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

301–310 of 783 posts

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

#301

Post by kayodelycaon »

halfjoking wrote: post #261
kayodelycaon wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not illegal to yell "fire", but you can bet you're getting charged for manslaughter if someone dies as a result. This isn't far fetched, many people have gotten crushed or trampled in a panic and died as a result.

The CDC yelled "VACCINATE YOUNG PEOPLE" using fraudulent data. https://twitter.com/kevinnbass/status/1674920880219234304 I agree they should be charged with manslaughter for all the blood clots, heart disease and cancers they caused among young people.

And Trump should be prosecuted for treason because he attempted to overthrow the government. Good luck making your case stick. :)

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

#302

Post by NotYourLawyer »

afavour wrote: post #288
NotYourLawyer wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I was responding to someone who said:

> Him being a trump nominee makes me suspicious

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

#303

Post by causi »

bequanna wrote: post #298
causi wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Is anyone on the right arguing for any speech restriction?

Yes. Restrictions on what teachers are allowed to teach are restrictions on freedom of speech. Restrictions on non-sexual drag performances are restrictions of freedom of speech. Bans on calling for boycotts of Israeli goods and services are restrictions of the freedom of speech.

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

#304

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

Clubber wrote: post #115
hooande wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what was the implied threat?

Repeal of section 230. Remember when they brought all the CEOs to testify in front of congress?

"they" didn't.

a GOP-controlled congress did, and that party remains the most opposed to section 230

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

#305

Post by commandlinefan »

bequanna wrote: post #298
causi wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Kind of - crack downs on "obscenity" always come from the right and rarely if ever from the left. For the most part, everybody seems to agree than "obscenity" should be an exception to freedom of speech, although there's quite a bit of disagreement on what constitutes it.

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

#306

Post by bequanna »

causi wrote: post #303
bequanna wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Is anyone on the right arguing for any speech restriction? Yes. Restrictions on what teachers are allowed to teach are restrictions on freedom of speech. Restrictions on non-sexual drag performances are restrictions of freedom of speech. Bans on calling for boycotts of Israeli goods and services are restrictions of the freedom of speech.

[flagged]

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

#307

Post by causi »

bequanna wrote: post #306
causi wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is anyone on the right arguing for any speech restriction? Yes. Restrictions on what teachers are allowed to teach are restrictions on freedom of speech. Restrictions on non-sexual drag performances are restrictions of freedom of speech. Bans on calling for boycotts of Israeli goods and services are restrictions of the freedom of speech.

[flagged]

I don't doubt many of the performers are deriving sexual satisfaction from the performance, but as long as the performance itself is not sexual it isn't harming children. Don't get me wrong, I think "Drag Queen Story Hour" is the gender equivalent of blackface, but a man dressing up like a mockery of womanhood and reading stories doesn't violate anybody else's rights, therefore we have no right to use violence to stop it.

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

#308

Post by csomar »

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…

I was listening to Ray Dalio the other day and the thing that caught my attention was when he talked about the WWII era during the Nazi reign: he said that it's the centrists (people holding center and more reasonable views) are the ones that got hanged.

When society polarizes, it seems that people will stick blindly to their side. Maybe the rational behind that, is that a non-polarized side won't get you as many protections.

HN seems to be non-immune to that. Many people here would like to think that they are smarter than the rest. It does seem from the many discussions here that it's the same homunculus everywhere.

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

#309

Post by Karunamon »

causi wrote: post #303
bequanna wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Is anyone on the right arguing for any speech restriction? Yes. Restrictions on what teachers are allowed to teach are restrictions on freedom of speech. Restrictions on non-sexual drag performances are restrictions of freedom of speech. Bans on calling for boycotts of Israeli goods and services are restrictions of the freedom of speech.

The restrictions on teachers you speak of are in their functions as employees of the state while performing their duties on the job on the employer's time. Employers setting limits on the conduct of employees on the job is generally not a freedom of speech, or first amendment issue.

That goes double when we are talking about public employees whose conduct is directly the function of law.

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

#310

Post by krapp »

mcpackieh wrote: post #234
dporter wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It stands for “The Former Guy.” Some people won’t say Trump’s name.

It's such an odd thing. I don't think I've ever heard people refusing to say Stalin or Hitler's names. Andrew Jackson isn't alluded to with euphemisms, despite being a piece of shit who perpetrated genocide among other crimes. Nixon doesn't get this for his crimes and shitty policies, nor Truman for the a-bombs or FDR for mass internment of American citizens. It seems like an idea people got from Harry Potter refusin…

When you've seen enough threads derail, go unhinged and burst into flames at the mere mention of his name, it makes sense.
Post reply on HN