Talk:Murthy v. Missouri

Background
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)


 * The point is that the Missouri AG/senator has been filing numerous lawsuits (including this one) that are an attempt to hold the administration accountable. The suits filed have covered more than just social media, so that it is understood this is but one area of concern for them. This is clear in the RSes which do talk to what his personal agenda is. M asem (t) 16:57, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The point is that the Missouri AG/senator has been filing numerous lawsuits (including this one) that are an attempt to hold the administration accountable. - and that information is in the article, and was not removed by me. The other lawsuits are simply not relevant here. Red Slapper (talk) 17:02, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If you took it out, it would just appear he was going after the administration dealing with social media, which is not correct. And one sentence is not going into depth of these other suits...I could talk how many of these succeeded or not. But that level of detail is not necessary, just that they represented more than free speech. M asem (t) 17:05, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This article is not about the Missouri AG/senator, but about a particular case before the Federal court. The source you are using doesn't even mention this particular case, and that entire section probably needs to be taken out, not just the line I previously removed. Red Slapper (talk) 17:10, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It establishes why the AG filed this case, though a second source to connect it better would help. The articles do link back to am article about these additional case filings, so its not OR. M asem (t) 17:18, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't even mention this case. You are the one connecting the dots, which is not permissible. Regardless, why he is doing this is not relevant to this case.
 * To take another example, in an article we both recently edited - 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, the legal representation of the plaintiff in that case was by ADF. There is little doubt that ADF brought that lawsuit as part of a strategy to challenge various government policies (affirmative action, freedom of exercise) in which they brought multiple lawsuits, but there is not a word about this in the background section of 303, and rightly so, because the article is about the case, not the ADF. And similarly, this article is about the case, not Schmitt Red Slapper (talk) 17:30, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 393 is about Smith the website designer, and enough by on her is given to establish that case. What past role of ADF probably can easily be sourced in other articles about the 303 case.
 * Here, Schmitt is the person at the center of launching this case, so establishing why (wanting to hold the admin accountable) is very much relevant here. One of the article I have reffed for the launch if this case links back to the other 25 cases he filed for the same purpose, so there is no OR there. M asem (t) 17:42, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Schmitt is the person at the center of launching this case is an opinion, not fact, and a questionable one at that, seeing as the suit was launched jointly by the AGs of Missouri and Louisiana. Please don't substitute your personally held convictions, strong as they may be, for factual encyclopedic content about legal cases. Alternatively, find a (single) reliable source that says this - that Missouri v. Bidne is part of Schmitt's personal agenda against the Biden administration. Red Slapper (talk) 18:09, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * "As it turns out, Starbird is caught up in one of the spate of lawsuits Schmitt has filed against the federal government.
 * Schmitt is seeking her emails as part of “ongoing research to aid in our lawsuit against the federal government for allegedly colluding with social media giants to suppress freedom of speech,” said Chris Nuelle, the attorney general’s spokesman." That's from one of the Missouri Indeoendent articles, and the one that points back to the earlier ones that explains the range of these lawsuits. M asem  (t) 19:08, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 1. That's not the source used for the background section
 * 2. This does not mention anything about the loan forgiveness or other lawsuits
 * 3. This focus on Starbird, as one of dozens of people subpoenaed for this case is undue weight, and needs to be taken out if the article as well. Red Slapper (talk) 19:23, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Its in the article, if it needs to be reused there, it can be. The earlier article has the debt forgiveness info. As fir Starburd, there are several other ppl that were subpoenas but which I haven't been able to add yet. There is also the legal challenge to block those subpoenas by the federal govt.
 * Much of your issues us coming from the fact this article only got started yesterday and can readily be expanded more with material even prior to the injunction. O just didn't have time add wverything, only the core details. M asem (t) 19:37, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

SYNTH in "Lawsuit" section
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.
 * Source A (AP article 1) that says the MO AG Schmitt filed many lawsuits, including some related to oil and gas, student loans etc.. but DOES NOT mention Missouri v. Biden
 * Source B (AP article 2) says Schmitt filed numerous lawsuits (again, not mentioning Missouri v. Biden), to bolster his election campaign
 * And finally source C (NPR) says Missouri v. Biden is one of several high-profile lawsuits targeting the Biden administration.

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)
 * I really do not think this is synth (as there are no other set of high-profile cases filed by Schmitt against the Biden administration during this period, so that's a straight-forward connect), but I have taken it out until I can find something better. --M asem (t) 19:25, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Neutrality
This 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. M asem  (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
The 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
michael 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
https://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
The 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. M asem (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. M asem (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. M asem (t) 01:07, 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
I'm waiting to see which case name is going to be the lead one for SCOTUS before renaming to reflect that. M asem (t) 02:30, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

"Misinformation" and "lacks standing".
For 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. M asem (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
Kate 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)