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

311–320 of 783 posts

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

#311

Post by kyrra »

lordfrito wrote: post #165
ceejayoz wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. This is not how a preliminary injunction works. The court has ordered that the governmment stop doing the in-dispute things until the dispute is resolved - in either direction - in court. The standard for such an injunction is n…

Also, a WSJ article suggested the point is that discovery needs to occur here before a judgment is made. [1] Judge Doughty could have dismissed the case without an opportunity for discovery, as another judge did in another NCLA case, Changizi v. HHS, involving the same sort of censorship. Judge Doughty understood, however, that a largely secret censorship system can’t be evaluated under the First Amendment until afte…

While I agree here, I want to add a caveat that the linked article is technically a "commentary" pieces, not a news-side piece (aka: it's published on the opinion pages). But even given that, the opinion pages of the WSJ is just as fact-filled as the news side, but just highlights that the person writing it may not be a disinterested party.

The Opinion Pages of the WSJ also tend to lean more conservative, while the news side leans liberal. Though they will happily publish people from the left, such as publishing President Biden: https://www.wsj.com/articles/never-bet-against-the-american-...

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

#312

Post by roflyear »

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 an interesting discussion: should the government be able to ask private entities to take down content?

What if that content puts a family at risk?

What if the WH thinks it does, but it isn't obvious to a third party?

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

#313

Post by GeekyBear »

snowwrestler wrote: post #297
GeekyBear wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Speech does not censor speech

We know from the Twitter document dumps that government officials on both sides of the aisle have been demanding that speech (and speakers) critical of them, their preferred policies and/or their political party be censored.

> intimidation requires an actual threat

Threatening to yank section 230 of the Communications Decency Act if platforms don't ramp up their censorship is an actual threat.

> You may have never heard of it, but Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is the legal backbone of the internet. The law was created almost 30 years ago to protect internet platforms from liability for many of the things third parties say or do on them.

Decades later, it’s never been more controversial. People from both political parties and all three branches of government have threatened to reform or even repeal it.

https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/5/28/21273241/section-230-ex...

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

#314

Post by AbrahamParangi »

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…

I don’t give a rat’s ass about the free speech rights of the government. Why on earth would I? The government is already massively constrained in what it can say and that’s entirely appropriate because the purpose of free speech is to protect the right of the weak to speak even when the strong disagree with them.

You may disagree with the ruling but if you’re on the side of free speech, you should definitely cheer it.

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

#315

Post by traviswingo »

There’s a difference between freedom of speech and education. The government did a bad thing. Anyone should be allowed to speak their piece.

We need more people to speak up when those speaking the loudest are wrong, uneducated, and unqualified to speak on the topic they’re preaching.

I get the incentive here, but it’s not the governments place to decide what we do and don’t say.

Society as a whole needs to be better at calling out the lies with hard facts and data. Because right now, it feels like the people with the most effective voices are taking us in the wrong direction.

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

#316

Post by ethanbond »

merpnderp wrote: post #95
LatteLazy wrote: post #3

>But Judge Terry Doughty, a Trump nominee at US District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, granted the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction imposing limits... 1. Him being a trump nominee makes me suspicious, but also sad that that is the effect and that papers need to list who nominated a judge. 2. Granting a preliminary injunction is a long way from winning a case. 3. There is pressure and th…

The courts have historically taken a dim view of the government's "chilling of free speech."

The courts have long upheld the government's right to request action from private entities and for those private entities to comply or not to comply per their preference. That's all that happened here, just as what happened when the Trump Admin (and every administration prior) requested action from private entities.

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

#317

Post by ethanbond »

ledauphin wrote: post #148
Guthur wrote: post #18

The problem i believe we are coming to is that all secular governance eventually replaces the role once taken by church and religious philosophy. It starts to become the arbiter of moral truth and with out any real moral center it can only but fail spectacularly. The second and third political theories of racial and social idealogies more rapidly succumb to this due to a more overt desire to place the state at this m…

i think this is a strong point, and it's underscored by how little anyone is willing to center the discussion on something quite fundamental: is the behavior from the individuals in question acceptable even if it were legal? My answer to that is no, it is not and could not be acceptable human activity even if the laws protected it. We've largely lost the ability to talk about the things themselves, preferring instead…

You don't think government agencies should be allowed to report things to private companies? Why?

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

#318

Post by causi »

afavour wrote: post #91
doitLP wrote: post #20

> Doughty said that one Flaherty [White House director of digital strategy] message in February 2021 accused Facebook "of causing 'political violence' by failing to censor false COVID-19 claims." Flaherty also wrote in a July 2021 email to Facebook, "Are you guys fucking serious? I want an answer on what happened here and I want it today." Sure sounds like a relationship where the power only goes one direction and th…

But Flaherty specifically didn’t get what he wanted (that’s why he was mad!) so I think it’s misleading to say the power only goes from government to Facebook. If anything this example shows the exact opposite with Flaherty sending indignant anger in the other direction.

I don't see why one's judgment of the situation should depend on whether the government was successful in intimidating Facebook. What matters is that they tried.

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

#319

Post by shadowgovt »

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 government did a bad thing.

The filing is that there is sufficient probability the government did a bad thing to issue an injunction while the court figures out if the government did a bad thing. In general, injunctions protecting freedom of speech are broadly and freely issued.

... But a rational person can ask how we protect free speech by muzzling the government in this context.

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

#320

Post by chipsa »

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.

You seem to be under a misapprehension of how free speech works for the government: it doesn't. The government has no rights. It has powers. People have rights, including the right to freedom of speech. If the government is barred from doing something directly, they can't then try to do it indirectly by telling a third party to do it for them.
Post reply on HN