zlacker

Is that a US constitutional violation by the biden government? I guess not because they weren't really forced to. Yet again , putting pressure on media is not negligible

>>seydor+(OP)
The first amendment specifically uses the word "congress," and the President is not congress.

> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/

From what I understand, the executive branch generally uses the power of persuasion to influence media. There's no legal consequences for failing to comply; but instead the media has to weigh political consequences.

To put it differently, if your social network is used to push conspiracy theories and otherwise undermine democracy, you're going to have a tough time asking for political favors.

>>seydor+(OP)
This was recently decided by the US Supreme Court.

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-social-media-biden-...

>>seydor+(OP)
Was it an official act?

If yes, totally immune from consequences.

If not, then was it really "pressure"? In what sense?

>>gwbas1+T5
but if the president had the power to censor, that power should come from a law that the congress made. it wouldnt make sense otherwise

>>seydor+ge
It's a moot point; FB said it was 100% their decision to suppress speech.

>>seydor+ge
Basically, aides call up media outlets and aggressively nag.

The media then gets favors if they comply. There's no law against a politician playing favorites in the media.

The media can also choose to ignore. It's not in the White House's interest to make enemies in the media.