The Biden administration is appealing a federal judge’s ruling that ordered the government to halt a wide range of communications with social media companies. President Biden and the other federal defendants in the case “hereby appeal” the ruling to the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, according to a notice filed in US District Court yesterday. The US will submit a longer filing with arguments to the 5th Circuit appeals court.
On Tuesday, Judge Terry Doughty of US District Court for the Western District of Louisiana granted a preliminary injunction that prohibits White House officials and numerous federal agencies from communicating “with social-media companies for the purpose of urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech posted on social-media platforms.”
Doughty found that defendants “significantly encouraged” and in some cases coerced "the social-media companies to such extent that the decision…
I’m guessing they’re worried about social media companies controlling the narrative. Deleting comments to make a politician sound better or worse, that sort of thing.
or straight up misinformation and hate speech. Calls for insurrection. that sort of thing.
because that would never happen… right…? I mean the US is civilized and never had violence used to try and prevent the lawful and constitutional turn over of power… right…?
Anakin:
Padme: That’d never happen, right?
That’s not a reason to start controlling speech. It’s an effective knee jerk emotional reaction that may even elicit the immediate desired outcome but that newfound power will absolutely be used by the next guy. You want Donald Trump’s team having that kind of control over speech?
Everything you give to the guy you like will be wielded by the guy you don’t like. Don’t be stupid.
Don’t be stupid
You first.
Inciting insurrection, inciting to riot, and treason are all very much illegal. And pretty much always have been.
I will back the right of any American to say their piece to the hilt, and generally, you’re right. This however is not “suppression”…. And a lot of these posts aren’t necessarily Americans. Would you prefer else invade Russia, to make it stop?
In the same vein, selling snake oil is also very much illegal. It’s called fraud. Many of the people your defending are very much modern snake oil salesmen. I would also very much like to see jail time to the people that sold my cousin some shit promising it would protect her son from Covid. The kid is alive. But he got long Covid anyway, and when she responded by giving the kid more snake oil… he went blind.
Your ideals are awesome. But they come with a cost you are choosing to ignore. Many of these individuals are choosing to knowlingly spread lies (including trump himself,) for their own personal gain. Free speech, doesn’t mean no consequences.
The first amendment doesn’t protect you from getting shitcanned from social media because you shilled some snake oil or are openly advocating insurrection (or spouting election lies.)
Your ideals are awesome. But they come with a cost you are choosing to ignore. Many of these individuals are choosing to knowlingly spread lies (including trump himself,) for their own personal gain. Free speech, doesn’t mean no consequences.
And I acknowledge that. I don’t have the right to tell someone they can’t, shouldn’t, or don’t have the right to lie. It’s up to the people to whom are being lied to distinguish lies from truth.
It doesn’t mean no consequences for those lies, but those consequences can not be that there is an acceptable speech. If we allow that then we give control over what that acceptable speech is to someone. And that someone right now could be the right person. But it’s not always going to be that way, it will necessarily be the worst people at some point. So the only way to ensure the right speech gets listened to is to put that onus on the listener and call it out when we see it. Preventing it in general is not an option.
I’m honestly astonished they had the audacity to even ask for this. This is nothing short of controlling speech under a guise of “we’re super promising to not abuse this newfound power that will definitely exist for the rest of eternity, even when it’s out of our control”
This is a short sighted and naive solution at best. And people who can’t think in broad terms that will necessarily have implications for generations to come should not be making policy that has that kind of reach.
