6 ms·

Two things are are wrong with your statement: 1.) The government has made no request to impede upon the speech of the account owner, nor has the gov asked to s

Two things are are wrong with your statement: 1.) The government has made no request to impede upon the speech of the account owner, nor has the gov asked to shut it down the account. The gov asked for the account holder identity because they suspect (with reason) that someone is impersonating a federal agent through the account. 2.) Twitter invoked "free speech" to deny a reasonable request from the government. Right or not, I am mocking Twitter for acting like "champion of free speech" on one hand and then shutting down what they deem as "hate speech" (which the ACLU explicitly protects as free speech) on the other hand. Twitter can reinstate Milo's account at any time, yet they don't. 3.) We have just as much evidence to believe that the account holder is a fake federal employee as we do to believe they are real.

debaserab2 10y ago
> 43. The CBP Summons states that Twitter is “required” to “produce[] for inspection” “[a]ll records regarding the [T]witter account @ALT_USCIS to include, User names, account login, phone numbers, mailing addresses, and I.P. addresses.” That doesn't really sound like they politely asked for it. No one's making the argument that twitter is some bastion of free speech, but it seems reasonable to respect them for not complying to government strongarm tactics to criminalize their own users. The law is well on twitter's side on this one. Comparing this to selectively banning trolls from their own business is just a false equivalence.
- spaceflunky 10y ago
  > That doesn't really sound like they politely asked for it. How is it impolite? It's a legal request. Legal requests are always objective and to the point. You should argue objective facts and not whine because "its not polite enough" >No one's making the argument that twitter is some bastion of free speech, but it seems reasonable to respect them for not complying to government strongarm tactics to criminalize their own users. The law is well on twitter's side on this one. The government has not criminalizing anything. The account is deriving its authority from the fact that owner claims to be federal agent. The law is not on twitter's side. If the government suspects the impersonating of a federal agent they have the right to investigate. If you say "Trust me I'm a federal agent." the government can ask for your identity. If someone says "trust me I'm a cop" you have the right to ask for their name and badge number. The difference is that the account is claiming to be a federal agent. If the account were for example just an anonymous reporter who did not claim to be employed by the government, the government could not force twitter to reveal the identity. >Comparing this to selectively banning trolls from their own business is just a false equivalence. Twitter is explicitly citing "free speech" as their reason for denying a federal investigation.
  - debaserab2 10y ago
    > failure to comply with this summons will render you liable to proceedings in a U.S. District Court to enforce compliance with this summons as well as other sanctions. It's not a request if you're threatening legal consequences, is it? I'm not "whining that it's not polite enough", it's clearly not a request at all but instead a strongarm tactic by an overreaching government agency. > Twitter is explicitly citing "free speech" as their reason for denying a federal investigation. Free speech != businesses can't censor whatever the hell they want from their own user created content. It's surprising to me how often people don't understand this. The comparison is absolutely a false equivalence in this case. > If you stand up say "Trust me I'm a federal agent." the government can ask for your identity. If someone says "trust me I'm a cop" you have the right to ask for their name and badge number. Yes, if you're doing something illegal - speaking out against government policy is not, hence Twitter's free speech argument.
    - Banthum 10y ago
      In truth, free speech DOES mean business shouldn't censor arbitrarily on their own platform. Free speech isn't just a quirky law to restrain the government. It's a social virtue which should all try to uphold, everywhere, because it makes our society better. Free speech is comparable to honesty in this way, as a generalized social virtue. The law against government censorship is to the principle of free speech as the law against perjury is to the principle of honesty. Honesty and free speech are universal principles; violating them is often legal but generally not ethical. This becomes more and more important as our public squares are increasingly moved on to online private platforms. Soon enough almost all communication will be digital, and the corporations will have more censoring power than the government does. At that time, it'll be pretty regretful that all these people have been upholding businesses' "rights" to silence anyone they please for any reason.
