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

71–80 of 783 posts

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

#71

Post by somenameforme »

throwawaaarrgh wrote: post #39

Does this mean I can yell fire in a crowded theater again? Apparently not limiting my free speech is more important than the impact of my disinformation.

There's a really fun, and deeply relevant, historical tidbit on the history of 'yelling fire in a crowded theater.' That statement didn't actually come from any court case along those lines. Instead it was first used by Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in the case Schenck vs the United States, as a metaphor. [1]

So, what was the egregious offense, endangering all of society by words alone, uttered by by Schenck? This "yelling fire in a crowded theater"? Charles Schenck was a member of the local Socialist party, and was distributing fliers urging draft age men to oppose the draft (for World War 1) on the grounds that it entailed involuntary servitude, outlawed by the 13th amendment.

So there's your "yelling fire in a crowded theater" when you concede your right of free speech to the government.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States

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

#72

Post by edgyquant »

mullingitover wrote: post #50
LatteLazy wrote: post #3

>But Judge Terry Doughty, a Trump nominee at US District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, granted the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction imposing limits... 1. Him being a trump nominee makes me suspicious, but also sad that that is the effect and that papers need to list who nominated a judge. 2. Granting a preliminary injunction is a long way from winning a case. 3. There is pressure and th…

> sad that that is the effect and that papers need to list who nominated a judge. It matters because Trump appointed, and the GOP Senate confirmed, a batch of federal judges who the bar association determined were Not Qualified, because they were found to be lacking in "integrity, professional competence or judicial temperament." The past two GOP presidents have eschewed bar association recommendations entirely and i…

No this doesn’t matter. The president and senate are who pick and approve the judges not the bar association.

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

#74

Post by jimmygrapes »

mullingitover wrote: post #57
Guthur wrote: post #18

The problem i believe we are coming to is that all secular governance eventually replaces the role once taken by church and religious philosophy. It starts to become the arbiter of moral truth and with out any real moral center it can only but fail spectacularly. The second and third political theories of racial and social idealogies more rapidly succumb to this due to a more overt desire to place the state at this m…

Historically, religion doesn't have a great track record with its use of moral authority.

Historically, no entity does

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

#76

Post by ImHereToVote »

throwawaaarrgh wrote: post #39

Does this mean I can yell fire in a crowded theater again? Apparently not limiting my free speech is more important than the impact of my disinformation.

Fire Fire Fire!!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDap-K6GmL0

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

#77

Post by MrBuddyCasino »

Guthur wrote: post #18

The problem i believe we are coming to is that all secular governance eventually replaces the role once taken by church and religious philosophy. It starts to become the arbiter of moral truth and with out any real moral center it can only but fail spectacularly. The second and third political theories of racial and social idealogies more rapidly succumb to this due to a more overt desire to place the state at this m…

Yes, trying to have a "secular state" just means that traditional religions are going to be replaced by something that doesn't read as such, like "human rights", "liberal democracy" which we are happy to spread by the sword with disastrous consequences (afghanistan, iraq etc), DEI, ESG...

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

#78

Post by Guthur »

mullingitover wrote: post #57
Guthur wrote: post #18

The problem i believe we are coming to is that all secular governance eventually replaces the role once taken by church and religious philosophy. It starts to become the arbiter of moral truth and with out any real moral center it can only but fail spectacularly. The second and third political theories of racial and social idealogies more rapidly succumb to this due to a more overt desire to place the state at this m…

Historically, religion doesn't have a great track record with its use of moral authority.

I'd beg to disagree. The track record of secularism from the French revolution, to empire and idealogy had quite a lot of blood on it's hands. The body count is most certainly not skewed to religion by any stretch.

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

#80

Post by umeshunni »

ajkjk wrote: post #54
ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

which direction are you imagining? the one originating from the dude who used a swear word? or the one originating from the company who felt comfortable ignoring the dude and the request? after all, anyone can feel comfortable demanding anything, what matters is what they get : e.g. TFG felt comfortable demanding that his political rivals be imprisoned, did he get it?

TFG?

Donald Trump, former, and possibly future, president
Post reply on HN