Earlier quoted context omitted.
> TFG what is this referring to?
It stands for “The Former Guy.” Some people won’t say Trump’s name.
Huh, so like Voldemort then. Fun.
Injunction issued in case about social media pressure from US Government
541–550 of 783 posts
Re: Injunction issued in case about social media pressure from US Government
#542Earlier 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…
" I don’t give a rat’s ass about the free speech rights of the government...the purpose of free speech is to protect the right of the weak to speak even when the strong disagree with them." That doesn't sound right to me. You basically just argued "The purpose of a right to free speech is to protect the right of free speech." It's circular reasoning. Why should free speech be a right? Out of curiosity I pulled up an…
From a constitutional perspective (which is the perspective Supreme Court Justices swear to have), the ability of the government to limit speech is not allowed. Full stop. Sources below.
First Amendment to the Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Constitutional Oath taken by all current Supreme Court Justices: "I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
Re: Injunction issued in case about social media pressure from US Government
#543Earlier quoted context omitted.
" I don’t give a rat’s ass about the free speech rights of the government...the purpose of free speech is to protect the right of the weak to speak even when the strong disagree with them." That doesn't sound right to me. You basically just argued "The purpose of a right to free speech is to protect the right of free speech." It's circular reasoning. Why should free speech be a right? Out of curiosity I pulled up an…
It's also not free speech if it's only for some. The government is a very important player in our society, we depend on them being able to speak freely!
To be clear we’re not talking about the government speaking freely. They do so and with seeming impunity for bs relative to their position of authority.
We’re talking about the government coercively censoring speech of citizens in/on the media, not under emergency orders or commandeering, but as a matter of routine. Yes they’ve always done this even with the major news networks thirty or forty years ago (pre-Internet). It was wrong then just like it’s wrong now. It’s more visible and obvious now to more people, the evidence is right in front of us through leaks and email disclosures from efforts like the Twitter files.
Re: Injunction issued in case about social media pressure from US Government
#544Earlier quoted context omitted.
In particular, they need to find if there was any actual coercion or threat made by the gov't agencies to remove the speech they asked to. For example, when the FBI was asking Twitter to take down videos (of content that violated Twitter's own TOS), Twitter could've told them to go pound sand. But it would be a different story if the FBI indicated that Twitter "ought to" do it or face increased scrutiny, perhaps.
I don't see why there needs to be any coercion. The offense here is not against the social networks, it's against the people whose speech was suppressed. Whether that suppression was done with threats, requests, subtle hints, or an automated system, if the government's intent was to suppress speech, the means employed make no difference. Edit: imagine an extreme case in which a social network independently created an…
> I don't see why there needs to be any coercion.
If there is no coercion then your complain boils down to others not sharing your opinion, both in the way they don't reverberate your personal opinion and in the way they express opinions you don't agree with.
That's kind of the opposite thing you claim you're trying to achieve.
Re: Injunction issued in case about social media pressure from US Government
#545Earlier quoted context omitted.
> because it doesn’t have a physical brain developing individual thought. You summed up my point with a single sentence I can agree with, can't argue there! In your scenario what's the opinion Facebook has about advertising? I'm in favour of more bike lanes in my city but I don't consider that an opinion. Describing _why_ I'm in favour has an element of opinion but voting yes/no is not an opinion to me. Plus, any old…
OK, I guess we are being ultra-literal. Which is fine! > I'm in favour of more bike lanes in my city but I don't consider that an opinion ...I do not understand why not. To my perception that is very much the definition of an opinion. But anyway, we clearly have a bunch of different definitions in play here. I think we can safely agree to disagree.
It's not an opinion because IMO you need a why for an opinion. There's an implicit why most of the time. But Facebook supporting marketing because they make more money with marketing can be a verified fact - there's no opinion element in it and I don't think Facebook supporting marketing by itself is an opinion.
If you like rain because it waters your garden I'd hesitate to call that opinion because you have a factual reason.
If you like rain because it sounds pleasant that's an opinion.
If you like rain because it restores your chi it's (probably) an opinion.
I say governments and corporations can't have opinions for lots of reasons. One of them being they're not people, others that follow from that, like you need thoughts or feelings to have an opinion.
It just doesn't sit right with me having faceless entities publishing opinions because by definition opinions aren't based on facts and we have enough of a problem with regular people spreading misinformation.
Re: Injunction issued in case about social media pressure from US Government
#546Earlier quoted context omitted.
" I don’t give a rat’s ass about the free speech rights of the government...the purpose of free speech is to protect the right of the weak to speak even when the strong disagree with them." That doesn't sound right to me. You basically just argued "The purpose of a right to free speech is to protect the right of free speech." It's circular reasoning. Why should free speech be a right? Out of curiosity I pulled up an…
It's also not free speech if it's only for some. The government is a very important player in our society, we depend on them being able to speak freely!
They certainly can speak freely and any number of channels will pick up their statements and carry them without much critique.
But their right to free speech ends when they start to hurt citizens' rights to express themselves.
Re: Injunction issued in case about social media pressure from US Government
#547Re: Injunction issued in case about social media pressure from US Government
#548Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree for the most part, but the only thing that keeps me wholesale from this is the idea that all social media posts are US citizens. What if, and I'm not suggesting it is, 100% of the posts in question where from foreign actors looking to disrupt the US? Is the government in no way allowed to step in? Is that even censorship?
In my view that's to be expected and I'd want no intervention from the government at all. I would view that as censorship. Gov. is not there to decide for me which ideas are disruptive, I don't want them or anyone in that role. To those in power, any dissent could be spun as disruption to their agenda.
So your fine with a foreign power using bullying tactics to silence your fellow citizens, undermining thier right to free speech?
Because that's what you're actually arguing for.... And if you still support that position despite being informed of this fact, then I have to question exactly who You are working for....
Re: Injunction issued in case about social media pressure from US Government
#549Earlier quoted context omitted.
After the Senate ran a party-line unpresidented and unconstitutional multi-year campaign to block Obama's nominations from entering office without even a hearing, and then packed the courts with their own judges, it absolutely is relevant who appointed a judge.
How is it unconstitutional? Article II Section 2 of the Constitution says that the President shall nominate, with the advice and consent of the Senate […] judges. The Senate did not consent, so Merrick Garland was not given a confirmation hearing. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii
Just because you perform the rituals of democracy doesn't mean you get democracy.
If voting doesn't result in representation, then the act of voting is just a ritual and not an exertion of political power.
You're saying because we performed a ritual around judges, we should be getting the result we want, or judges that represent America at large.
You're so focused on rituals you are missing the bigger picture.
That is cargo cult democracy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult_science
> In the South Seas there is a cargo cult of people. During the war they saw airplanes land with lots of good materials, and they want the same thing to happen now. So they've arranged to imitate things like runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head like headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas—he's the controller—and they wait for the airplanes to land. They're doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the way it looked before. But it doesn't work. No airplanes land. So I call these things cargo cult science, because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but they're missing something essential, because the planes don't land.
Re: Injunction issued in case about social media pressure from US Government
#550Earlier quoted context omitted.
lol I gotta say I've been trying to read the defenders of this and take them seriously but your incredulity matches mine... .. and people are replying to you and _still_ defending the government and think they should have unilateral power over their people I'm kind of speechless about how many people think this ruling is a bad thing.. like who in the hell out there believes the government should have OPINIONS? Can on…
FYI the purpose of an entire branch of government (judiciary) is to have opinions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_opinion
The judiciary branch is separate from the legislative branch and I was under the impression we were discussing the legislative branch of government.