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

281–290 of 783 posts

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

#281

Post by treeman79 »

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…

Same reason counties fall to communism. Free speech and open debate get in the way of bureaucrats trying to control peoples lives.

Example. There is a highly experimental vaccine, which is really gene therapy. People are questioning it. Including Mark Zuckerberg, who told all those people not to take it.

But then censored anyone online that wanted to have a discussion about it.

People are reporting severe injuries “including my own wife!” let’s block and ban them too. Big Pharmacy’s got millions to make.

Oh cheap already available treatments seem to work? Let’s ban discussion about those those too. No one can know that possible alternatives exist.

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

#282

Post by 1MachineElf »

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...

It is very strange that this PDF omits pages 2-4. The full list of prohibited activities, plus additional context, was given on the Reason article posted here in Tuesday:

https://reason.com/volokh/2023/07/04/july-4-injunction-bars-...

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

#283

Post by LexiMax »

atlantic wrote: post #216
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. 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 Euro…

Hey, I'm not the one who coined "Pax Britanica." People can read for themselves why this period of history is called that, and why it compares favorably to Pax Americana and Pax Romana as opposed to the rest of history on the continent, instead of relying on what you or I say. :)

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

#284

Post by polski-g »

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…

There was 100%, clear, and explicit threat of legal action:

https://twitter.com/AGAndrewBailey/status/167664657087005491...

You should read the order before you comment on something like this.

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

#285

Post by treeman79 »

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.

Washington is incredibly corrupt. There is no limits to what they will do to stop someone/anyone from trying to drain up the swamp.

Was shocking when my messages To friends on Facebook were being blocked.

1984 was meant to be a warning to the masses not a guide on how to oppress people.

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

#286

Post by 1MachineElf »

brasic wrote: post #264
meragrin_ wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps read(or reread) it? There is literally nothing in there which "bans any and all communication among millions of citizens".

The targets of the injunction are the following agencies. The wording makes clear that all members of said agencies are in scope of the injunction: HHS: 80,000 NIAID: 18,000 CDC: 11,000 Census Bureau: 5,000 FBI: 40,000 (double counted under DOJ) DOJ: 115,000 CISA: 3000 DHS: 260,000 State Department: 14,000 Among the actions prohibited are communicating with "social media companies", defined in the injunction as inclu…

It's really strange that the PDF you've linked to omits pages 2-4. Half of the list of prohibited activities, as well as some context, are missing from it.

Try the Reason article posted earlier: https://reason.com/volokh/2023/07/04/july-4-injunction-bars-...

Given your example of a DHS staffer expressing opinions to a friend or family members who is employed at a social media company, there are many regulated industries like government and social media, where employees must disclose conflicts of interest. If rules reflecting this injunction were to be adopted, then disclosing relationships with social media employees would be quite reasonable. DHS staffers, who already go through extensive background checks, would not be significantly more burdened by this than any of the other disclosures that are already required.

>CISA: 3000

Glad you mentioned them, as their history of partisan censorship is well documented: https://web.archive.org/web/20230318074435/https://report.fo...

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

#287

Post by mindslight »

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…

To me, the problem is that the whole situation is rotten, and focusing on one tiny aspect while leaving out the wider context just makes a convenient scapegoat.

Even before centralizing websites entered pop culture, it was blatantly obvious that they are intrinsically subject to censorship, just like TV, radio, and newspapers. cf "The revolution will not be televised". It wasn't a matter of if, and it wasn't even a matter of when. They are defective by design, and most people just straight up didn't seem to care. Just like how they were happy to believe corporate news on other mediums for decades.

Furthermore, most of the power in this country resides outside the de facto government. The pattern of "this is bad for us. please take it down. " is routine and banal. Focusing on a government agency doing this (which actually has much less soft power than say a major advertiser or a golf buddy), and blowing it out of proportion just feels like a distraction from the overall dynamic. "Look we found the censorship! This is what we need to fix!" - even though censorship is pervasive for any centralized media.

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

#288

Post by afavour »

NotYourLawyer wrote: post #275
afavour wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Classic case of false equivalence: they both appointed judges therefore their actions must be equivalent, right? Did Obama ever nominate a judge that’s never tried a case in front of a court and failed to disclose his marriage to the White House counsel’s chief of staff? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_Talley

I didn’t realize that was the judge who wrote this opinion! Oh wait, he’s not. So whatever ad homs you have about him are irrelevant here.

> I didn’t realize that was the judge who wrote this opinion!

If that's the criteria why did you bring up "Obama judges" and "judges nominated by Trump"? They clearly didn't write the opinion either. You don't get to broaden the scope of discussion then scold someone for responding within that scope.

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

#289

Post by stcroixx »

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…

Being a government employee carries a threat with it. I don't want those people making 'requests' to suppress others points of view in any situation, that's not reasonable to me at all. I'd rather they have their own press conference or whatever and counter whatever it is they disagree with and let me decide who I want to trust.

I don't trust anyone to decide what is misinformation or disinformation - that's also something I want to decide for myself.

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

#290

Post by snowwrestler »

somenameforme wrote: post #279
snowwrestler wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When a government official demands that the political speech of citizens be censored, that is not protected speech. In other words, you’re happy to censor speech you disagree with, while waving the flag of free speech.

You're speaking of the difference between constitutional literalism, and constitutional intent. The 2nd Amendment, interpreted literally, means I should be able to build a nuke. After all there are no explicit limits. That obviously was not the intent of the amendment by any stretch of the imagination. Such a consideration was never dealt with because this was simply outside any sort of world the Founding Fathers cou…

You’re arguing the obvious and easy part. It’s fully settled law that intimidation can violate the First Amendment.

But under current law, intimidation must be proven (there must be an actual threat). The core question here is whether any statement, request, or demand by a federal official will be treated, by default, as intimidation under the law.

If upheld, such a standard would be a radical redefinition of the interactions between the federal government and private sector, and have some very weird and unexpected side effects.

For example, political speech is usually the most protected, but this standard would constrain tons of it. Imagine if the communications officer of a sitting Senator could get prosecuted because they asked a newspaper to alter a story they did not like. Something that happens almost every day in DC.

Post reply on HN