Injunction issued in case about social media pressure from US Government • Hacker News Board

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

#141

Post by LexiMax » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 1:59 PM UTC

edgyquant wrote: post #94

mullingitover wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Historically, religion doesn't have a great track record with its use of moral authority.

The other poster is correct that this an incorrect secular talking point. “Secular” regimes have murdered tens of millions of people in this past century alone

Nevertheless, the assertion that religious regimes are somehow advantaged is off base. Religious morality is not some constant force, it's a malleable, flexible construct that has less to do with actual scripture and more to do with what religious leaders of the time say it is.

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

#142

Post by jauntywundrkind » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 1:59 PM UTC

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?

As usual, I think the term that applies here is projection. A vast amount of politicians and Trump in particular have taken to heart a particular realpolitick tactic for dealing with the loyal opposition, of never wasting a chance to accuse the other side of exactly what you're doing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accusation_in_a_mirror

And further, Trump's actions were fairly wild & chaotic & needed restraint.

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

#143

Post by ceejayoz » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 2:00 PM UTC

efitz wrote: post #131

This thread baffles me. There are a lot of replies that either didn’t read the article (or even the headline) that seem to be government apologists, or arguing that a particular email isn’t coercive enough, etc. A court found that the government abused its power and infringes on people’s first amendment rights by using its intimidation power to coerce social media to censor free speech of citizens. Freedom of speech…

> A court found that the government abused its power and infringes on people’s first amendment rights by using its intimidation power to coerce social media to censor free speech of citizens.

This is not how a preliminary injunction works.

The court has ordered that the governmment stop doing the in-dispute things until the dispute is resolved - in either direction - in court.

The standard for such an injunction is not proof, but "they might prevail in court, and there's potentially enough harm from letting it continue in the meantime".

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

#144

Post by LatteLazy » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 2:00 PM UTC

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 am a limey brit, and was no great fan of Obama but... I don't think his judges ever overthrew precedent the way Trump judges have. Ironically the main place they have done this is Abortion, which Trump didn't seem to give a damn about, so really they should be called Republican or Christian Right judges rather than Trump judges maybe? Who knows...

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

#145

Post by lordfrito » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 2:00 PM UTC

efitz wrote: post #131

This thread baffles me. There are a lot of replies that either didn’t read the article (or even the headline) that seem to be government apologists, or arguing that a particular email isn’t coercive enough, etc. A court found that the government abused its power and infringes on people’s first amendment rights by using its intimidation power to coerce social media to censor free speech of citizens. Freedom of speech…

I'm with you on this.

Something tells me the people here arguing that Flaherty wasn't coercive or threatening would be arguing just the opposite if this was the Trump administration.

Apparently it's about time for our collective citizenry to relearn some generational lessons from history, preferably not the hard way.

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

#146

Post by areoform » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 2:00 PM UTC

Guthur wrote: post #78

mullingitover wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Historically, religion doesn't have a great track record with its use of moral authority.

I'd beg to disagree. The track record of secularism from the French revolution, to empire and idealogy had quite a lot of blood on it's hands. The body count is most certainly not skewed to religion by any stretch.

We now live in the most peaceful time in human history.

And just to be clear, we're contrasting this time of unprecedented peace with entities that have killed in spasms of violence with no apparent public casus belli than "my book is better than your book and it told me to do so?"

Spasms that, in one set of instances, led to the deaths of a significant fraction of the global population?

    “Estimates of the number of people killed in the Crusades begin at 1 million (Wertham…) and go as high as 9 million (Robertson…) passing through 3 million (Garrison…) and 5 million (Elson…) along the way. I took the low middle (Garrison’s estimate) as my estimate. The geometric means of the extremes is 3 million.” Matthew White, The Great Big Book of Horrible Things: The Definitive Chronicle of History’s 100 Worst Atrocities (2012), p. 576 (see f.n. 1 under The Crusades).

Or, the religiously affirmed divine right fascists felt during WW2 to rule others as decreed by their holy men?

