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

441–450 of 783 posts

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

#441

Post by rewmie »

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.

I'm not sure you read the article you're quoting, because you're claiming stuff that does not correspond to the facts.

The article you're quoting states quite clearly that a judge granted a request for a preliminary injunction imposing limits on how a few state institutions can exercise their rights to fight disinformation.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.18...

This is a preliminary injunction. It loosely means "hey we have here a plaintiff that claims a few government institutions are doing something wrong. While we check if the plaintiff's complain holds any water, let's put a pin on these things."

The article you're quoting also states quite clearly that the US government has the right to fight disinformation, specially that which directly harms the public. This happens to be exactly the case.

This boils down to covid denialists and antivaxers in general trying to push their disinformation, and thus trying to stop state institutions such as the Department of Health from suggesting that, say, letting a pandemic spread freely through a population can get a lot of people killed.

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

#442

Post by mc32 »

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…

The 1A grants the right to free speech to the people —people who do not have the force or threat of violence to coerce. It does not speak to the freedom a government has to communicate.

Besides, the government has its own organs at its disposal to communicate with the people.

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

#444

Post by dragonwriter »

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…

> 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”

No, it doesn't. See the exceptions on pp 5-6.

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

#445

Post by mrguyorama »

Timon3 wrote: post #294
treeman79 wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Also working gene therapy holy shit I have a friend with a lifelong condition who would give away limbs for that.

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

#446

Post by shkkmo »

calgarymicro wrote: post #384

I wanted to point out several factual issues with this ruling, some of which I mentioned yesterday on another post. For starters, the judge severely misquotes an email: >However, various emails show Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits through evidence that the motivation of the NIAID Defendants was a “take down” of protected free speech. Dr. Francis Collins, in an email to Dr. Fauci told Fauci there needed…

> a nationwide injunction restricting the government from nearly all contact with various companies and nonprofits.

Good thing that such an injunction was not issued.

Given all the emphasis you place on paraphrasing things correctly, this seems to be a pretty egregious misrepresentation of the injunction.

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

#447

Post by tcbawo »

kyrra wrote: post #311
lordfrito wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 n…

The WSJ Opinion pages generally consist of articles written by The Editorial Board and also those submitted by guest contributors. It would be hard to argue that opinion pieces written by external authors and published by the WSJ have any consistency or standard in factuality or completeness. For example, the column frequently includes content from politicians, business leaders, or former campaign managers like Karl Rove. From what I have seen, the WSJ does not edit external opinion pieces, but can write a short disclaimer.

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

#448

Post by shadowgovt »

fwlr wrote: post #117
hgsgm wrote: post #37

I don't understand how Missouri and Louisiana have any standing here. 1. They aren't the victims. 2. The individual posters were censored by Facebook et al, not the government, so even they might not have standing. The social networks obviously have standing, but have they complained? "Facebook likes the President" isn't something you should be able to sue the President for.

The judgement itself is worth reading; it is not nearly as polemical as it being made out to be. It goes into detail on the question of how the states of Missouri and Louisiana have standing here; the “letter of the law” answer is that there is extensive precedent for determining whether states have standing in cases like this and the judge determined this case clearly passes the tests set by those precedents, while…

Nobody has a right to post on Twitter.

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

#449

Post by Slava_Propanei »

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…

[dead]

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

#450

Post by mrguyorama »

uLogMicheal wrote: post #360
snowwrestler wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes but what you don’t see is the many many requests in the same tone that come into social media (and traditional media!) companies from corporations, celebrities, even regular old citizens who are mad their drunk driving arrest got reported (for example). The idea that an imperious tone somehow proves a power imbalance is hilarious to anyone who has ever been on the receiving end of these requests from regular peop…

This is not talking about "regular old citizens". This is the government and the government has power. Your comment is basically a Straw man.

The government has power. Craig the office drone asking for "misinformation" to be taken down at behest of his boss does not have the power "The government" does.

Or am I now supposed to believe that if you anger Sheila at the DMV the IRS will audit you?

Post reply on HN