers because it forewarns of an acceleration of efforts to control the marketplace of ideas. Here, Harris’ loss was blamed not on the far-left policies and candidate voters rejected or on the supposed racist and sexist beliefs of the electorate, but on voters purportedly being “misinformed” by the right-wing controlled media.
By the end of last week, this theme had flooded the airways and social media. But it was the New Republic’s article, “Why Does No One Understand the Real Reason Trump Won?,” that best capsulated this spin.
The New Republic’s article from Thursday declared the purported “reason” for Trump’s victory: “It wasn’t the economy. It wasn’t inflation, or anything else. It was how people perceive those things, which points to one overpowering answer.” “The answer is the right-wing media,” author Michael Tomasky pontificated, continuing:
“Today, the right-wing media — Fox News (and the entire News Corp.), Newsmax, One America News Network, the Sinclair network of radio and TV stations and newspapers, iHeart Media (formerly Clear Channel), the Bott Radio Network (Christian radio), Elon Musk’s X, the huge podcasts like Joe Rogan’s, and much more — sets the news agenda in this country. And they fed their audiences a diet of slanted and distorted information that made it possible for Trump to win.”
This argument was laughable to conservatives and Republicans who, unlike many of their liberal and Democrat contemporaries, do not limit their news intake to coverage from like-minded media outlets. Thus, the right saw what statistics bore out — “that broadcast evening news coverage of the 2024 presidential race has been the most lopsided in history,” with legacy outlets, like ABC, CBS and NBC, providing Harris “78% positive coverage, while these same networks have pummeled former Republican President Donald Trump with 85% negative coverage.”
The legacy networks also hosted and controlled the presidential and vice-presidential debates, providing even more skewed coverage of the competing candidacies. And these media outlets regularly pushed — or unquestioningly accepted — false and misleading claims about Trump and Vance.
The repetitive false reporting that Donald Trump had called neo-Nazis marching in Charlottesville “very fine people” — a claim even debunked by Snopes — alone proves the point. But ordinary Americans, having lived through the Russia collusion hoax and the false claims that Hunter Biden’s laptop was Russian disinformation, and also having witnessed the blatant bias of the networks during the debate, no longer needed solid proof to question the veracity of the legacy outlets. And the populace then turned to alternative media to assess the truth.
Herein, we saw the difference about 2024: It isn’t that the right controls the media or misinforms the populace, but that the left no longer can — at least not unimpeded.
There is a compelling reason that the Supreme Court has regularly ruled that falsehoods are protected speech. The Court openly recognizes that falsehoods can be harmful and may sometimes be quite harmful, but the Court also recognizes that efforts to determine which information is true and which is false are far more harmful to our democracy. The line between whether content can be labeled true or false, or whether it is simply viewpoint disagreement can be blurry and very much in the eye of the beholder. This is especially true of political content and policy debates. This is also the fundamental premise of the First Amendment, which protects free speech and free press. //
Those who wish for regulatory power to ensure “politically correct” content moderation need to answer these fundamental questions: Should the political party who temporarily runs the government be allowed to act as arbiter of what’s true or false, ... //
How will such regulatory power work if the governing political party in the White House switches every four or eight years and the rules dramatically change when a new political party wins? Today, private companies acting as news organizations have their own free speech rights to publish and label their own opinions as true and opposing opinions as false. This works as long as there are multiple competing news companies... //
Rather than attempting to legislate definitions of online safety and viewpoint neutrality, which seems exceedingly difficult in the current deeply divided partisan environment of Washington, D.C., there is another simpler solution.
The simple solution is to mandate full and detailed transparency of:
- All enforcement actions taken by the online platforms...
... //
Such transparency would allow the online platforms to be compared on a peer-to-peer basis for online safety and viewpoint neutrality. Such transparency would also shine the harsh light of publicity on all government efforts to influence online platforms, ...
Before November 2020, when the hate speech clause was adopted, the code of ethics all related to how real estate agents and affiliates worked with clients, Fauber said. Now that has changed.
