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

521–530 of 783 posts

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

#521

Post by ajkjk »

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.

Seems like "TFG" made it kinda derail here instead.

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

#522

Post by evandale »

afavour wrote: post #517
evandale wrote: post #511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there is a fallacy then you need tell me your definition of an opinion or the widely accepted definition. I can work with you if we have a common understanding but we're not at that point yet.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/opinion https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/opini... https://www.dictionary.com/browse/opinion

Can you please just summarize? There's way too many definitions and this isn't helpful.

I gave you my opinion on what an opinion is, now why can't you return the favour instead of throwing thousands of words back in my face with no nuance or context?

If you're not interested in the conversation that's fine too, but just say so.

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

#523

Post by jasonlotito »

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…

[flagged]

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

#524

Post by ndr »

dragonwriter wrote: post #513
ndr wrote: post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits in establishing that the Government has used its power to silence the opposition" https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.18...

“Likely to do X” is not “have done X”, or even “will do X”. If it was, we wouldn’t need the preliminary in preliminary injunction, the standards for which balance the likelihood of success on the merits with the kinds of impacts the action sougjt to enjoin would have on the situation of the parties, so a greater and/or more difficult to undo impact requires a lesser probability of success to be sufficiently likely to…

It's still rooted in evidence, and that evidence doesn't need to be conclusive.

This was to say the injunction is not completely on a whim, agreed on everything else you wrote.

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

#525

Post by brasic »

ndr wrote: post #498
brasic wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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” That's plain false. From middle of page 5 there's the list of things explicitly not banned, it starts with "IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the following actions are NOT prohibited by this Preliminary Injunction:".

Adding a list of carve outs doesn’t make the ban ok.

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

#526

Post by dragonwriter »

chipsa wrote: post #488
ceejayoz wrote: post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you're a government employee, speaking in the course of your duties, then it's not your speech, it's government speech. This would make quite a few Congressional hearings unconstitutional. For example: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/4-tech-industry-titan... It'd probably also apply to the President saying "lock her up" about a private citizen. Is that unconstitutional pressure from an elected official? >…

Elected officials are not government employees. It is not, in fact, turtles all the way down. They may be paid by the government, but the government does not dictate when they get hired and fired. It's possible that someone may be both an elected official and a government employee, but that's fairly rare (something like: Congressman and member of the military reserve, in which case they're only a government employee…

> Elected officials are not government employees.

[citation needed]

The IRS disagrees, but obviously different legal contexts have different definitions, but I am aware of none supporting the distinction you are trying to make.

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

#527

Post by mrguyorama »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #469
mrguyorama wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How so? If someone asks me for something, and I have EXPLICIT LEGAL PROTECTION TO SAY NO, how coercive should that be to me?

How coercive? If you're right, the government can still make a court case that takes a good part of a decade and costs you ten million dollars to win. That's just the straightforward stuff. That's without the IRS deciding your corporate profit statements deserve extra scrutiny, and the FCC deciding to question whether you really qualify for section 230, and and and... You can be right. They can still make your life v…

That would imply the person or group doing the asking somehow have unilateral control over those distinct agencies. At what point down the career ladder do you become just another drone who shouldn't be considered to have power over distinct government agencies? Surely Rachel in the Post office can't have you audited. But maybe the president can talk to enough people to encourage that to happen. So where is the limit?

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

#528

Post by peteradio »

afavour wrote: post #136
efitz wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If anything this example shows the exact opposite with Flaherty sending indignant anger in the other direction. I don’t see how you got there. I see literal demands for action in the tone of someone giving orders to a subordinate.

I invite you to have a conversation with my six year old child and then reflect upon the difference between power dynamics as they exist and as they are vocalised.

Your toddler doesn't represent the United States Government.

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

#529

Post by ndr »

DannyBee wrote: post #413
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 ce…

The injunction is quite harsh and I agree that it's likely to be seriously modified in its final form.

As fare as predictions go do you think the gov will come out clean or it'll end with "gov did a bad thing"? And if so will _you_ come back and say "i guess the government did do a bad thing"?

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

#530

Post by dang »

DannyBee wrote: post #413
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 ce…

Ok, we've changed the title above to make it clear that it's an injunction, not a ruling. Thanks!
Post reply on HN