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

201–210 of 783 posts

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

#201

Post by brasic »

engineer_22 wrote: post #180
brasic wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read the entire injunction. It’s only seven pages. Then tell me with a straight face that you think it’s a good thing for free speech. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.18... It amounts to “no one from these 8 government agencies may communicate with anyone working at these three non profits, 20 social media companies or any similar organization” I’m not defending the behavior alleged here but…

-> Then tell me with a straight face that you think it’s a good thing for free speech. I'm just curious, can you tell us what you take issue with?

It’s a blatantly illegal prior restraint on speech, completely at odds with the values the plaintiffs and judge claim to hold.

Free speech cuts both ways. If you’re pleased when a judge bans any and all communication among millions of citizens, you don’t actually value the first amendment, you’re just cheering a partisan victory.

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

#202

Post by xdennis »

ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #23
doitLP wrote: post #20

> Doughty said that one Flaherty [White House director of digital strategy] message in February 2021 accused Facebook "of causing 'political violence' by failing to censor false COVID-19 claims." Flaherty also wrote in a July 2021 email to Facebook, "Are you guys fucking serious? I want an answer on what happened here and I want it today." Sure sounds like a relationship where the power only goes one direction and th…

which direction are you imagining? the one originating from the dude who used a swear word? or the one originating from the company who felt comfortable ignoring the dude and the request? after all, anyone can feel comfortable demanding anything, what matters is what they get : e.g. TFG felt comfortable demanding that his political rivals be imprisoned, did he get it?

> anyone can feel comfortable demanding anything, what matters is what they get

Try demanding that a lady give you her purse and see how far that takes you.

Attempting a crime is often a crime regardless if you succeed.

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

#203

Post by megaman821 »

brasic wrote: post #167
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…

Read the entire injunction. It’s only seven pages. Then tell me with a straight face that you think it’s a good thing for free speech. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.18... It amounts to “no one from these 8 government agencies may communicate with anyone working at these three non profits, 20 social media companies or any similar organization” I’m not defending the behavior alleged here but…

Do blanket bans on speech usually have a large group of exceptions? Not to mention the government can use their official accounts to communicate whatever they want, they just need to refrain from asking companies to take down things (that aren't a threat to national security, etc) until this case in adjudicated.

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

#204

Post by sbuttgereit »

commandlinefan wrote: post #159
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…

> Why defend them? Because a depressingly large percentage of people would actually like to see the first amendment overturned.

Naw, just redefined to something which allows complete freedom of speech... so long as it's the right speech.

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

#206

Post by [deleted] »

brasic wrote: post #167
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…

Read the entire injunction. It’s only seven pages. Then tell me with a straight face that you think it’s a good thing for free speech. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.18... It amounts to “no one from these 8 government agencies may communicate with anyone working at these three non profits, 20 social media companies or any similar organization” I’m not defending the behavior alleged here but…

[deleted]

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

#207

Post by spacemadness »

rabite wrote: post #186
Pxtl wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First off, I think all of us have learned the unfortunate downsides to a libertarian approach to free speech over the past 20 years. Any free speech purist would do well to remember what their legal recourse would be if somebody made elaborate false-allegations about you that harmed your career and marriage - we have many legal tools that protect us from harmful lies. It is not remarkable that there are people who be…

[flagged]

[flagged]

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

#208

Post by ch4s3 »

causi wrote: post #195
commandlinefan wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why defend them? Because a depressingly large percentage of people would actually like to see the first amendment overturned.

It's become quite rare for me to see people who defend speech they don't agree with, and rarer still any speech they find repugnant. It isn't liberty vs authority anymore; it's just team red and team blue. One might be wrong-er than the other but neither think people they hate should be able to open their mouths in anything but agreement.

I realized a long time ago that if no one was allowed to say thing I find distasteful the world would be a very quiet place. And I must imagine that there exist people who given the opportunity would be far more censorious than I might be at my worst. As such it seems beneficial to in general to mutually disarm with respect to censorship rather than create a world of pressing silence.

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

#209

Post by chimeracoder »

ceejayoz wrote: post #184
gcoakes wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which one are you referring to? A lot happened last week in the SCOTUS, and I haven't heard of this specific concern.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/303_Creative_LLC_v._Elenis > When Smith's suit was filed at the federal district court in 2016, she had not begun designing websites, nor had she received any requests to design a wedding website for a same-sex couple. In 2017, her lawyers ADF filed an affidavit from Smith stating that she had received such a request several days after the initial filing, and appended a copy of the reque…

> Perjury is probably a stretch, and it's unlikely to affect the ruling any.

Perjury is not a stretch. The case was revised before it reached SCOTUS, but her original court filing claimed that she had received a request from a specific named individual to design a website for his gay wedding.

Not only has that individual - who is a heterosexual man already married to a woman - denied ever making a request, but the plaintiff herself later claimed in court documents, under penalty of perjury, that she had not yet received a request to design a wedding website from a gay couple.

The case as presented to SCOTUS did not contain any perjurous claims, but the original case undeniably did.

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

#210

Post by LexiMax »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #189
LexiMax wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Let's not confuse Protestant fundamentalism motivated by political ends with religion in general. This is the rule, not the exception. Throughout history, instances where religious war was waged or religious atrocities occurred, there was often an underlying political logic to them. Religion has less to do with the underlying morality of the scripture and more to do with what religious leaders of the time say it is…

> What followed the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars was one of the most peaceful 99 years on the European continent since Pax Romana. Yeah... on the continent. They were merciless to indigenous populations across the globe during that century. Big improvement there - instead of fighting each other, we'll invade everyone else with the full takeover of India in 1858, and the New Imperialism of the 1870s which add…

> Nah, ask a historian.

I did. They call it "Pax Britanica," and there's loads of things you can read about that outline why historians put this period of history in the same category as Pax Americana and Pax Romana.

Post reply on HN