4 ms·

Their job often involves interviewing many people, and to do that and get useful results you want them unbiased (for the same reason as you want a jury that doe

Their job often involves interviewing many people, and to do that and get useful results you want them unbiased (for the same reason as you want a jury that doesn't already know about the trial).

gpm 9y ago
Sure, but how does working less closely with Tesla result in more unbiased people?
- azernik 9y ago
  A couple of things: 1. Having Tesla keep their mouths shut results in more unbiased people. Kicking Tesla off the investigation is in large part a deterrent, not a corrective action. 2. This change also involves giving Tesla less access to data that they might leak. Information collected from the car's logs is under NTSB control (in past cases, for example, American Airlines was punished for making its own copy of the black box before handing it over). You can reduce these issues by not sharing information with an unreliable party.
  - gpm 9y ago
    > 1. Having Tesla keep their mouths shut results in more unbiased people. Kicking Tesla off the investigation is in large part a deterrent, not a corrective action. This purpose is in plain violation of the principles of freedom of speech, and the first amendment. The government is not permitted, morally or legally, to punish people for speaking. As such I'm not counting it. > 2. This change also involves giving Tesla less access to data that they might leak. Information collected from the car's logs is under NTSB control (in past cases, for example, American Airlines was punished for making its own copy of the black box before handing it over). You can reduce these issues by not sharing information with an unreliable party. This could be a legitimate purpose, but it seems so minor that short of the NTSB mentioning it I'm skeptical. The gain doesn't seem to be worth the loss of working closely with the manufacturer...
    - azernik 9y ago
      The government is absolutely allowed to limit speech on this level within the bounds of the 1st Amendment. Fire-in-a-crowded-theater and all that.
      - gpm 9y ago
        "fire in a crowded theater" is largely repealed and now requires "imminent lawless action" which certainly isn't the case here. Please read more about it here [0], written by a lawyer. Ignore the headline, the author wasn't pleased with it either [1]. Generally exceptions to free speech are extremely limited, "because we don't want you to bias people" is definitely not within an exception. [0] http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-white-first-amendment-slogans-20170608-story.html http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-white-first-amend... [1] https://www.popehat.com/2017/06/08/free-speech-tropes-in-the-la-times/ https://www.popehat.com/2017/06/08/free-speech-tropes-in-the...
        Fins 9y ago
        Jurors are routinely forbidden from discussing the case they are trying, parties to a settlement can be barred from discussing it, etc., etc., so there are quite a bit more limitations on "free speech" than that.
mr_toad 9y ago
Good luck finding anyone with an unbiased opinion about this issue.

Their job often involves interviewing many people, and to do that and get useful results you want them unbiased (for the same reason as you want a jury that doesn't already know about the trial).

gpm 9y ago

Sure, but how does working less closely with Tesla result in more unbiased people?

azernik 9y ago
A couple of things: 1. Having Tesla keep their mouths shut results in more unbiased people. Kicking Tesla off the investigation is in large part a deterrent, not a corrective action. 2. This change also involves giving Tesla less access to data that they might leak. Information collected from the car's logs is under NTSB control (in past cases, for example, American Airlines was punished for making its own copy of the black box before handing it over). You can reduce these issues by not sharing information with an unreliable party.
- gpm 9y ago
  > 1. Having Tesla keep their mouths shut results in more unbiased people. Kicking Tesla off the investigation is in large part a deterrent, not a corrective action. This purpose is in plain violation of the principles of freedom of speech, and the first amendment. The government is not permitted, morally or legally, to punish people for speaking. As such I'm not counting it. > 2. This change also involves giving Tesla less access to data that they might leak. Information collected from the car's logs is under NTSB control (in past cases, for example, American Airlines was punished for making its own copy of the black box before handing it over). You can reduce these issues by not sharing information with an unreliable party. This could be a legitimate purpose, but it seems so minor that short of the NTSB mentioning it I'm skeptical. The gain doesn't seem to be worth the loss of working closely with the manufacturer...
  - azernik 9y ago
    The government is absolutely allowed to limit speech on this level within the bounds of the 1st Amendment. Fire-in-a-crowded-theater and all that.
    - gpm 9y ago
      "fire in a crowded theater" is largely repealed and now requires "imminent lawless action" which certainly isn't the case here. Please read more about it here [0], written by a lawyer. Ignore the headline, the author wasn't pleased with it either [1]. Generally exceptions to free speech are extremely limited, "because we don't want you to bias people" is definitely not within an exception. [0] http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-white-first-amendment-slogans-20170608-story.html http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-white-first-amend... [1] https://www.popehat.com/2017/06/08/free-speech-tropes-in-the-la-times/ https://www.popehat.com/2017/06/08/free-speech-tropes-in-the...
      - Fins 9y ago
        Jurors are routinely forbidden from discussing the case they are trying, parties to a settlement can be barred from discussing it, etc., etc., so there are quite a bit more limitations on "free speech" than that.

mr_toad 9y ago

Good luck finding anyone with an unbiased opinion about this issue.