> also, in American courts, it is the actual harm that matters. No harm, no standing, no court case.

Traditionally, yes, although that didn't stop SCOTUS from ruling last week in a case in which the plaintiff experienced no harm (not to mention admitted to perjury).

There are "criminal attempt" and "conspiracy" charges, so in general it's possible, but probably not in this case.

If I'm reading this right, the plaintiffs felt harmed because their information they might have received was effectively censored. Not all of the sources were, but enough of them were removed that would have been published without the government's intervention.

This is one of those times where I look at what someone says, and think, "Aren't you the same people who thought X about Y, and now, you think something that seems totally contradictory because Y' happens to support the opposite side?" Then, I realize all sides are comprised of heterogenous people with ideas that happen to have similar throughlines, and I'm comparing your statement to something I read from someone I perceived as being from the same side.

To this specific topic, could you clarify your position? Do you think the same is applicable to a police officer or an IRS agent?

The specific thing that made me think your statement was contradictory was police. The left was demanding police to be accountable seemingly five minutes ago. For most police departments, I think they went too far in saying the whole system was corrupt. I think there's at least an argument to be made about the extent of the Biden administration's involvement, but certainly you think the person doing the coercion should be punished, right?

It seems to me that any case of a "random bureaucrat" attempting to coerce a citizen or company outside of their civil mandate should be punished to the maximum extent of the law. If there isn't a criminal punishment already for this, one should be created and applied retroactively because it should be common sense.