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

341–350 of 783 posts

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

#341

Post by BryantD »

polski-g wrote: post #284
Pxtl wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Okay, let’s dig into that one. The tweet quotes the court ruling, which says “Psaki publicly reminded Facebook and other social-media platforms of the threat of ‘legal consequences’ if they do not censor misinformation more aggressively.”

But that quote isn’t accurate. The second direct quote in the ruling is there; “legal consequences” is not[1].

I read the whole thing. I don’t think she came close to threatening legal action at any point. So what are we to make of this? I can’t come to any conclusion other than that the judge’s political bias led him to be sloppy about the evidence and misquote government officials in order to bolster his case.

1: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/202...

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

#342

Post by boringuser2 »

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 orange man is bad.

What I find of great concern is that the US used to have a strong dissident faction that was against government suppression of basic rights such as free speech.

Now, we have two cheerleading factions.

I feel the division in the country has stoked authoritarian sentiment on both sides as they desperately grasp for measures to suppress each other.

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

#343

Post by mcpackieh »

krapp wrote: post #310
mcpackieh wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If the conversation is about Trump I don't think there's any hiding that, nor any avoiding of flame wars.

Honestly I think it's a reddit meme from Harry Potter fans.

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

#344

Post by michaelmrose »

treeman79 wrote: post #285
whoknowswhat11 wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You said in your other post that the vaccine was gene therapy and that cheap treatments were effective. I'm presuming you either mean Hydroxychloroquine or horse paste. None of those statements are true and because of them countless people died. The statements are worthy of head shaking now. During the pandemic they constituted shouting fire in a crowded theater. They are fundamentally unworthy of protection.

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

#345

Post by chipsa »

zimpenfish wrote: post #188
gcoakes wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which one are you referring to? A lot happened last week in the SCOTUS, and I haven't heard of this specific concern.

https://www.npr.org/2023/07/01/1185632827/web-designer-supre... > A Colorado web designer who the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Friday could refuse to make wedding websites for gay couples cited a request from a man who says he never asked to work with her. A pre-emptive request backed up by a fake customer does not equal standing (in a sane court but SCOTUS left sanity behind a couple of justice appointments ago.)

Someone said, "I want to do this," and the government credibly responded, "Do that and we'll take action against you." This equals standing for pre-enforcement actions, because the government is threatening to do something. If the government had responded, "Go ahead, we don't care", then that someone would not have standing. You don't always have to wait for the government to actually take action against you to have standing, so long as you can prove the government would take action against you if you did the thing.

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

#346

Post by Zetice »

traviswingo wrote: post #315

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…

People shouldn't be allowed to speak their piece when that piece can be bright-line traced to people dying.

But fine, let's allow people to speak their piece because bright lines are hard to draw, starting with Twitter, who should be completely free to follow or not follow what the US government says, which is literally what happened here.

This will be overturned on appeal, because the bar for this kind of order is way higher than where the Biden admin was, and for the most part we still care about being consistent when applying the rule of law.

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

#347

Post by Auracle »

roflyear wrote: post #334
AbrahamParangi wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

You can't think of a scenario where the government should be able to express a thought about something? ;)

They have plenty of ways to do so without using intermediaries at social media companies.

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

#348

Post by cscurmudgeon »

roflyear wrote: post #334
AbrahamParangi wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

You can't think of a scenario where the government should be able to express a thought about something? ;)

The rights apply to people not the govt lol

Edit: Amazing, a perfect factual comment is downvoted.

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

#349

Post by lasermike026 »

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…

Because the judge was wrong and he actually limiting free speech. The whitehouse should ignore the ruling.

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

#350

Post by AbrahamParangi »

roflyear wrote: post #334
AbrahamParangi wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

You can't think of a scenario where the government should be able to express a thought about something? ;)

I am satisfied for the space of the government’s unenforceable opinions to be circumscribed.
Post reply on HN