    NAZI 'DIVINE RIGHT' TO RULE ASSERTED; Dr. Ley Says Reich's 'Mission' to Dominate Other Nations Is Among War Aims WOULD WIPE OUT BRITAIN 'Annihilation' of Obstacle to German Destiny Demanded by Labor Front Head

https://www.nytimes.com/1939/12/19/archives/nazi-divine-righ...

Or, doctrines like "Manifest Destiny" that were religious in origin and preached in church?

http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/tserve/nineteen/nkeyinfo...

The only way to end the cycle of violence is by embracing the scientific method, rationality, and empathy. Anything else is a step to madness. Voltaire said it best,

    There have been people who once said, you believe incomprehensible, contradictory, impossible things, because we have ordered you to do so; therefore do unjust things because we order you to do so. These people reasoned wonderfully. Certainly, whoever has the right to make you absurd has the right to make you unjust.

Or, more succinctly, as Desmond MacCarthy put it via a fictional Voltaire,

    Ah, my child, as long as people continue to believe absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities!

We must fight irrational lunacy and ensure that the light of enlightenment doesn't die out.

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

#147

Post by hirundo » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 2:00 PM UTC

merth wrote: post #86

hanniabu wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about yelling bomb on an airplane

how is that information is useful even if it's true. it's not like you can walk away.

You can pray, which many people find useful. You might be able to phone home and say goodbye. There might be a bomb squad technician on the plane.

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

#148

Post by ledauphin » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 2:00 PM UTC

Guthur wrote: post #18

The problem i believe we are coming to is that all secular governance eventually replaces the role once taken by church and religious philosophy. It starts to become the arbiter of moral truth and with out any real moral center it can only but fail spectacularly. The second and third political theories of racial and social idealogies more rapidly succumb to this due to a more overt desire to place the state at this m…

i think this is a strong point, and it's underscored by how little anyone is willing to center the discussion on something quite fundamental: is the behavior from the individuals in question acceptable even if it were legal? My answer to that is no, it is not and could not be acceptable human activity even if the laws protected it.

We've largely lost the ability to talk about the things themselves, preferring instead to look at things through the tremendously artificial lens of "what do the lawyers say?"

We've outsourced morality to a technocracy.

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

#149

Post by freedomben » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 2:01 PM UTC

Guthur wrote: post #78

mullingitover wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Historically, religion doesn't have a great track record with its use of moral authority.

I'd beg to disagree. The track record of secularism from the French revolution, to empire and idealogy had quite a lot of blood on it's hands. The body count is most certainly not skewed to religion by any stretch.

You seem to be inferring an argument in GP that they didn't make - that secularism is has no blood on it's hands. Of course it does.

This does not mean that religion is innocent. That is a fallacy. They are not mutually exclusive. People can do terrible things when guided by religious faith, or when guided by a secular "faith." Both are bad and should be called out.

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

#150

Post by ceejayoz » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 2:02 PM UTC

lordfrito wrote: post #145

efitz wrote: post #131

This thread baffles me. There are a lot of replies that either didn’t read the article (or even the headline) that seem to be government apologists, or arguing that a particular email isn’t coercive enough, etc. A court found that the government abused its power and infringes on people’s first amendment rights by using its intimidation power to coerce social media to censor free speech of citizens. Freedom of speech…

I'm with you on this. Something tells me the people here arguing that Flaherty wasn't coercive or threatening would be arguing just the opposite if this was the Trump administration. Apparently it's about time for our collective citizenry to relearn some generational lessons from history, preferably not the hard way.

> Something tells me the people here arguing that Flaherty wasn't coercive or threatening would be arguing just the opposite if this was the Trump administration.

The Trump administration was doing the same thing.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/elon-tru...

> When the White House called up Twitter in the early morning hours of September 9, 2019, officials had what they believed was a serious issue to report: Famous model Chrissy Teigen had just called President Donald Trump “a pussy ass bitch” on Twitter — and the White House wanted the tweet to come down.

> “It was strange to me when all of these investigations were announced because it was all about the exact same stuff that we had done [when Donald Trump was in office],” one former top aide to a senior Trump administration official tells Rolling Stone. “It was normal.”