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

291–300 of 783 posts

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

#291

Post by pohuing »

halfjoking wrote: post #250
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…

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 eve…

But they can't? Not according to this judge:

> Some of the statements that Doughty deemed to be coercion were made in public by Biden and other administration officials. "When asked about what his message was to social-media platforms when it came to COVID-19, President Biden stated: 'they're killing people. Look, the only pandemic we have is among the unvaccinated and that—they're killing people,'" Doughty wrote.

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

#292

Post by curiousllama »

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #16

edit: link to pdf[1] [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/75e9f7a3-da4e-45af-... The two big pieces that appear to be driving this coverage are, if true, the following: "suppressing negative posts about the economy", "suppressing negative posts about President Biden" and, apparently, parodies There are others, but you could technically claim there is some non-POTUS benefit there so it does not look self-servi…

This'll come out in discovery, but I didn't see anything particularly crazy in the complaint.

I didn't see any examples of economic posts at issue, despite it being in the summary.

And the parody accounts seemed to be focused either on (1) non-public figures, like Biden's granddaughter or (2) have resulted in sincere confusion, such as when Twitter actually asked the CDC if a 'parody' account was Fauci's real handle.

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

#293

Post by plagiarist »

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...

You're perhaps more correct than you know. Donald basically received lists to appoint right-wing judges from: https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/360598-meet-the...

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

#294

Post by Timon3 »

treeman79 wrote: post #281
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 “i…

> 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.

My good, that sounds horrible! Can you share some information? You should go to the media with this. A hidden gene therapy, wow... Which genes are they trying to change in what way?

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

#295

Post by Timon3 »

zpeti wrote: post #194
ceejayoz wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Something tells me the people here arguing that Flaherty wasn't coercive or threatening would be arguing just the opposite if this was the Trump administration. The Trump administration was doing the same thing. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/elon-tru... > When the White House called up Twitter in the early morning hours of September 9, 2019, officials had what they believed was a serious issue…

I think you’ll find, that except for hardcore trumpists not many on the right support trump doin this.

I haven't seen any outcry from Hardcore trumpists. There is an outcry for anything Biden does. Is it possible you want them not to support Trump doing that, even though they might do?

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

#296

Post by ETH_start »

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…

The government has no First Amendment rights.

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

#297

Post by snowwrestler »

GeekyBear wrote: post #278
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.

The First Amendment is doing the demanding here. Not all speech is protected, and Government officials are not allowed to censor political speech.

Speech does not censor speech; this is an essential core of the concept of free speech.

If I tell you to take down your comments, I am not censoring you. I’m speaking. It’s only censorship if I can force you to take them down.

The same is true for federal officials; just telling someone to shut up is not censorship. Without an actual threat of force, it’s not censorship or intimidation.

Note that I’m not arguing that intimidation cannot and does not happen. But intimidation requires an actual threat. Not just an angry email.

The ironic thing is that federal officials can speak freely because of the First Amendment. It gives them license to speak because actual legal protections exist for citizen speech. The power of federal officials is well constrained under U.S. law. They can tell a media company to change their content, and the company can say “no.” Because of the First Amendment.

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

#298

Post by bequanna »

causi wrote: post #195
commandlinefan wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why defend them? Because a depressingly large percentage of people would actually like to see the first amendment overturned.

It's become quite rare for me to see people who defend speech they don't agree with, and rarer still any speech they find repugnant. It isn't liberty vs authority anymore; it's just team red and team blue. One might be wrong-er than the other but neither think people they hate should be able to open their mouths in anything but agreement.

Is anyone on the right arguing for any speech restriction? If so, they are by far the minority in that camp.

Only one side is afraid of open debate and pure freedom of speech. Why could that be?

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

#299

Post by draw_down »

curiousllama wrote: post #265

I love HN legal threads because engineers have great (logical) legal analysis, but with a terrible (practical) understanding of the law. And every so often a someone with legal training chimes in like "wtf guys" It's like watching a good software engineer try to build a circuit board without google: I see how you got there, but damn, that's... not gonna work great. Idk the law either, though, so I can't judge

[dead]

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

#300

Post by phpisthebest »

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.

>>Free speech cuts both ways.

You have completely miss understood the purpose of the Constitution and the 1st amendment, the Constitution is the States and the People limiting the power and role of the federal government.

The 1st amendment DOES NOT bestow or grant the US Government any freedom of speech, in fact it specifically limits the US Governments freedom / power in many ways by baring it from actions and activities that curb the speech of the people of these united states.

To proclaim this ruling is "violating the rights of the government" is a complete and utter inversion of the how the constitution works, and the direction of power.

We the people...

Post reply on HN