Live data from Hacker News

Injunction issued in case about social media pressure from US Government

arstechnica.com

621–630 of 783 posts

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

#621
post #311

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…

'lean' lol.

the wsj opinion section has gone wildly off the rails.

love their journalism. can't read half the crap they allow to be published in opeds.

at a minimum, is it too much to not publish outright provable lies?

it actually feels like a similar persecution complex vibe to these lawsuits and congressional hearings to me

that somehow if we aren't forced to listen to them, or that their megaphone isn't as loud as it once was, that they are being persecuted and censored with the most orwellian oppression in the history of our country! (i can think of a lot of truly terrible things our govt has done... literal internment camps and more! but that is besides the point)

no one has silenced them. we continue to hear it constantly.

i hear more anti gay slurs now - on traditional media and online - than i ever remember growing up as a very obviously gay boy ;0

if anything, whenever someone crows about being 'cancelled' their message is spread even farther.

there isn't a right to amplification.

the next door kook was never promised a full page column in the local paper. with a guaranteed readership of thousands or millions.

any truth filter or higher bar for discourse that might have existed in legacy news media has been smashed

news corp is the leader and biggest offender

the democratization of the megaphone (internet gives any random conspiracist opportunity to reach more than cronkite did), has given many the impression that they are owed this power to yell and be guaranteed a listening and receptive audience.

and anything less is cancelation or "censorship."

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

#622

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump should have been impeached and convicted for those things, which have nothing to do with the judges he appointed.

Surely the guy who literally sold pardons for a few million a pop has broad respect for the role of Justice in society.

[citation needed]

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

#623

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What's your definition!? Can you please summarize it, I'm dying to know here... or answer this?

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

How is Facebook saying "we are in favour of advertising" an opinion?

How is "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. How are they different?

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

#624

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The standard actually is the plaintiffs are likely to prevail on the merits (not "might"-- it's probable per the judge), and in practice a preliminary injunction hearing in a major case can take the form of a mini-trial. The judge wrote 155 pages that, at first blush, appear to be a very serious and thoughtful effort. The judge summarized on page 154 thus: "The Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits in establ…

"Likely" means more than "possible" and less than "probable", with a pretty hefty error bar given the trial hasn't happened yet. It's a far cry from the settled state the original headline implied.

An ultimate win must be "likely" to prevail in a PI, and this judge said it was. "Likely" and "probable" are synonyms".[1] Apparently some courts do apply an relaxed standard in First Amendment cases of "reasonably likely"[2], but that's not clearly right and it's also not a quibble over whether "likely" is "probable" (which it is).

[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/likely#synonyms

[2] https://www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/publications/l...

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

#625
post #331

I don't yet see an ACLU statement on this, though it seems up their alley, and they have a more recent statement on a different case. https://www.aclu.org/press-releases . (Incidentally, the Ars Technica favicon looks very similar to the ACLU's.)

The ACLU has become a run-of-the-mill left wing org.

For proper 1st amendment protection, you should look at FIRE. Like the EFF, they are willing do defend that which they find objectionable - the ACLU no longer does.

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

#626

Earlier 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…

> It's as stupid of a concept as a corporation having an opinion.. opinions are reserved for PEOPLE and I have no idea how you could come up with an argument to change my mind on that. I guess I don’t understand your point here unless we’re being ultra-literal and saying a corporation can’t have an opinion because it doesn’t have a physical brain developing individual thought. An example of “corporate opinion” off th…

If anyone reads this thread please see this comment: parent is not even trying to argue in good faith.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36621860

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

#627

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The porn and drugs were bad, but peddling influence with foreign adversaries is a pretty big deal.

You're right, which is why it's insane Saudi Arabia handed $2 billion in investment funds to Jared Kushner months after he left the White House as a "Senior Advisor", against the advice of the fund's advisors. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/10/us/jared-kushner-saudi-in... If you want to be shocked by influence peddling, just review what and Mr. Kushner did business with while actually being employed by the governmen…

That's whataboutism. Both of these things are abhorrent and should be punished.

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

#628

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's as stupid of a concept as a corporation having an opinion.. opinions are reserved for PEOPLE and I have no idea how you could come up with an argument to change my mind on that. I guess I don’t understand your point here unless we’re being ultra-literal and saying a corporation can’t have an opinion because it doesn’t have a physical brain developing individual thought. An example of “corporate opinion” off th…

If anyone reads this thread please see this comment: parent is not even trying to argue in good faith. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36621860

Good grief, man.

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

#629

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Reputation isn't an argument. It would be false in its assumption even if it were.

The case law is established.

There isn't a single case of someone's speech being censored, due to government request, for which the person being censored does not have a Constitutionally airtight First Amendment violation complaint.

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

#630

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It is that infringement of the rights of others which is the very issue at hand here! The government undertook actions which caused people to be unable to express their opinions.

That the government was "just expressing their opinion that's totally nonbinding except of course I can exert selective regulatory scrutiny if I feel like it" is not a get-out-of-jail-free card.

Post reply on HN