      - debaserab2 10y ago
        Obviously the context of the phrase "free speech" in my responses refers to the first amendment, not the general concept of free speech as a whole. That said, as someone who has ran online businesses, I still don't agree with you that it's some universal principal that businesses should be held to. I've dealt with trolls of the same ilk as Milo Yiannopoulos, and you know what? When I think about how things went, it would have sucked up a hell of a lot less resources and time of myself, the business, and my other customers if I had simply censored them immediately.
memmcgee 10y ago
1a) You don't have to impede speech to be violating the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has ruled consistently that anonymity is protected under the First Amendment. https://www.eff.org/issues/anonymity https://www.eff.org/issues/anonymity 1b) Additionally, "impersonating a federal agent" is a flimsy reason to violate the First Amendment, especially when the only harm they're causing is making the government look bad. Typically "impersonating a federal agent" is used as a charge when the suspect has committed another crime while impersonating someone. The only crime here is making Trump look bad. 2) Get out of here with your false equivalency bs. Equating the government making a (likely) unconstitutional request to reveal the identity of a critic's Twitter account to Milo getting banned from Twitter for harassment is stupid. Hate speech is protected from the government, not from Twitter trying to create a safe platform for its users. 3) I thought everyone was innocent until proven guilty? The government has the burden of proof here, not some rando on Twitter.
- Banthum 10y ago
  On 2) parent is not equating the goverment's position on this case to Twitter's positions on Milo. He is equating Twitter's position on this case to Twitter's position on Milo's case, and noting that there is indeed a double-standard. Twitter's message seems to be: Speech must be free - but only if that speech is for left-wing causes.
  - rjtavares 10y ago
    To my knowledge, no account was ever banned for critizing the Obama administration.
    - coldtea 10y ago
      Several people were taken by the police for social/twitter threats against the (then Obama) President and such -- of the kind that we see 100 per day against Trump.
      - DanBC 10y ago
throwaway729 10y ago
1 is bullshit. Anonymity is baked into first amendment protections. The political nature of govt's request is blatant.
- spaceflunky 10y ago
  >Anonymity is baked into first amendment protections. Not when you're claiming authority as a federal agent.
  - throwaway729 10y ago
    Yeah, nothing says "claiming authority" like explicitly calling yourself "Alt". /s
    - spaceflunky 10y ago
      They have explicitly labeled themselves as 'rouge USCIS agents' and said they are real in multiple tweets. It's not the same as making a "fake steve jobs" twitter account where everybody knows you're not really steve jobs. They actually claim to be subversive workers within the agency.
      - throwaway729 10y ago
        > It's not the same as making a "fake steve jobs" twitter account where everybody knows you're not really steve jobs First, let's dispel the absurdity that "ICE official with a critical Twitter account" == "impersonate a law enforcement officer/agency". There's no impersonation. Everybody knows that @ALT_* is not an official channel. The entire account namespace was created specifically as a protest mechanism. Government's claims regarding IMPERSONATION are baseless as a pure and simple matter of fact. > They actually claim to be subversive workers within the agency. Could the federal government have cause to fire these employees for their political speech? Perhaps. Should we, the people, grant the government have right to infringe upon private company's property rights in order to settle petty shop politics? NO. Government can be as petty an employer as it wants. But this ISN'T impersonation, and we SHOULDN'T sacrifice OUR liberties and property rights for the sake of fucking petty shop politics. If law enforcement wants to track down and fire people who disagree with the chief executive, they're free to waste my tax dollars doing so. But unless they can show substantive evidence of ACTUAL impersonation, they can conduct their witch hunt without barging into our homes and offices.
Falling3 10y ago
>The gov asked for the account holder identity because they suspect (with reason) that someone is impersonating a federal agent through the account. I wasn't familiar with this account previously, but I'm not seeing any reason to suspect impersonation of a federal agent. What exactly are you citing here?
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

