4 ms·

In court filings, attorneys for the social media giant claimed such a disclosure would violate the First Amendment rights of a user to be anonymous. That ship

by kls 6y ago

In court filings, attorneys for the social media giant claimed such a disclosure would violate the First Amendment rights of a user to be anonymous. That ship has sailed, it seems convenient to argue for their users first amendment rights when out the other side of their mouth they argue that they are a private platform and should not be subject to free speech regulations when they choose to censure speech. As a note before any projection I am a advocate of free speech and also a advocate of corporations being able to choose their direction. I am just not an advocate of hypocrisy and only pointing out the obvious.

chki 6y ago
I'm not sure why you think that the two arguments are contradictory. Rights are always rights of private entities against the state. It's perfectly normal not to be bound by some right that you are at the same time claiming against the state. Fundamental rights are very different from (for example) contract law where duties are often somewhat connected to each other.
- Rapzid 6y ago
  It would be utterly contradictory to attempt to apply the restrictions placed on the government in regards to "free speech" to private entities.
xoa 6y ago
>That ship has sailed, it seems convenient to argue for their users first amendment rights when out the other side of their mouth they argue that they are a private platform and should not be subject to free speech regulations when they choose to censure speech. No. You are operating under an extremely confused and muddled understanding of the law and its purpose. The First Amendment and associated case law is an actual specific legal thing, and is not necessarily the same as broader subjective feelings "free speech". Specifically, it applies exclusively to the government, not the people. From a legal point of view, the purpose of freedom of speech and freedom of association is to allow the public at large to sort out what ideas and information is useful within extremely loose boundaries rather then the government using its monopoly on physical force to impose it. Part of that freedom is naturally social and economic consequences (as opposed to physical consequences): you have the "right to generally say what you wish" but other people by the same token have the right to have nothing to do with you, and to refuse to help you if they think you are wrong. So no, like most of the times people use "hypocrisy" on the internet you've gotten it wrong. There is nothing hypocritical in the stance you describe, because the United States Government and private actors are not legally equivalent. The USG is both empowered to do things private actors may not, and forbidden from doing things that private actors can. Twitter may assert its rights to associate with whom it pleases. Under different law (the same that protects Hacker News and every other US-based user content site in existence), Section 230 of the CDA, Twitter is also empowered to moderate as it wishes to the best of its abilities without having to be 100% perfect without incurring liability rather then being forced to choose between full common carrier or full publisher. It could also voluntarily cooperate, within its various contracts and law. But the USG doesn't get to do the same. And rightfully so.
- nobody9999 6y ago
  >Twitter may assert its rights to associate with whom it pleases. Under different law (the same that protects Hacker News and every other US-based user content site in existence), Section 230 of the CDA, Twitter is also empowered to moderate as it wishes to the best of its abilities without having to be 100% perfect without incurring liability rather then being forced to choose between full common carrier or full publisher. Absolutely. Your analysis WRT 1st Amendement and CDA230 were spot on. I'd add that while Twitter isn't liable for the speech of the anonymous "FBI Agent", in this case no one is suing Twitter for liability. Rather, Twitter was trying to quash a subpoena for potentially identifying data about the twitter handle "@whyspertech" in a civil suit brought by Seth Rich's brother. The judge's order[0] upholding the subpoena lists Twitter as a "non-party" in the defamation lawsuit and provides background and context to the court's denial of the motion to quash the subpoena. This isn't a First Amendment case at all, it's an issue of discovery in a civil case, regardless of Twitter's claim to be attempting to protect the anonymity of the twitter handle. As the order[0] states: "Motions to quash are limited by the scope of discovery under of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, which states that “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The relevancy standard under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 also applies to third-party subpoenas." [Removed excess whitespace for readability.] [0] https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/7223134/ORDER-RICH.txt https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/7223134/ORDER-RIC...
  - sjy 6y ago
    It is a First Amendment case though, in that the discussion is all about the principle that “non-party disclosure is only appropriate in the exceptional case where the compelling need for the discovery sought outweighs the First Amendment rights of the anonymous speaker.”
- cwhiz 6y ago
chc 6y ago
So your reading of the First Amendment is that if I'm hosting a party and somebody starts belligerently accusing me of trying to steal their wife, I can't kick them out or else the First Amendment will no longer protect me from government censorship? I don't think that's a common interpretation of how the law works. The First Amendment is generally held to protect you from government restraint or retaliation, but not private restraint or retaliation, and having retaliated against someone for speech you find objectionable is not generally held to remove your Constitutional rights.
