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

#221

Post by ethanbond » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 2:41 PM UTC

artificialLimbs wrote: post #176

ethanbond wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That behavior didn't occur, as the Twitter Files themselves indicated. FBI gave a general warning prior to the election around hacked materials, Twitter (and many others) thought the laptop story might be one such example and reacted according to their own corporate policies/scenario planning. There is zero evidence that the government acted on the laptop story in any way, and even the Biden campaign/Biden family (pr…

James Baker actively pushed heads to have the story censored, which happened.

James Baker was Deputy General Counsel at Twitter lol. His official job was to be involved in exactly these types of decisions. He left the FBI in 2018.

Raise complaints about the revolving door between govt and industry if you want, but this is cut-and-dry not about a government official pressuring a private company. It's about a private company hiring a former government official (years out of service) and then that person doing the job they were hired to do.

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

#222

Post by ch4s3 » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 2:41 PM UTC

brasic wrote: post #201

engineer_22 wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

-> 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.

There's a 5 part test laid out by the 9th circuit in Gibson v. Office of Attorney Gen related to speech rights of government employees. The government has broad latitude to restrict the speech that occurs in the course of a government employee's job, SCOTUS laid this out in Garcetti v. Ceballos. Moreover, this is an injunction related to the pending trial, and while judges can sometimes be a bit too aggressive for my taste there seems to be a compelling reason here.

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

#223

Post by ceejayoz » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 2:41 PM UTC

chimeracoder wrote: post #209

ceejayoz wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pl…

I can't find evidence of that. From the NBC article, which calls the original request one asking for "pre-enforcement review":

> Smith sued in 2016 saying she wanted to design wedding websites but was concerned that the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act would force her to put together websites for same-sex weddings, as well. She said she wanted to post a statement on her website making clear her opposition to doing so.

The claim about the email is in a later filing as an update. Its existence doesn't seem to be in question; its provenance does, but that could happen without the plaintiff's involvement. You'd have to prove they knew it was bullshit.

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

#224

Post by curiousllama » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 2:41 PM UTC

brasic wrote: post #201

engineer_22 wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

-> 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.

I mean, I don't agree with the top level comment here, but this isn't a reverse-free-speech issue. Courts are absolutely free to restrain what public officials can say.

E.g., a regulator cannot say "if you don't burn this book, we'll tax you out of existence" while a person could say "if you don't burn this book, I'll vote to have you taxed out of existence"

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

#225

Post by xcrunner529 » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 2:42 PM UTC

whoknowswhat11 wrote: post #196

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…

What was the justification for the ban on the hunter Biden stories? Why not just issue a statement- the White House has a press office that could just deny things. They went around their messaging in an unusual way.

There was no ban. The links from the “Twitter files” they the WH asked to be removed were all dick pics (you can confirm this via archive.org) which were a violation of the Twitter TOS.

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

#226

Post by brasic » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 2:42 PM UTC

lightedman wrote: post #211

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…

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.

I know very well what an injunction is and does. You seem to be mistaken on what “law” is. It is by no means limited to statutory text or even final judicial opinions.

The fact that contempt of court is the only real penalty available for violating this injunction is exactly why it’s harmful. Making ludicrously broad and unenforceable injunctions like this inevitably corrodes the rule of law and damages the overall system.

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

#227

Post by engineer_22 » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 2:44 PM UTC

dogleash wrote: post #220

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]

-> There is legal precedent regarding chilling effects and government action.

Please provide citation, I'd like to know more

-> If you're not American you can't be expected to know that level of detail. If you are American, your highschool civics teacher was terrible.

Please be kind, or avoid discussing politics. There are other opinions than our own, and though we may disagree we need to respect each other, I hope all civics teachers would agree on that.

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

#228

Post by snowwrestler » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 2:44 PM UTC

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.

Yes but what you don’t see is the many many requests in the same tone that come into social media (and traditional media!) companies from corporations, celebrities, even regular old citizens who are mad their drunk driving arrest got reported (for example).

The idea that an imperious tone somehow proves a power imbalance is hilarious to anyone who has ever been on the receiving end of these requests from regular people. “I demand an answer right now” is what angry diners say when a restaurant runs of the special. It’s the tone that people adopt to imply power when they don’t actually have power, but want to seem like they do. Which is a common, and legal, mode of speaking in everyday life.

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

#229

Post by hnfong » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 2:45 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…

If "secular governance" includes mega corporations I'd fully agree.

Social media is just the latest of them. For example, relatively traditional companies like credit card companies have disproportionate power in deciding whether transactions are allowed or not, regardless whether they're legal. Often they refuse to process transactions for industries apparently out of "moral" reasons.

Governments are actually becoming less influential because laws don't reach beyond their borders. Yet multinational companies often have monopolistic power and influence over many important aspects of people's lives.

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

#230

Post by meragrin_ » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 2:45 PM UTC

brasic wrote: post #201

engineer_22 wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

-> 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.

> 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.

What? You seem very misinformed. Here's the ruling:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.18...