“The NAR has now given themselves permission to police real estate agents 24/7,” Fauber said. “It’s deeply troubling that an organization like the NAR can police my life, and complaints can be filed against me for reading a passage of scripture, even in church; that a person wouldn’t even have to be present to file a complaint about me. That’s far reaching.” //
In Virginia, phone calls of cases like Fauber’s come pouring in daily, Cobb said, regarding someone who has lost a job or suffered significant harm due to their faith. //
Christian realtor Hadassah Carter recently won her case against the Virginia Real Estate Board, citing harassment and discrimination for her beliefs. Carter included Bible verses and Christian phrases on her website and was subjected to monitoring and accused of violating Virginia’s fair housing statutes by the board due to her religious speech.
The Supreme Court will not halt Special Counsel Jack Smith’s review of private messages between former President Donald Trump and Twitter, now known as X.
On Monday, the nine-justice panel issued handed down their decision without explanation, declining to consider Trump’s challenge against Smith’s secret warrant.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) first sought the records in January last year, demanding a complete trove of private information including Trump’s search history, direct messages, account settings, and activity under the “@realDonaldTrump” username. According to The Hill, the government obtained a nondisclosure order to bar X from revealing the existence of the warrant, even to the former president.
“The company challenged the order, arguing the records were potentially covered by executive privilege and not being able to tell Trump violated the First Amendment,” The Hill reported. “Court filings show X at one point was fined $350,000 for not timely turning over Trump’s data.”
Attempts to block Smith’s surveillance in the lower courts, however, failed. The Supreme Court ultimately refused to hear another challenge to the warrant in Smith’s criminal case, which is related to the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021.
🚨BREAKING: Hillary Clinton went to CNN to announce that they are losing control and that Social Media companies should increase their censorship on Conservative misinformation.
Hillary Clinton: "we lose total control." pic.twitter.com/k9VEhegFP7
— Dom Lucre | Breaker of Narratives (@dom_lucre) October 5, 2024 //
This is what the government politicians say, right before they are about to impinge on your rights. The phrase about yelling fire in a crowded theater is often used by people trying to curb speech without really understanding the context in which it was used. It was in non-binding dicta in a case that was then later overturned so it was never a binding thought on anything. So when people use it, it reveals they’re not aware of the law. //
CyberChick @warriors_mom
·
Can you smell the sulphur from here? 😈
Tom Elliott @tomselliott
Hillary: “We should be in my view, repealing something called Section 230, which gave platforms on the internet immunity … Whether it‘s Facebook or Twitter or X or Instagram, or TikTok, whatever they are, if they don‘t moderate & monitor the content we lose total control”
Embedded video
8:21 PM · Oct 5, 2024
Freedom of speech isn't just a legal right, but a way of life. On its history
California’s “deepfake” law shows, once again, that progressive authoritarians seek to ruin everything fun.
Gov. Gavin Newsom and the state’s legislature recently went full Karen and passed a law banning political deepfakes and placing restrictions on satire. Now, one of the nation’s leading satirical outlets is fighting back.
The Babylon Bee and the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) filed a lawsuit against the state of California on Monday, challenging new laws that the satire site claims target political parody and free speech, according to a Daily Wire exclusive.
Over time, I've found myself agreeing with Taibbi and his co-host Walter Kirn more often than not. We may not share the exact same politics, but we share a whole lot of the same values. I've also come to appreciate Taibbi's earnest belief in America's foundational principles and his almost endearing disbelief at the current state of his chosen profession. //
Because “freedom of speech” is now frequently described as a stalking horse for hate and discrimination — the UN High Commissioner Volker Türk scolded Elon Musk that “free speech is not a free pass” — it’s becoming one of those soon-to-be-extinct terms. Speech is mentioned in “reputable” media only as a possible vector for the informational disease known as misinformation.
The end game is not controlling speech. They’re already doing that. The endgame is getting us to forget we ever had anything to say.
....Let's be clear about our language. Madison famously eschewed the word toleration or tolerance when it came to religion and insisted on the words freedom or liberty instead. This became the basis for the Virginia Declaration of Rights, which in turn became the basis for the Bill of Rights. That's why we don't have “toleration of religion” or “toleration of speech.” We have freedom of speech. The right word for the right time.
