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

#591

Post by stcroixx » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 7:20 PM UTC

DropInIn wrote: post #548

stcroixx wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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....

Goal posts moved. I don't know anything about bullying - if that’s going on, prosecute that for what it is. Sounds like a possible law enforcement issue that needs to be investigated. I’ve worked at enough tech companies to know I don't want them trying to handle it. Freedom of speech is about protecting ideas you may hate and find utterly horrible.

And a big middle finger to you for that last dig there. My family fought in the American Revolution - worked for ourselves then and still do now.

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

#592

Post by evandale » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 7:21 PM UTC

DropInIn wrote: post #500

evandale wrote: post #475

Earlier 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…

It's pretty clear that your "reasoning" is based not in any logic but almost exclusively in your "feels"... You just dislike corps and it's undermining every thought you have on this topic.

Mind telling me how it's clear that I dislike corporations?

I'll proudly admit I have no trust in corporations, but dislike is a little far. There's corporations I like but there's no corporations I trust.

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

#593

Post by mrangle » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 7:21 PM UTC

judge2020 wrote: post #431

ceejayoz wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. This is not how a preliminary injunction works. The court has ordered that the governmment stop doing the in-dispute things until the dispute is resolved - in either direction - in court. The standard for such an injunction is n…

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.

It has been long established in case law that government requests for censorship are tantamount to coercion and threats.

To wit, it matters not if the Giant makes a polite or directly threatening request of Jack. In either case, Jack is right to assume that he has no choice in the matter. And can not be expected to tell the Giant to "pound sand". Conversely, the Giant should not be able to claim that Jack had a choice.

The government has no business asking any entity, which it does not fund, to remove speech in the United States.

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

#594

Post by InSteady » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 7:22 PM UTC

codetrotter wrote: post #336

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…

> Society as a whole needs to be better at calling out the lies with hard facts and data. It doesn’t work. In the time it takes to refute one lie with facts and data, the world has moved on and uncountable additional lies have been spread in the meantime. Besides which. Both the people that produce the lies, and their supporters, are well aware of the fact that it’s not true. They just choose to ignore that. And any…

Plus when people do take the time to thoroughly refute misinformation, it's getting easier and easier to drown out any signal that starts spreading with a cacophony of noise from bots.

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

#595

Post by singleshot_ » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 7:24 PM UTC

leereeves wrote: post #503

singleshot_ wrote: post #494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, that’s definitely not true. The government can suppress speech when it sends an emergency action alert to commandeer tv and radio stations during an emergency, for one example. The fact is that the means employed make every bit of difference when it comes to whether or not the content based speech restriction is tailored as narrowly as possible to achieve a compelling government interest. On the other hand, may…

I'm obviously not saying the means never make a difference in any case. I'm talking about this case. I'm saying that using minimal means does not make an unconstitutional action acceptable; you're pointing out that using excessive means can make a constitutional action unacceptable. That's a different situation and not really a reply to my comment or this case. To make it more relevant, can you point to a single case…

Ok. I’m glad you’re not saying that; I think it means we are coming at this similarly.

You can choose how compelling the interest is, but my take was that the government has a compelling interest in free and fair elections. Or in making sure a pandemic is handled well.

My hourly rate for research is higher than you probably expect! But your question is super interesting so I will try to answer it this evening. You might have a point about these situations being opposites (contrapositives? I forget) and I have to think about this more.

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

#596

Post by mrangle » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 7:26 PM UTC

snowwrestler wrote: post #212

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…

It’s not so cut and dry, because believers in free speech can believe that the federal government and its employees should also be free to speak. The legal theory at stake here is that all government speech is inherently coercive. But this is not necessarily true, or aligned with free speech as a principle of society. Any time someone says “we must protect free speech by legally enjoining the following people from sp…

LOL at the "censorship requests are free speech of the government" argument.