debaserab2 10y ago

> 43. The CBP Summons states that Twitter is “required” to “produce[] for inspection” “[a]ll records regarding the [T]witter account @ALT_USCIS to include, User names, account login, phone numbers, mailing addresses, and I.P. addresses.” That doesn't really sound like they politely asked for it. No one's making the argument that twitter is some bastion of free speech, but it seems reasonable to respect them for not complying to government strongarm tactics to criminalize their own users. The law is well on twitter's side on this one. Comparing this to selectively banning trolls from their own business is just a false equivalence.

spaceflunky 10y ago
> That doesn't really sound like they politely asked for it. How is it impolite? It's a legal request. Legal requests are always objective and to the point. You should argue objective facts and not whine because "its not polite enough" >No one's making the argument that twitter is some bastion of free speech, but it seems reasonable to respect them for not complying to government strongarm tactics to criminalize their own users. The law is well on twitter's side on this one. The government has not criminalizing anything. The account is deriving its authority from the fact that owner claims to be federal agent. The law is not on twitter's side. If the government suspects the impersonating of a federal agent they have the right to investigate. If you say "Trust me I'm a federal agent." the government can ask for your identity. If someone says "trust me I'm a cop" you have the right to ask for their name and badge number. The difference is that the account is claiming to be a federal agent. If the account were for example just an anonymous reporter who did not claim to be employed by the government, the government could not force twitter to reveal the identity. >Comparing this to selectively banning trolls from their own business is just a false equivalence. Twitter is explicitly citing "free speech" as their reason for denying a federal investigation.
- debaserab2 10y ago
  > failure to comply with this summons will render you liable to proceedings in a U.S. District Court to enforce compliance with this summons as well as other sanctions. It's not a request if you're threatening legal consequences, is it? I'm not "whining that it's not polite enough", it's clearly not a request at all but instead a strongarm tactic by an overreaching government agency. > Twitter is explicitly citing "free speech" as their reason for denying a federal investigation. Free speech != businesses can't censor whatever the hell they want from their own user created content. It's surprising to me how often people don't understand this. The comparison is absolutely a false equivalence in this case. > If you stand up say "Trust me I'm a federal agent." the government can ask for your identity. If someone says "trust me I'm a cop" you have the right to ask for their name and badge number. Yes, if you're doing something illegal - speaking out against government policy is not, hence Twitter's free speech argument.
  - Banthum 10y ago
    In truth, free speech DOES mean business shouldn't censor arbitrarily on their own platform. Free speech isn't just a quirky law to restrain the government. It's a social virtue which should all try to uphold, everywhere, because it makes our society better. Free speech is comparable to honesty in this way, as a generalized social virtue. The law against government censorship is to the principle of free speech as the law against perjury is to the principle of honesty. Honesty and free speech are universal principles; violating them is often legal but generally not ethical. This becomes more and more important as our public squares are increasingly moved on to online private platforms. Soon enough almost all communication will be digital, and the corporations will have more censoring power than the government does. At that time, it'll be pretty regretful that all these people have been upholding businesses' "rights" to silence anyone they please for any reason.
    - debaserab2 10y ago
      Obviously the context of the phrase "free speech" in my responses refers to the first amendment, not the general concept of free speech as a whole. That said, as someone who has ran online businesses, I still don't agree with you that it's some universal principal that businesses should be held to. I've dealt with trolls of the same ilk as Milo Yiannopoulos, and you know what? When I think about how things went, it would have sucked up a hell of a lot less resources and time of myself, the business, and my other customers if I had simply censored them immediately.

memmcgee 10y ago

1a) You don't have to impede speech to be violating the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has ruled consistently that anonymity is protected under the First Amendment. https://www.eff.org/issues/anonymity https://www.eff.org/issues/anonymity 1b) Additionally, "impersonating a federal agent" is a flimsy reason to violate the First Amendment, especially when the only harm they're causing is making the government look bad. Typically "impersonating a federal agent" is used as a charge when the suspect has committed another crime while impersonating someone. The only crime here is making Trump look bad. 2) Get out of here with your false equivalency bs. Equating the government making a (likely) unconstitutional request to reveal the identity of a critic's Twitter account to Milo getting banned from Twitter for harassment is stupid. Hate speech is protected from the government, not from Twitter trying to create a safe platform for its users. 3) I thought everyone was innocent until proven guilty? The government has the burden of proof here, not some rando on Twitter.

Banthum 10y ago
On 2) parent is not equating the goverment's position on this case to Twitter's positions on Milo. He is equating Twitter's position on this case to Twitter's position on Milo's case, and noting that there is indeed a double-standard. Twitter's message seems to be: Speech must be free - but only if that speech is for left-wing causes.
- rjtavares 10y ago
  To my knowledge, no account was ever banned for critizing the Obama administration.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    Several people were taken by the police for social/twitter threats against the (then Obama) President and such -- of the kind that we see 100 per day against Trump.
    - DanBC 10y ago

throwaway729 10y ago

1 is bullshit. Anonymity is baked into first amendment protections. The political nature of govt's request is blatant.

spaceflunky 10y ago
>Anonymity is baked into first amendment protections. Not when you're claiming authority as a federal agent.
- throwaway729 10y ago
  Yeah, nothing says "claiming authority" like explicitly calling yourself "Alt". /s
  - spaceflunky 10y ago
    They have explicitly labeled themselves as 'rouge USCIS agents' and said they are real in multiple tweets. It's not the same as making a "fake steve jobs" twitter account where everybody knows you're not really steve jobs. They actually claim to be subversive workers within the agency.
    - throwaway729 10y ago
      > It's not the same as making a "fake steve jobs" twitter account where everybody knows you're not really steve jobs First, let's dispel the absurdity that "ICE official with a critical Twitter account" == "impersonate a law enforcement officer/agency". There's no impersonation. Everybody knows that @ALT_* is not an official channel. The entire account namespace was created specifically as a protest mechanism. Government's claims regarding IMPERSONATION are baseless as a pure and simple matter of fact. > They actually claim to be subversive workers within the agency. Could the federal government have cause to fire these employees for their political speech? Perhaps. Should we, the people, grant the government have right to infringe upon private company's property rights in order to settle petty shop politics? NO. Government can be as petty an employer as it wants. But this ISN'T impersonation, and we SHOULDN'T sacrifice OUR liberties and property rights for the sake of fucking petty shop politics. If law enforcement wants to track down and fire people who disagree with the chief executive, they're free to waste my tax dollars doing so. But unless they can show substantive evidence of ACTUAL impersonation, they can conduct their witch hunt without barging into our homes and offices.

Falling3 10y ago

>The gov asked for the account holder identity because they suspect (with reason) that someone is impersonating a federal agent through the account. I wasn't familiar with this account previously, but I'm not seeing any reason to suspect impersonation of a federal agent. What exactly are you citing here?

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]