To the people who are suggesting that there are voices who should be ignored because they're encouraging mistrust or skepticism of authority, or obstructing consensus: I'm not encouraging you to be skeptical of authority. I'm encouraging you to DEFY authority. That is the right word for the this time. //
In this speech, Taibbi hit all the right notes, with a nod to our history, the history of free speech, the Gospel of John and the power of words — and the Word. He captured the spirit of what it means to be quintessentially American — to be free. //
Enzo D Bakr
16 hours ago
Matt Taibbi personifies the difference between a liberal and a Leftist. It is important to our Republic that we all know the difference. Behold...
At the center of this controversy is Klippenstein’s decision to release the Trump campaign’s vetting documents on Vance, which included the senator’s personal information, including emails, phone numbers, and addresses. The documents were obtained by hackers on behalf of the Islamic Republic of Iran, which means there's a possibility that Klippenstein may be (purposely or accidentally) doing Tehran’s bidding for political purposes.
In response, X suspended Klippenstein’s account, which has angered folks on the left. They argue that this decision is hypocritical. They also claim folks on the right who support the move are also being hypocritical because of their opposition to the platform’s decision to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop story. //
What these folks are missing – or deliberately leaving out – is that X adopted a policy in March that disallows “doxxing,” which occurs when someone exposes personal information without the person’s consent: //
Under the previous management, the laptop story was suppressed for a different reason: The company claimed it was information that was hacked by Russians. This contention was later exposed as one in a long list of left-wing hoaxes.
What is also interesting about this story is that the doxxing of Vance was done using information coming from Iranian hackers, which clearly violates the platform’s rules. //
Mooslim&squirrel
13 hours ago
Dear Molly Stupid, Hunter Biden’s laptop wasn’t stolen. Wasn’t released by foreign actors and you are still lying about it. So there is that //
John Q. Public
13 hours ago
They seem to ignore the fact that Hunter willingly gave up the laptop and its contents, despite being contacted on multiple occasions to pick it up. It was not “stolen” or “hacked”. //
oldgimpy&cranky
13 hours ago
I continue to see leftists pretend to not understand that "hacking" into someone's personal accounts means [at the least] electronic B&E. Meanwhile, when you ABANDON your laptop and its drives full of info - you have literally given it away.
I can forgive the senile commies that never learned cp/m, but there is no way on earth the younger commies don't know the difference.
And, we've been over the whole DOXXING mess ad nauseam. It's not complicated. (and no, if we publish your OFFICE address and numbers and titles, found on your company site, it's not Doxxing). //
Cafeblue32
23 minutes ago
He should be banned for having the last name Klippenstein. I can't hardly read it without laughing. Sounds like a 1930s monster movie. Run! It's the Klippenstein monster!
That's the thing with the left. Everything they want is a Dollar Store moral equivalent of something decent and good.
Nature miscarries babies, so abortion is not wrong. (Intent of the mother is ignored)
A male athlete gussied up as a woman takes estrogen, so he doesn't have an advantage. (physical reality is ignored)
If abortion is wrong, so is the death penalty. (guilt or innocence of the one being killed is ignored)
A current day border crosser here is the same as a refugee from civil warin Africa or Asia. ( the fact none of our southern neighbors are at war is ignored)
Israeli apartheid is no different than South Africa's. (The role the two major world religions involved and who is the aggressor are ignored).
Etc.
The critical element in thinking about Elon Musk is that, like any American, he has a right to his own opinion, and he has a right to express his opinion.
However, that right is not unlimited. He is under some special limitations that would not apply to normal people because his company, specifically Starlink and SpaceX are government contractors and, as such, he has obligations to the government that would, for any normal person, and should for him, require him to moderate his speech in the interest of national security.
You have somebody who runs really strategic defense and aerospace projects for the federal government who's actively undermining the government that's paying him. And somewhere in that is a legal case that needs to be prosecuted. //
McNamee’s rationale for criminalizing speech is chillingly shallow and irrational. He declared that somehow Musk’s political views made him a danger as the head of companies of major importance to the United States. It does not bother him when CEOs adopt far left views, just Musk opposing some of those views.
McNamee is using the government contracts with SpaceX as a reason to censor his political and social views. So, according to McNamee, if your company makes something that the government wants (including rescuing the currently stranded astronauts in space), he must give up his right to express political views, including against censorship.