You are trying to assign Constitutional Rights to the government in its relationship with citizens. As if the government was an individual whose rights are covered under the First Amendment and it is the citizens who are restricted from limiting the government's freedoms.

Very specifically, the First Amendment protects Freedom of Speech of US citizens by restricting what the government can do. Under the First Amendment and its case law, the government is widely restricted from censoring citizens.

Your sole rhetorical strategy was to invert that relationship in a manner that does not exist.

Beyond that, it has long been established in case law that government requests for censorship are tantamount to demands that have the threat of force behind them.

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

#597

Post by shadowgovt » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 7:28 PM UTC

aksss wrote: post #590

shadowgovt wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The government did a bad thing. The filing is that there is sufficient probability the government did a bad thing to issue an injunction while the court figures out if the government did a bad thing. In general, injunctions protecting freedom of speech are broadly and freely issued. ... But a rational person can ask how we protect free speech by muzzling the government in this context.

But the Court is not muzzling the government in the sense of prohibiting their public message. The court is enjoining their method of influencing public debate - that they were/are preventing what you say from being published based on its content. Prohibiting unlawful orders is not an abridgment of an authority’s “free speech”.

Nothing the government was doing is preventing what I say from being published based on its content because (a) I left Twitter ages ago (on account of it being a hole) and (b) I have no right to post on Twitter in the first place.

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

#598

Post by afavour » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 7:30 PM UTC

evandale wrote: post #585

afavour wrote: post #563

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alright, this will be my last contribution here. But: To start, "I like rain" is a factual statement derived from your opinion, not an opinion itself. So let's change it for "rain is good": > If you think rain is good because it waters your garden I'd hesitate to call that opinion because you have a factual reason. > If you think rain is good because it sounds pleasant that's an opinion. You're making distinctions th…

Definitely agree to disagree at this point. > You're making distinctions that don't exist. >Thinking rain is good because it waters your garden is based on the fact that it will help your garden grow. >Thinking rain is good because it sounds pleasant is based on the fact that you enjoy the sound of the rain. I'm not sure how you can say the distinctions don't exist. There has to be an analogy but I don't think I can…

> you literally twisted what I said into something else and went on to argue against that.

I had to, your original post contained two factual statements and no opinions, so there was nothing to argue!

Based on your previous replies I think your distinction is that liking the sound of rain is different because it’s a thought conjured up inside your head? “It is good that my garden grows” is also a thought conjoured up in your head that others may disagree with. Your argument seems to require some kind of appeal to objective authority that doesn’t exist.

(I know I said the last post was the end for me but I’ll admit to being somewhat fascinated by the counter argument here)

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

#599

Post by staticman2 » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 7:33 PM UTC

AbrahamParangi wrote: post #552

staticman2 wrote: post #474

Earlier 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…

I think you misunderstand what I'm saying. The spirit of free speech is to protect saying things that are either unpopular or inconvenient to the powerful. Speech that is popular or convenient to the powerful needs no such protection! Even in the most repressive states you can still praise the party or the dear leader. The truths that we need free speech to find are not the congenial truths, but the inconvenient ones…

Do you think that what is popular today will be popular tomorrow, so needs no defending?

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

#600

Post by judge2020 » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 7:38 PM UTC

mrangle wrote: post #593

judge2020 wrote: post #431

Earlier 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.

It has been long established in case law that government requests for censorship are tantamount to coercion and threats. To wit, it matters not if the Giant makes a polite or directly threatening request of Jack. In either case, Jack is right to assume that he has no choice in the matter. And can not be expected to tell the Giant to "pound sand". Conversely, the Giant should not be able to claim that Jack had a choic…

I'd argue that the US doesn't have enough of a reputation for disappearing people or putting their business under a heat lamp if they don't willfully comply with police requests that are overbearing. Apple, Google, etc get away with denying a lot of data requests[0]. And despite being put on the stand for 2016 election interference, Jack, Elon, and Mark are doing just fine.

0: https://www.apple.com/legal/transparency/us.html