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

641–650 of 783 posts

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

#641

Post by AbrahamParangi »

michaelmrose wrote: post #636
AbrahamParangi wrote: post #630

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The government notifying Facebook that someone posted content contrary to Facebook's TOS doesn't violate the rights of the person violating said TOS. You never had a right to post content that violates the TOS you agreed to in the first place. You do have a right to share that same content on your own website and the government would have no right to make you take it down. In no cases were people unable to express th…

I think you can see how a court might look at that as laundering unconstitutional actions through a private entity and hold the government to a higher standard than that.

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

#642

Post by AbrahamParangi »

staticman2 wrote: post #599
AbrahamParangi wrote: post #552

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yes, I do think that whoever is today's top dog doesn't need defending today. The alternative is just using power to crush the powerless which- I mean okay, that's a normal human reaction but I think it is beneath our aspirations as a country.

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

#643

Post by brightlancer »

ceejayoz wrote: post #540
ndr wrote: post #529

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"?

That assumes a court deciding "this was a bad thing" definitively makes it a bad thing. Dred Scott might disagree.

> That assumes a court deciding "this was a bad thing" definitively makes it a bad thing. Dred Scott might disagree.

That can be a pretty convenient tool.

Decision I agree with: This is just like Brown v Board of Education of Topeka!

Decision I disagree with: This is just like Dred Scott!

Both major parties have done this and IME most individuals do this because they don't care about the law, only about whether their side "wins".

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

#644

Post by staticman2 »

dvt wrote: post #614
staticman2 wrote: post #602

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-c…

My issue is your claim the government has a monopoly on speech, not your other claims.

Imagine I'm a visitor from mars and you tell me the government has a monopoly on speech. I say, fascinating, so only the government is allowed to talk?

And you say, well no, anybody can talk, generally.

And I say, oh, do you mean the government does the majority of the talking?

And you say no, most talking is done by private individuals.

And I say oh, do you mean the government decides what people can say?

And you say no, no exactly, see there's these people called judges who are not quite the government who prevent the government from deciding what people can say.

And I'm thinking "?????????"

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

#645

Post by didntcheck »

causi wrote: post #195
commandlinefan wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why defend them? Because a depressingly large percentage of people would actually like to see the first amendment overturned.

It's become quite rare for me to see people who defend speech they don't agree with, and rarer still any speech they find repugnant. It isn't liberty vs authority anymore; it's just team red and team blue. One might be wrong-er than the other but neither think people they hate should be able to open their mouths in anything but agreement.

Yeah, it's worrying how many people seem to go: "I don't like this" => "Nobody else should be able to see it". I've had people be confused in conversations where I've confirmed I strongly dislike a thing/person/site, yet do not wish at all to see it banned or deplatformed. Not to do the whole generational sneering thing, but I do find the difference is often whether someone grew up with the pre-social-media internet, where it was common sense that not all of the internet would appeal to you, and you'd need to manage your own experience, or the modern "safe" internet, where people are accustomed to having a direct line to the powers that be to come and remove stuff that upsets them

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

#646

Post by scarface_74 »

LatteLazy wrote: post #634
scarface_74 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m definitely not a fan of Trump and I was also suspicious. But after reading the article, I don’t see anything objectionable with it especially with the carve outs. But censorship pressure very much happened on “both sides”. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/elon-tru...

I don't think the injunction is an issue either. If we were in the run up to an election or the middle of a pandemic then maybe? But now is actually a good time to answer this question imho...

So what if social media was spreading a rumor that the “secret Muslim president” was using troops to invade a state to impose marshal law.

https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/05/02/40386...

Should the federal government intervene to keep citizens from attacking their own soldiers?

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

#647

Post by mrangle »

mrangle wrote: post #613
snowwrestler wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

Below, I further frame the argument against the false-assertion that the government has free speech protections under the Constitution.

The government is specifically restricted by the Constitution in order to convey Rights to citizens.

Just as the FBI does not have Constitutionally protected free speech rights to request censorship of citizens, no matter how politely requested, the FBI can not legally "request of you" to report to prison for five years in the absence of being convicted of a crime.

As any such request carries the presumption of force.

This restriction protects the Constitutional Rights of citizens.

I can request that you report to prison. That is protected speech. I can request that speech be censored. That is protected speech.

Aside from my lack of power and potential force to be able to effect those outcomes, the Constitution also exists to protect individuals from my such requests should I, for instance, then drum up a mob (akin to a government) in order to try to intimidate or force results.

The government is not an individual with Constitutional Rights. It is the entity that the Constitution exists to protect individuals against.

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

#648

Post by ceejayoz »

brightlancer wrote: post #643
ceejayoz wrote: post #540

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That assumes a court deciding "this was a bad thing" definitively makes it a bad thing. Dred Scott might disagree.

> That assumes a court deciding "this was a bad thing" definitively makes it a bad thing. Dred Scott might disagree. That can be a pretty convenient tool. Decision I agree with: This is just like Brown v Board of Education of Topeka! Decision I disagree with: This is just like Dred Scott! Both major parties have done this and IME most individuals do this because they don't care about the law, only about whether their…

> That can be a pretty convenient tool.

It can, and it can also be accurate. We've a long history of demonstrating that morally right and what's legal aren't always identical concepts.

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

#649

Post by dvt »

staticman2 wrote: post #644
dvt wrote: post #614

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (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-c…

My issue is your claim the government has a monopoly on speech, not your other claims. Imagine I'm a visitor from mars and you tell me the government has a monopoly on speech. I say, fascinating, so only the government is allowed to talk? And you say, well no, anybody can talk, generally. And I say, oh, do you mean the government does the majority of the talking? And you say no, most talking is done by private indivi…

> My issue is your claim the government has a monopoly on speech, not your other claims.

Ah gotcha, yeah maybe that's too strong of a premise. You can probably fix it by saying "potential monopoly" or something in the vein of "it would be easiest for the government to monopolize speech," as historically, freedom of the press was meant to counter or criticize strong central governments (e.g. monarchies).

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

#650

Post by didntcheck »

causi wrote: post #303
bequanna wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is anyone on the right arguing for any speech restriction? If so, they are by far the minority in that camp. Only one side is afraid of open debate and pure freedom of speech. Why could that be?

Is anyone on the right arguing for any speech restriction? Yes. Restrictions on what teachers are allowed to teach are restrictions on freedom of speech. Restrictions on non-sexual drag performances are restrictions of freedom of speech. Bans on calling for boycotts of Israeli goods and services are restrictions of the freedom of speech.

> Restrictions on what teachers are allowed to teach are restrictions on freedom of speech

Do you consider a curriculum to be a restriction on freedom of speech? I ask as a genuine question - being from the UK the norm for me is having a national curriculum and standard testing (albeit it executed by private-but-certified exam boards). It seems like common sense to me that obviously teachers have restrictions on what they can say in a classroom. Any employee does within their workplace and job duties, but teaching is one profession where I'd clearly expect a much higher level of restriction (along with the police, who represent the state, and doctors, who have duties of professionalism and to give medical advice only in line with the regulator, and various other regulated roles)

Post reply on HN