91–100 of 131 posts
The government’s position, the complaint said, “forces Twitter either to engage in speech that has been preapproved by government officials or else to refrain from speaking altogether.” Isn't that the definition of censorship? I'm surprised they don't actually use that word in the lawsuit: http://www.washingtonpost.com/r/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/201...
The government’s position, the complaint said, “forces Twitter either to engage in speech that has been preapproved by government officials or else to refrain from speaking altogether.” Isn't that the definition of censorship? I'm surprised they don't actually use that word in the lawsuit: http://www.washingtonpost.com/r/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/201...
"Censorship" isn't unconstitutional (e.g. obscenities laws). Certain kinds of censorship may be, and they have specific names.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Censorship" isn't unconstitutional (e.g. obscenities laws). Certain kinds of censorship may be, and they have specific names.
That's an interesting statement. I regard obscenities laws to be unconstitutional. Specifically, to be extremely anti-free speech and anti-free press (depending). All forms of censorship are unconstitutional and blatant violations of the first amendment. Given the countless flawed or flat-out wrong positions the Supreme Court has taken over the centuries when it comes to individual rights, I think we can likely agree…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Almost certainly criminal charges, and possibly (probably?) ones that "pierce the veil" (ie, go after the executives/employees personally, not [just] the corporation). Not exactly something anybody would really want to risk. (I am not a lawyer, I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice).
Would any jury convict those people? I'd like to hope the answer is no. Again these are just rhetorical questions, I don't work for twitter.
Fundamentally, the courts are there to uphold the rule of law. If the law's an ass then that's a job for the legislature.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hopefully even small such victories against NSLs will encourage more companies to sue the government for using NSLs. Or we can just push for Congress to stop renewing the Patriot Act next year.
Just push? With the intelligence community hacking into Senators' computers to defend themselves from investigation, even admitting it, at will, with no reprimand? And have it barely scrape the news? Is it that easy? Can we just repeal bills like the Patriot Act? Look at how easy it was for Australia to invent a media blitz of fear to pass legislation allowing surveillance that has no counter terrorism purpose.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can they get around this by citing 2 partially overlapping ranges in separate reports? E.g. report 1: "We received 0-500 NSLs" report 2: "We received 450-950 NSLs"
You can leak information with just one range: "We received between 332 and 334 NSLs." If they require larger ranges, it's not so different going from there to, "We received between 133 and 533 NSLs." Whether a judge will agree that you've complied with the requirements after that sort of trickery is something else entirely. I can't imagine them not complaining about that sort of tactic and whether you get away with i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's the US government... They're always investigating, and always collecting all information they can coerce or steal in order to conduct future investigations or use as blackmail.
The current assumption should be that they are always targeted. This has always been the case, even before Snowden or any other events.
I think this is the first time I've seen the phrase "post Edward Snowden world", used like "post 9-11 world" has been for the last decade-plus. I hope that catches on. Edit: can't believe I got the name wrong. Fixed.
The government’s position, the complaint said, “forces Twitter either to engage in speech that has been preapproved by government officials or else to refrain from speaking altogether.” Isn't that the definition of censorship? I'm surprised they don't actually use that word in the lawsuit: http://www.washingtonpost.com/r/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/201...
"Censorship" isn't unconstitutional (e.g. obscenities laws). Certain kinds of censorship may be, and they have specific names.
Not that the government gives a fuck, but still, just to be clear about what we're discussing here. But yeah, "obscenities laws" are most certainly unconstitutional.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hopefully even small such victories against NSLs will encourage more companies to sue the government for using NSLs. Or we can just push for Congress to stop renewing the Patriot Act next year.
Congress will only stop renewing it if the voters demand it.
But hey, governments are "by the people" and "for the people" of course, and to think otherwise would be tantamount to.. actually seeing what's happening!