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

#611

Post by michaelmrose » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 7:53 PM UTC

ziptechnologies wrote: post #460

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.

[flagged]

The fact that some understandings change, are clarified, or are in doubt doesn't imply there aren't provable lies. Statements can be said to be on a spectrum of provable truth to provable lie say from 2+2=4 to 2+2=17 and on a spectrum from neutral to harmful.

If I say ziptechnologies is Michael Jackson living in hiding with the mom of one of the neverland kids I'm provably lying. There is no legitimate doubt as to his death and no reason to believe that is your actual identity. If I say you are a drug dealer and invite the police to raid your home I have crossed over from neutral to harmful.

The fact that many statements can't be evaluated so simply doesn't mean there aren't obvious lines that many statements clearly cross articulable objective standards.

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

#612

Post by mrguyorama » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 7:53 PM UTC

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #573

mrguyorama wrote: post #527

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Well, a "White House director of digital strategy" is presumably not Rachel in the post office. He's someone in the White House , which means he's in a position to have a quiet conversation with the president. "They're not playing ball" might be all it would take. I mean, yes, you're right, the White House director of digital strategy, taken by himself, can go jump in the lake as far as Facebook or Twitter are concer…

But if the president asks for something, you say no, and he sics the NSA or something onto you, how does this injunction protect you?

Basically this is arguing that the mere existence of government has a chilling effect, which it demonstrably does, but isn't really something you can make go away with an injunction. Hell, what's stopping the Biden admin from enacting this punishment scheme on these people for getting this injunction?

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

#613

Post by mrangle » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 7:53 PM UTC

snowwrestler wrote: post #297

GeekyBear wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The First Amendment is doing the demanding here. Not all speech is protected, and Government officials are not allowed to censor political speech.

Speech does not censor speech; this is an essential core of the concept of free speech. If I tell you to take down your comments, I am not censoring you. I’m speaking. It’s only censorship if I can force you to take them down. The same is true for federal officials; just telling someone to shut up is not censorship. Without an actual threat of force, it’s not censorship or intimidation. Note that I’m not arguing that…

You are falsely speaking of Federal Officials as if they are not acting in a government capacity, and therefore have their freedom of speech in that capacity protected by the Constitution.

The opposite is true.

The Constitution's protection of individual citizen free speech very specifically is a restriction on the government (and its officials acting in government capacity, which is how the government speaks) from acting to limit the speech of citizens under most circumstances.

Which is exactly the case in question.

This is how Constitutional protections work. They limit the capacity of the government and its officials in order to protect the Rights of individual citizens.

Case law has long held that even the politest censorship request by the government is viewed as threat of force.

The propaganda around this issue is weak to the point of being insulting.

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

#614

Post by dvt » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 7:53 PM UTC

staticman2 wrote: post #602

dvt wrote: post #576

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How can the government have a monopoly on speech if we're talking about the government being prevented from saying things by a judge? The judicial branch is supposed to be independent by design[1], so it's of the government, but not quite the government. [1] https://judiciallearningcenter.org/judicial-independence/

So the judicial branch is and is not quite the government, and the government has a mnonopoly on speech even though they can't say things, and I'm being uncharitable by finding this argument less than coherent. Got it.

> (1) So the judicial branch is and is not quite the government, and (2) the government has a mnonopoly on speech even though they can't say things

On (1): yes, that's the idea behind the independent role of the judiciary. They're supposed to be quis custodiet ipsos custodes. Sometimes, it doesn't work out, but usually it does. I'll concede that there's gray area here, but not quite enough to make the argument non-coherent.

On (2): the government can definitely say things (the White House literally has a Communications Director), but also (and more importantly) both stifle and coerce speech. I'm not sure how you came to this second conclusion.

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

#615

Post by evandale » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 7:54 PM UTC

afavour wrote: post #598

evandale wrote: post #585

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Are you going to continue this conversation or stop? You continue to muddy the waters and twist things and now I don't even know what the original point is.

You've continuously refused to define opinion for me and continuously refuse to put anything in your own words. You throw paragraphs of strawman at me because I'm being unclear. You throw 3 dictionary links in my face with at least 25 different definitions and can't zero in on a single one.

Back at the top you said:

> An example of "corporate opinion" off the top of my head: Facebook is in favour of advertising.

