Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Injunction issued in case about social media pressure from US Government

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 783 posts

Re: Injunction issued in case about social media pressure from US Government

#121

Post by [deleted] »

NotYourLawyer wrote: post #109
LatteLazy wrote: post #3

>But Judge Terry Doughty, a Trump nominee at US District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, granted the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction imposing limits... 1. Him being a trump nominee makes me suspicious, but also sad that that is the effect and that papers need to list who nominated a judge. 2. Granting a preliminary injunction is a long way from winning a case. 3. There is pressure and th…

When Trump complained about “Obama judges” he was rightly ridiculed. Why is ok to cast aspersions on judges nominated by Trump?

[deleted]

Re: Injunction issued in case about social media pressure from US Government

#123

Post by hospitalJail »

Clubber wrote: post #2

Good news, now if we can just get rid of all the domestic spying and police overreach, we might resemble a semblance of a free society rather than an analog of it.

Given Apple and Google have the ability to record every word you say(maybe not store it for 300M people, but they can certainly filter it for specific words that could begin recording once triggered... "Hey Google/Siri/Alexa/Cortana"), the issue is that we don't want the US government doing it, but private companies can? Heck if you buy any IOT device with a mic, you should give up any idea you have privacy.

I'm over this illusion of privacy.

If you are asking if we should spend less on spying, sure, but that could be my ignorant teens when I was an anarchist talking.

Re: Injunction issued in case about social media pressure from US Government

#124

Post by ceejayoz »

efitz wrote: post #113
afavour wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But Flaherty specifically didn’t get what he wanted (that’s why he was mad!) so I think it’s misleading to say the power only goes from government to Facebook. If anything this example shows the exact opposite with Flaherty sending indignant anger in the other direction.

> If anything this example shows the exact opposite with Flaherty sending indignant anger in the other direction. I don’t see how you got there. I see literal demands for action in the tone of someone giving orders to a subordinate.

I mean, it's also the tone of a kid not getting what they want from their non-subordinate parent.

Re: Injunction issued in case about social media pressure from US Government

#125

Post by Pxtl »

viggity wrote: post #82

The Hunter Biden laptop story was actively suppressed on Twitter and Facebook specifically because the FBI told them it was Russian information, despite the fact that the FBI had verified it was legit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_Files

It was stolen revenge-porn of the President's son. Come on, do you remember how bad "The Fappening" went for Reddit? How Hulk Hogan's stolen sex tape went for Gawker? Twitter didn't need FBI to tell them that they didn't want Hunter Biden's cock all over their site.

Re: Injunction issued in case about social media pressure from US Government

#126

Post by afavour »

NotYourLawyer wrote: post #109
LatteLazy wrote: post #3

>But Judge Terry Doughty, a Trump nominee at US District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, granted the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction imposing limits... 1. Him being a trump nominee makes me suspicious, but also sad that that is the effect and that papers need to list who nominated a judge. 2. Granting a preliminary injunction is a long way from winning a case. 3. There is pressure and th…

When Trump complained about “Obama judges” he was rightly ridiculed. Why is ok to cast aspersions on judges nominated by Trump?

Classic case of false equivalence: they both appointed judges therefore their actions must be equivalent, right?

Did Obama ever nominate a judge that’s never tried a case in front of a court and failed to disclose his marriage to the White House counsel’s chief of staff?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_Talley

Re: Injunction issued in case about social media pressure from US Government

#127

Post by HPsquared »

naillo wrote: post #66
throwawaaarrgh wrote: post #39

Does this mean I can yell fire in a crowded theater again? Apparently not limiting my free speech is more important than the impact of my disinformation.

There's an argument that some pieces of the disinformation has some truth to it and thus not being able to say it cause more harm then censoring it. (So which side actually is analogous to yelling fire, the censorship side or the non censorship side.)

Indeed. If there is something smouldering in the theater and someone yells "fire" then is shut down because "Ackchyually it's not a fire!"

Re: Injunction issued in case about social media pressure from US Government

#128

Post by ceejayoz »

efitz wrote: post #118
GeekyBear wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'd look at it the same as a police officer demanding things. The Government cannot demand that political speech be censored without running afoul of the First Amendment. If you recall, the courts didn't allow Trump to block critical accounts on Twitter.

That is literally what the government was found to be doing by a court.

That's not what a preliminary injunction is.

A judge has ordered that the government not do the in-dispute things while the dispute is being ajudicated in court.

Re: Injunction issued in case about social media pressure from US Government

#129

Post by perihelions »

somenameforme wrote: post #71
throwawaaarrgh wrote: post #39

Does this mean I can yell fire in a crowded theater again? Apparently not limiting my free speech is more important than the impact of my disinformation.

There's a really fun, and deeply relevant, historical tidbit on the history of 'yelling fire in a crowded theater.' That statement didn't actually come from any court case along those lines. Instead it was first used by Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in the case Schenck vs the United States, as a metaphor. [1] So, what was the egregious offense, endangering all of society by words alone, uttered by by Sc…

The meta-lesson I've learned from these types of examples is that language is a slippery construct: the more you wander away from concrete words and specific meanings, in the direction of metaphors and abstractions, the easier it is to convince of yourself of stupid things. It's on the back of my mind a lot when worrying about LLM's. The power to convince, and the power to reason, are very different things.

Re: Injunction issued in case about social media pressure from US Government

#130

Post by plagiarist »

NotYourLawyer wrote: post #109
LatteLazy wrote: post #3

>But Judge Terry Doughty, a Trump nominee at US District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, granted the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction imposing limits... 1. Him being a trump nominee makes me suspicious, but also sad that that is the effect and that papers need to list who nominated a judge. 2. Granting a preliminary injunction is a long way from winning a case. 3. There is pressure and th…

When Trump complained about “Obama judges” he was rightly ridiculed. Why is ok to cast aspersions on judges nominated by Trump?

I think because Obama didn't extort a foreign country, commit an insurrection, or sell top secret information to US adversaries.
Post reply on HN