this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2024
-3 points (0.0% liked)

Conservative

357 readers
79 users here now

A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff

  1. Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.

  2. We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.

  3. Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.

A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.

founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS
 

I am surprised this made it to SCOTUS. When the government is demanding it, it becomes a 1st amendment issue. Meta is acting as an agent of the government. This should have never happened.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] BottomTierJannie@sh.itjust.works -1 points 6 months ago

We'll start at the beginning: So, there are absolutely no circumstances when the government can do anything to promote the public’s interest in health and safety through factual information? None at all? Zero?

As I said, the government is free to push its own narrative through its own channels. If some government organization wants to spend their time spamming tweets, they're free to do so. They can use their own websites, call for press conferences, that type of stuff.