Injunction issued in case about social media pressure from US Government • Hacker News Board

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

#411

Post by teawrecks » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 5:23 PM UTC

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 world just isn't that simple anymore.

100 years ago, I would totally agree that the govt stopping citizens from spreading false information would be a violation of the first amendment. But we now live in a world where the generation of misinformation is automated. Controlling communication on social media does not necessarily imply stifling the speech of a human.

It's very possible that we currently live with an internet where more than half of accounts represent entirely fabricated personas created specifically to generate malicious propaganda. And they know that if they can get a judge to defend their antics as "Free Speech" they will be free to manipulate the general population however they want.

I agree that we need to be careful about protecting free speech online, but if we act like every character that goes over a wire is protected speech, we are digging our own grave.

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

#412

Post by evandale » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 5:24 PM UTC

roflyear wrote: post #355

cscurmudgeon wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rights apply to people not the govt lol Edit: Amazing, a perfect factual comment is downvoted.

I'm just saying there are times where you may want the government to be able to express opinions....

No? What!? Name a scenario in which the government would put forth an opinion on something.. governments, like corporations, can't have opinions.

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

#413

Post by DannyBee » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 5:24 PM UTC

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…

"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."

They literally did not.

This is a preliminary injunction, not a decision on the merits.

This is why the court is clear they are allegations, etc.

There is a ton of issues with this injunction and rationale, and it will almost certainly be overturned (or at the very least,seriously modified) on appeal.

In fact, the injunction and reasoning even deliberately misquotes evidence to try to support points. Not like in arguable ways, either. While that sort of thing may be fun and play okay sometimes at the district level, and in the news, 99% of the time that goes very badly at appeals.

I strongly doubt when that happens that you will come back and say "i guess the government didn't do a bad thing"

(I read the entire decision, FWIW)

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

#414

Post by jrockway » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 5:25 PM UTC

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 agree with you. Things like this:

> A February 2021 message in which Flaherty asked Twitter to remove a parody account related to Hunter Biden's daughter said, "Cannot stress the degree to which this needs to be resolved immediately. Please remove this account immediately."

are just self-dealing. If I email Twitter with a request like that, they correctly route it to /dev/null. If the office of the President sends that, they can't do that. It's just too risky. So that's why I think it's an abuse of power.

In the absence of some court ruling that prohibits parody, you have the Constitutional right to pretend to be Hunter Biden's daughter on Twitter. Twitter also has the right to do some editorializing, like not giving them a checkmark, or posting a note like "we don't think this is actually Hunter Biden's daughter", or shutting down the account. It's their right, but they have to do it because they want to do it, not because the President of the United States said so. That's not a power that the President has.

While I personally agree with the causes the administration is fighting for, they are exercising powers that the government doesn't have. That should always be viewed critically. It sucks that people are getting bad information about vaccines. Increase funding for schools or get a Constitutional amendment passed that removes the freedom of speech. Threatening emails are easy, but an abuse of power. Follow the process you swore an oath to uphold, even if you don't get instant gratification. The 1st Amendment exists for a good reason, and we can't forget that.

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

#415

Post by michaelmrose » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 5:25 PM UTC

kolanos wrote: post #391

michaelmrose wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"Shouting fire in a crowded theater" is a popular analogy for speech or actions whose principal purpose is to create panic, and in particular for speech or actions which may for that reason be thought to be outside the scope of free speech protections. It was first used against a man in 1917 for giving an anti-war speech in Canton, Ohio. It was later popularized to charge people handing out anti-war flyers opposing t…

I'm not ignorant of the history I merely disagree.

I think promoting what every educated person knows are provable falsehoods liable to cause the death of thousands during a public emergency ought to fall outside of free speech. There isn't some controversy about whether covid vaccines change your DNA or whether horse paste is an effective treatment that obviates the need to vaccinate. These are lies and every promoter of such lies has heard them denounced as such a hundred times thus it is willfully promoting what they reasonably ought to know are lies that they reasonably ought to know will lead to deaths. If they were promoting it during the pandemic they were doing so during a public health emergency.

That said the government isn't trying to prosecute they are trying to advise social media companies to stop boosting lies and hosting it. Let the dissenters get a mastodon if they want to share such.

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

#416

Post by stale2002 » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 5:25 PM UTC

ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #394

Clubber wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Democrats have threatened it as well: "Democrats Want To Hold Social Media Companies Responsible For Health Misinformation" Co-sponsored by Democratic Senators Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Ben Ray Luján of New Mexico, the Health Misinformation Act targets a provision in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects platforms from being held liable for what their users post in most cases. https://www…

Republicans have threatened it as well: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/502... S.5020 - A bill to repeal section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934. Sponsor: Sen. Graham, Lindsey [R-SC] you're now free to respond to the substance of the post you replied to: it was, in fact, a GOP controlled Senate which performed the action in question

Ok, so then we can agree that the gov definitely is engaging in illegal violations of first amendment rights!

Looks like you agree with the judge here from the article.

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

#417

Post by vuln » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 5:26 PM UTC

ethanbond wrote: post #221

artificialLimbs wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

James Baker actively pushed heads to have the story censored, which happened.

James Baker was Deputy General Counsel at Twitter lol. His official job was to be involved in exactly these types of decisions. He left the FBI in 2018. Raise complaints about the revolving door between govt and industry if you want, but this is cut-and-dry not about a government official pressuring a private company. It's about a private company hiring a former government official (years out of service) and then tha…

> former government official (years out of service) and then that person doing the job they were hired to do.

You honestly believe that “retired” Intelligence Community members just “retire,” so naive. I’m sure he was hired for his law qualifications and not his IC network, reach, or influence. Did he get read out of every program and give up his clearance upon leaving the FBI? Very doubtful.

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

#418

Post by web3-is-a-scam » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 5:26 PM UTC

sbuttgereit wrote: post #204

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.

Naw, just redefined to something which allows complete freedom of speech... so long as it's the right speech.

Which is the entire point of the first amendment. You don’t need to protect popular speech from censorship.

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

#419

Post by stuckinhell » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 5:26 PM UTC

kolanos wrote: post #391

michaelmrose wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"Shouting fire in a crowded theater" is a popular analogy for speech or actions whose principal purpose is to create panic, and in particular for speech or actions which may for that reason be thought to be outside the scope of free speech protections. It was first used against a man in 1917 for giving an anti-war speech in Canton, Ohio. It was later popularized to charge people handing out anti-war flyers opposing t…

I had no clue about this at ALL, and I went to multiple top schools all the way from kindergarten !

Whoa

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

#420

Post by qntty » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 5:27 PM UTC

say_it_as_it_is wrote: post #356

These are private platforms. They can censor whatever speech they want. They decide whether to listen to big bad government with an axe over its head or simply get their head cut off, right? I mean, they could have just chosen to be crushed with legal battles from the government, right? Free speech and free will in America, right?

The Supreme Court said in Norwood v. Harrison (1973):

Racial discrimination in state-operated schools is barred by the Constitution and "[i]t is also axiomatic that a state may not induce, encourage or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish." Lee v. Macon County Board of Education, 267 F. Supp. 458, 475-476 (MD Ala. 1967).