McNamee embraces the power of the government to dictate viewpoints or at least silencing certain views as a matter of national security. It is no accident that the overriding objective is to “get Musk.” Musk has proven the single greatest barrier to the global anti-free speech movement. //
For global elite like McNamee, free speech is not just dispensable but distracting. Only fools would listen to these voices in trading away our indispensable right.
JY
18 hours ago
The purpose of the first amendment is to undermine the government. //
anon-mfdk
19 hours ago
So under his logic, every person in Congress would need to limit their speech because they are paid by the federal government.
Jonathan Turley
@JonathanTurley
·
Follow
Harris often speaks of free speech as it if it is privilege bestowed by the government like a license and that you can be taken off the road if you are viewed as a reckless driver...
jonathanturley.org
“That Has to Stop”: Harris Denounces Unfettered Free Speech in 2019 CNN Interview
6:04 AM · Sep 4, 2024 //
In my book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” I discuss how the Biden-Harris Administration has proven to be the most anti-free speech administration since John Adams. That includes a massive censorship system described by one federal judge as perfectly “Orwellian.”
In the CNN interview, Harris displays many of the anti-free speech inclinations discussed earlier. She strongly suggests that X should be shut down if it does not yield to demands for speech regulation.
What is most chilling is how censorship and closure are Harris’s default positions when faced with unfettered speech. She declares to CNN that such unregulated free speech “has to stop” and that there is a danger to the country when people are allowed to “directly speak to millions and millions of people without any level of oversight and regulation.” //
The “joy” being sold by Harris includes the promise of the removal of viewpoints that many on the left feel are intolerable or triggering on social media. Where Biden was viewed as an opportunist in embracing censorship, Harris is a true believer. Like Walz, she has long espoused a shockingly narrow view of free speech that is reflective of the wider anti-free speech movement in higher education. //
Elon Musk
@elonmusk
·
Follow
This is what she actually believes.
Free speech is the bedrock of democracy and the Democratic Party (Kamala is just a puppet) wants to destroy it.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr
@RobertKennedyJr
Kamala Harris: "He [Musk] has lost his privileges."
Can someone please explain to her that freedom of speech is a RIGHT, not a "privilege"?
Kamala Harris: "There has to be a responsibility placed on these social media sites to understand their power."
Translation: "If they…
12:37 AM · Sep 3, 2024
David Asman @DavidAsmanfox
·
Fascism, unfiltered:
"Musk’s free-speech rights under the first amendment don’t take precedence over the public interest."
—Robert Reich
Jonathan Turley @JonathanTurley
Robert Reich, Clinton's labor secretary, is calling for the arrest of Elon Musk for his refusal to censor speech. https://foxnews.com/media/ex-labor-secretary-robert-reich-claims-elon-musk-out-control-says-regulators-should-threaten-arrest Reich has long been a staunch ally of the anti-free speech movement...
7:47 PM · Sep 1, 2024 //
Gad Saad @GadSaad
·
Let me translate for you what @RBReich has said: "I loved it when I was part of a party that controlled EVERYTHING. This annoying wealthy guy @elonmusk who does not support my political vision is exercising his freedoms. This cannot be tolerated, as such Musk must be destroyed for community cohesion.
i/o @eyeslasho
Robert Reich thinks Elon Musk has become too rich and powerful. He recommends these options be put on the table: Arresting Musk, FTC oversight of X, ending government contracts with SpaceX, boycotting Tesla, and an advertiser boycott of X.
https://theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/aug/30/elon-musk-wealth-power?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
10:15 AM · Sep 1, 2024
As referenced above, there are some constitutional problems with the CAADCA, which is being challenged in court by industry group NetChoice. In her order granting the injunction, US District Court Judge Beth Labson Freeman said the law is “not only unlikely to materially alleviate the harm of insufficient data and privacy protections for children, but actually likely to exacerbate the problem by inducing covered businesses to require consumers, including children, to divulge additional personal information.” //
In a press release announcing the decision, NetChoice noted that the law would impact all ages, not just children:
The court noted that the AADC’s Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) requirement likely violates the First Amendment by compelling speech and commandeering private companies to act as roving censors. This would have forced online services to restrict access to protected speech and information for all ages.