Yes, there’s also that detail.
What nonsense.
1 Like
Just ignore what the pesky thing actually says.
Funny thing is, Citizens United was actually a suppression of speech case.
You’re on the wrong side of history.
Here’s another funny thing; you, a vociferous supporter of unions, collective bargaining, the power of collectivism, incessantly whining about a decision that does just that.
2 Likes
Unions are not persons either…they should not be able to use money as speech either.
I don’t know as this could be considered a 1st amendment violation.
But it is advertising in a way and could be considered a campaign contribution violation. What dollar value would skewing the search results for political candidates hold for a campaign?
1 Like
It’s not an 1A violation. Google is under no requirement to make their algorithm “fair”.
How?
Couldn’t a campaign pay Google to make their campaign page a top result?
Twitter does it if you pay for premium. Your tweets get search priority and have greater reach.
They sure as heck didn’t envision a lengthy primary at the end of which party leaders would change their mind and ignore the votes.
1 Like
They didn’t imagine primaries at all.
1 Like
its the 5th circus, the most overturned court in 2024.
Allan
Then they should not exist.
What is the definition of “corporation”? What is the root of the word?
They “could” but if google is doing it for free then isn’t that an in kind donation?
Hmmmm… good question.
I’m going to say no. If it was, then it could also be considered an “in kind donation” to promote a Presidential candidate if you are say Taylor Swift. Which we would think is silly… I hope.
Yeah I’m not sure either. Just saying that would probably be the argument.
“Damage” is not a cause of action.
didn’t say it was, I said it would be easy for him to show it. It would
