Injunction issued in case about social media pressure from US Government

Post by ch4s3 » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 2:45 PM UTC

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…

Post by GeekyBear » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 2:47 PM UTC

snowwrestler wrote: post #212

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 sp…

Post by brasic » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 2:49 PM UTC

meragrin_ wrote: post #230

brasic wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Post by hnfong » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 2:52 PM UTC

perihelions wrote: post #129

somenameforme wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Post by engineer_22 » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 2:52 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.