Can you first confirm you said that and you stand by the statement? If you do, explain to me how Facebook saying "we are in favour of advertising" is an opinion.

Now explain to me how "I like rain" is different and not an opinion. You told me "I like rain" is "a factual statement derived from your opinion" and not an opinion and then used that to strawman my argument.

Where I stand "I am in favour of advertising" is the exact same format and is not an opinion from YOUR definition. So how about you explain exactly what you want from me because your contradictions are confusing me.

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

#616

Post by iscream26 » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 7:55 PM UTC

Karunamon wrote: post #580

iscream26 wrote: post #575

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Employers setting limits on the conduct of employees on the job is generally not a freedom of speech, or first amendment issue. In other words: you're allowed to restrict the speech of other people as long as you own private property. Turns out that freedom of speech in a liberal "democracy" is not all it's cracked up to be.

You skipped the rather pertinent bit where these restrictions apply only to people who chose of their own volition to take them on. You are, of course, free to not take on the burden of employment from a particular organization if you find their demands on your conduct while they are compensating you for your time to be unacceptable. This relationship is purely transactional. And, sorry, the idea that this is actuall…

That line of reasoning would make sense if the have-nots in a liberal society didn't need to work just to survive. But that is not the case, is it?

Liberal society loves to characterise itself as a rigid, well-structured system in which individuals choose to make idealised rational decisions to work towards their own interests. As opposed to emotional reasoning, which is conveniently implied to be the diametrical opposite of rational thought. And I call it "convenient" because as a result can easily paint protests and strikes, as "irrational" and "despicable" actions perpetrated by "unreasonable" individuals.

However, as soon as one considers the fact that the disparity of power between people with private property and people without makes it so that the people without private property cannot afford to make decisions on a "rational vacuum". We quickly find ourselves reverting back to "what are you going to do about it? You don't work, you don't eat."

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

#617

Post by michaelmrose » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 8:03 PM UTC

AbrahamParangi wrote: post #451

michaelmrose wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are all "the people" even when acting in our official capacity as government employees. It also doesn't bestow shit. It says our rights are self evident and forbids the government, which includes the judiciary, from stomping on them.

Yeah, no this just ain't so. You may in your personal devotion believe that Jesus Christ is Lord. If you say that in your private life, no problem. That's your freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Now let's say you clock in to your job as Attorney General and you make it known that you think Christianity is the best and other religions are sad and misguided. Then we have a problem. You have rights as an individ…

You have a right to speak freely, duties you agree to abide by as an employee, laws you must follow, and an obligation to respect the constitution and the rights of citizens. The fact that you can't in your official capacity promote Jeebus means your conduct must not infringe on the rights of others not that you have no rights at all.

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

#618

Post by afavour » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 8:05 PM UTC

evandale wrote: post #615

afavour wrote: post #598

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Are you going to continue this conversation or stop? You continue to muddy the waters and twist things and now I don't even know what the original point is. You've continuously refused to define opinion for me and continuously refuse to put anything in your own words. You throw paragraphs of strawman at me because I'm being unclear. You throw 3 dictionary links in my face with at least 25 different definitions and ca…

> Are you going to continue this conversation or stop?

I am going to stop. Your definition of opinion is not one I've ever encountered before but you're welcome to hold it. I can't see any point in continuing to explain the differences.

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

#619

Post by michaelmrose » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 8:05 PM UTC

tdehnel wrote: post #555

michaelmrose wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are all "the people" even when acting in our official capacity as government employees. It also doesn't bestow shit. It says our rights are self evident and forbids the government, which includes the judiciary, from stomping on them.

You're really mixed up here. This is the text of the 1st Amendment: "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." When a person who works for the government is acting in their official capaci…

They don't cease to be people nor to have rights. How did you think all those cases go where a government employee sues the government for infringing on your rights. Judge: Sorry you aren't a person again until you clock out neeeext!.

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

#620

Post by KennyBlanken » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 8:05 PM UTC

halfjoking wrote: post #250

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…

The government can say whatever they want in press conferences or through their social media. Both the government and their employees have as much free speech as they want - and not only that but they spent billions of dollars for advocacy groups especially during covid. (which we know now was used to promote fraudulent science) The injunction says the government can't urge, pressure or encourage censorship. (yes eve…

> but they spent billions of dollars for advocacy groups especially during covid. (which we know now was used to promote fraudulent science)

....what.