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

241–250 of 783 posts

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

#241

Post by rhaway84773 »

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…

The court clearly found that wrongly because they do say that there are other non first amendment protected speech that the government can indeed suppress on social media.

It’s just these few non first amendment protected items that the court is ideologically opposed to that the government cannot suppress.

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

#242

Post by GeekyBear »

ceejayoz wrote: post #213
GeekyBear wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

Not when your are a government official demanding that political speech be censored.

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

#243

Post by snowwrestler »

GeekyBear wrote: post #233
snowwrestler wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. If the speech the government officials are engaging in is a demand to censor the political speech of citizens, then we are looking at a violation of the First Amendment. Nobody is saying that government officials can't engage in other kinds of speech that don't violate th…

Demands are free speech, even if unreasonable. The First Amendment constrains the application of the power of law, like prosecution and imprisonment. Which is not what happened in these cases.

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

#244

Post by ceejayoz »

GeekyBear wrote: post #242
ceejayoz wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

Not when your are a government official demanding that political speech be censored.

"you may want to look into and delete" isn't a demand.

Politicians demand censorship all the time, as is their right. They usually don't get what they want, as they don't typically have the right to enforce their desires.

For example: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9619449/Rand-Paul-b...

> Rand Paul blasted Twitter on Tuesday for not immediately taking down Richard Marx’s tweet from Sunday in which he offered to buy drinks for the Kentucky neighbor who assaulted the Republican senator in 2017.

He can demand. They can say no. Both are First Amendment protected actions.

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

#245

Post by rhaway84773 »

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…

The injunction is ridiculous.

It basically says the govt cannot suppress protected free speech but it can suppress unprotected free speech.

Without ever explaining why the particular speech argued about by the plaintiffs is protected.

Maybe that’s fine for an injunction, but anyone drawing any conclusions about whether the govt suppressed protected free speech from this ruling is highly mistaken.

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

#246

Post by ch4s3 »

sneak wrote: post #240
ch4s3 wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 This is a total straw man. Free speech absolutists almost universally acknowledge that fraud, defamation, libel, and narrowly defined incitement are special cases that don't qualify for protection. With respect to "disinformation", I would ch…

Quite incorrect. Defamation is a tort, not a crime. It's legal. Criminal defamation laws in the US have been repeatedly struck down as unconstitutional, not by absolutists but by lots of normal working judges.

I'm quite aware of that, and you'll notice if you read my comment again that I specifically said "are special cases that don't qualify for protection", not that they should be a crime. Civil cases are actually a great way to address defamation.

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

#247

Post by GeekyBear »

snowwrestler wrote: post #243
GeekyBear wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. If the speech the government officials are engaging in is a demand to censor the political speech of citizens, then we are looking at a violation of the First Amendment. Nobody is saying that government officials can't engage in other kinds of speech that don't violate th…

Demands are free speech, even if unreasonable. The First Amendment constrains the application of the power of law, like prosecution and imprisonment. Which is not what happened in these cases.

> Demands are free speech

When a government official demands that the political speech of citizens be censored, that is not protected speech.

If you recall, Trump wasn't allowed to block citizens who were critical of him on Twitter for the same reason.

> In a 29-page ruling on Tuesday, a three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously upheld a lower court's decision that found that Trump violated the First Amendment when he blocked certain Twitter users

https://www.npr.org/2019/07/09/739906562/u-s-appeals-court-r...

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

#248

Post by hellojesus »

LatteLazy wrote: post #144
NotYourLawyer wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Overthrowing precedent is necessary when the precedent is wrong.

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

#249

Post by [deleted] »

brasic wrote: post #226
lightedman wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

[deleted]

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

#250

Post by halfjoking »

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…

The government can say whatever they want in press conferences or through their social media. Both the government and their employees have as much free speech as they want - and not only that but they spent billions of dollars for advocacy groups especially during covid. (which we know now was used to promote fraudulent science)

The injunction says the government can't urge, pressure or encourage censorship. (yes everyone should read it). You have to be joking you think that is a bad thing.

Post reply on HN