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

211–220 of 783 posts

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

#211

Post by lightedman »

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…

You seem to be mistaken on what an injunction is.

This is not a direct ruling, it is an order to cease the current behavior (the gov't telling social media companies to censor speech) until it can be ascertained whether or not this is a harmful thing which is happening.

You're acting as if this injunction creates a law or sets some sort of precedent. It truly does not.

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

#212

Post by snowwrestler »

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…

It’s not so cut and dry, because believers in free speech can believe that the federal government and its employees should also be free to speak.

The legal theory at stake here is that all government speech is inherently coercive. But this is not necessarily true, or aligned with free speech as a principle of society.

Any time someone says “we must protect free speech by legally enjoining the following people from speaking,” I am suspicious.

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

#213

Post by ceejayoz »

GeekyBear wrote: post #162
krona wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook is employing former CIA agents to moderate content/determine misinformation policies. https://thehill.com/hilltv/3566225-reporter-facebook-using-e...

I don't know that former government officials are the same level of problem that demands from (then) current government officials are. For example: > We released a list of 354 names Maine Senate Angus King wanted taken down for reasons like “Rand Paul visit excitement,” “followed by [former Republican opponent Eric] Brakey,” and my personal favorite, “mentions immigration.” For balance we also released a letter from…

Doesn't the First Amendment protect the right to say "I think this should be taken down"?

(Side note: The Angus King stuff is a misrepresentation. The screenshots are from a spreadsheet - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vS1PbfNEqDCK... - in which a column indicates how the account first came to the King campaign's attention, not the reason they think they warranted action.)

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

#214

Post by plagiarist »

NotYourLawyer wrote: post #154
plagiarist wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Trump should have been impeached and convicted for those things, which have nothing to do with the judges he appointed.

Yes, of course, the same dude extorting a foreign country, committing an insurrection, and selling classified information would never appoint judges on any basis other than their individual merits. Every corrupt individual keeps the corruption pretty compartmentalized away from whatever judicial appointments they are doing.

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

#216

Post by atlantic »

LexiMax wrote: post #170
gjsman-1000 wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We now live in the most peaceful time in human history. I would say we live in the most widespread Uneasy Peace in human history. And unlike religious peace which had occasional conflicts, a break in the peace now would mean annihilation. Is general peace, risk of annihilation better than occasional petty wars without annihilation? > And just to be clear, we're contrasting this time of unprecedented peace with enti…

> 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.

This was the period when the Austro-Hungarian empire was dissolved, the Ottoman possessions in Europe were lost, the Prussian empire formed, the Italian nation formed, and many European monarchies fell during the liberal revolutions. Amongst the conflicts between the leading European powers, there was the Franco-Prussian War, the Boer War, the Anglo-Russian war in the Crimea. And then, just after your carefully-chosen 99 years, the Great War, and Russian Revolution. Hardly peaceful.

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

#217

Post by s__s »

1970-01-01 wrote: post #182

The free speech misinformation directly led to deaths of citizens. It is no different from any other speech that causes mass panic and confusion. I don't understand why this decision was allowed to become detached from reality.

Yelling fire in a crowded theatre is only illegal when you know for sure there is no fire and are intentionally trying to cause panic and death.

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

#218

Post by tzs »

Clubber wrote: post #132
Pxtl wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously it's his prerogative to choose who he and the Senate want, but then nobody should be outraged when the impartiality of his appointed judges is questioned. edit: I'm rate-limited so can't reply, so here's my reply below: It's a matter of degrees. For example, when Biden made it clear that he was hiring Ketanji Brown Jackson in part because she was a progressive black woman, she still had a massive amount of…

All judges are picked for their political bias, that's how it works. Democrats pick judges who are more left leaning, conservatives pick justices that are more right leaning. To pretend it's just one way is incorrect.

...and before Trump both Republicans and Democrats when picking their nominees would pick a candidate that leaned their way and that the the other side could agree was well qualified and experienced enough to do the job well even if they didn't like the candidates politics.

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

#219

Post by gjsman-1000 »

LexiMax wrote: post #210
gjsman-1000 wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

You answered the wrong question. I said to ask a historian regarding the unfounded assertion that "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, and their interpretation can be...flexible."

Prove that. You can name a few examples where there was a widespread spirit in the air (Crusades, Spanish Inquisition [even though the death count was only about 14 executions per year]), but you can't show an example where Christians ever believed premarital sex was OK, or Muslims ever believing you could eat pork one morning. You can show plenty of flexibility of Protestantism though, but that's unique to that religion which rejects centralized authority or the importance of traditional views for scriptural interpretation.

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

#220

Post by dogleash »

Pxtl wrote: post #174
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…

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]
Post reply on HN