5 ms·

> 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. Yo

> 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.
    - Banthum 10y ago
      You're saying Twitter isn't obligated by the law about free speech. I'm saying that free speech is more than a law. Perhaps you're referring to the first amendment, but I'm making the point that you can't limit this discussion to the first amendment. And businesses should be held to universal principles, above and beyond the law. We should demand businesses' decisions be ethical, not simply legal.
      - dragonwriter 10y ago
caconym_ 10y ago
> The law is not on twitter's side. Could you cite the law you're thinking of? Simply claiming to be a federal agent to set the context for a discussion is very different from claiming to be one and then acting under the authority of that pretended identity.
- caseysoftware 10y ago
  Sure: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/33/931 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/33/931 > Any claimant or representative of a claimant who knowingly and willfully makes a false statement or representation for the purpose of obtaining a benefit or payment under this chapter shall be guilty of a felony... or alternatively: http://www3.ce9.uscourts.gov/jury-instructions/node/508 http://www3.ce9.uscourts.gov/jury-instructions/node/508 The threshold of "obtaining a benefit" or "obtained thing of value" is pretty low. Is a massive Twitter following a benefit? Is positive press coverage or access a benefit or valuable? Alternatively, this person is a federal employee and they've been actively working against their boss and employer (aka POTUS). Either way, the outcome isn't good for them.
  - caconym_ 10y ago
    Your first link is from Title 33, Chapter 18, which is titled "LONGSHORE AND HARBOR WORKERS’ COMPENSATION". The words "federal" and "agent" appear nowhere in it, so... I think not. Maybe this is what you're looking for (as referred to in your second link): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/912 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/912 > The threshold of "obtaining a benefit" or "obtained thing of value" is pretty low. Is a massive Twitter following a benefit? Is positive press coverage or access a benefit or valuable? Absolutely ridiculous. If you want to play these sorts of word games, though, I might point out that this person is not pretending (or not) "to be an officer or employee acting under the authority of the United States or any department, agency or officer thereof". They are not pretending (or not) to act under any authority. Anyone can post whatever they like on Twitter (at Twitter's discretion and according to their TOS). In other words, it would be illegal to flash a fake badge at someone and then tell them you'll take them to jail if they don't follow you on Twitter, but that's not what this is. > Alternatively, this person is a federal employee and they've been actively working against their boss and employer (aka POTUS). On their own time and using their own device(s), presumably. Is this illegal?

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.
  - Banthum 10y ago
    You're saying Twitter isn't obligated by the law about free speech. I'm saying that free speech is more than a law. Perhaps you're referring to the first amendment, but I'm making the point that you can't limit this discussion to the first amendment. And businesses should be held to universal principles, above and beyond the law. We should demand businesses' decisions be ethical, not simply legal.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago

caconym_ 10y ago

> The law is not on twitter's side. Could you cite the law you're thinking of? Simply claiming to be a federal agent to set the context for a discussion is very different from claiming to be one and then acting under the authority of that pretended identity.

caseysoftware 10y ago
Sure: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/33/931 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/33/931 > Any claimant or representative of a claimant who knowingly and willfully makes a false statement or representation for the purpose of obtaining a benefit or payment under this chapter shall be guilty of a felony... or alternatively: http://www3.ce9.uscourts.gov/jury-instructions/node/508 http://www3.ce9.uscourts.gov/jury-instructions/node/508 The threshold of "obtaining a benefit" or "obtained thing of value" is pretty low. Is a massive Twitter following a benefit? Is positive press coverage or access a benefit or valuable? Alternatively, this person is a federal employee and they've been actively working against their boss and employer (aka POTUS). Either way, the outcome isn't good for them.
- caconym_ 10y ago
  Your first link is from Title 33, Chapter 18, which is titled "LONGSHORE AND HARBOR WORKERS’ COMPENSATION". The words "federal" and "agent" appear nowhere in it, so... I think not. Maybe this is what you're looking for (as referred to in your second link): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/912 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/912 > The threshold of "obtaining a benefit" or "obtained thing of value" is pretty low. Is a massive Twitter following a benefit? Is positive press coverage or access a benefit or valuable? Absolutely ridiculous. If you want to play these sorts of word games, though, I might point out that this person is not pretending (or not) "to be an officer or employee acting under the authority of the United States or any department, agency or officer thereof". They are not pretending (or not) to act under any authority. Anyone can post whatever they like on Twitter (at Twitter's discretion and according to their TOS). In other words, it would be illegal to flash a fake badge at someone and then tell them you'll take them to jail if they don't follow you on Twitter, but that's not what this is. > Alternatively, this person is a federal employee and they've been actively working against their boss and employer (aka POTUS). On their own time and using their own device(s), presumably. Is this illegal?