- kls 6y ago
  To clarify, as I read this situation, it would be more analogous to you host a party, someone at your party tells someone else that I killed a person, it is a factually untrue statement, it ends up having real world ramifications for me. I go to you and ask who it was and you say I am not going to tell you, so I go to the government and petition my right to not be slandered and then you say well my party is protected by this first amendment law, I will not tell you or the government who it was. In this case my being slandered trumps and terminates (civilly) your and your guests free speech rights. I should get the persons name and I walk away going what a hypocrite (to be clear not real you personally, but imaginary you at our imaginary party). Which is what I was expressing in my first post, I think they are being hypocritical in using the law as a shield. They don't want a law that restrains government applied to them, but they want to use a law applied against the government to block a private party from seeking redress from harm.
root_axis 6y ago
There is no contradiction. It's the prerogative of a website owner to control the content of their own website, this includes the freedom to remove content from the site they don't want to rebroadcast for whatever reason they like. It's a completely separate issue when the government is trying to coerce a private company to unmask a private citizen because of their speech. However, at the end of the day, the judge's ruling seems pretty reasonable considering the user fabricated FBI documents that are material in the question of the defamation case.
saghm 6y ago
> it seems convenient to argue for their users first amendment rights when out the other side of their mouth they argue that they are a private platform and should not be subject to free speech regulations when they choose to censure speech Even ignoring the other arguments made about companies versus the government, I don't think the right to be anonymous is from the First Amendment. Most often the Fourth Amendment is cited as the basis; although it's not as explicit as the First Amendment is about the protection of speech, the Ninth Amendment does say that rights don't have to be explicitly enumerated.
- schoen 6y ago
  The right to anonymity has been grounded in the first amendment by U.S. court decisions before, maybe most notably https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchtower_Bible_%26_Tract_Society_of_New_York,_Inc._v._Village_of_Stratton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchtower_Bible_%26_Tract_Soc... (You can feel free to disagree with this approach, it's just not "made up".)
- sjy 6y ago
  This is mentioned in the article (“attorneys for the social media giant claimed such a disclosure would violate the First Amendment rights of a user to be anonymous”) and further explained, with citations, in the court’s decision: > “An author's decision to remain anonymous, like other decisions concerning omissions or additions to the content of a publication, is an aspect of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment.” McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U.S. 334, 352 (1995). The Ninth Circuit recognizes that the decision to remain anonymous extends to anonymous speech made on the internet … The Ninth Circuit has explained that “the ability to speak anonymously on the Internet promotes the robust exchange of ideas and allows individuals to express themselves freely without ‘… concern about social ostracism.’” https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/7223134-ORDER-RICH.pdf https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/7223134-ORDER-RICH.p...
jungletime 6y ago
Twitter just banned the hashtag #obamagate after Trump reposted it. Hypocrisy is pretending Twitter are a free speech platform. They don't even respect your President's free speech. Twitter attaches "Learn how Voting by mail is safe and Secure"to his posts now too. Like how exactly do they know how well the mail-in voting will go, and the future? Some states have laws so they won't even start counting the mail in votes until election night, and there is a hard deadline to declare a president. Do you really think it will go well? Or do they want to drag out the counting for weeks, and create instability? Also, why take the chance your mail in ballot might be lost or rejected. Tens of Thousands have been rejected in past elections. Just vote in person if you can. Don't listen to Twitter fact checkers. They are actually promoting the higher risk option, thats easier to cheat with.

by kls 6y ago

chki 6y ago

I'm not sure why you think that the two arguments are contradictory. Rights are always rights of private entities against the state. It's perfectly normal not to be bound by some right that you are at the same time claiming against the state. Fundamental rights are very different from (for example) contract law where duties are often somewhat connected to each other.

Rapzid 6y ago
It would be utterly contradictory to attempt to apply the restrictions placed on the government in regards to "free speech" to private entities.

xoa 6y ago

>That ship has sailed, it seems convenient to argue for their users first amendment rights when out the other side of their mouth they argue that they are a private platform and should not be subject to free speech regulations when they choose to censure speech. No. You are operating under an extremely confused and muddled understanding of the law and its purpose. The First Amendment and associated case law is an actual specific legal thing, and is not necessarily the same as broader subjective feelings "free speech". Specifically, it applies exclusively to the government, not the people. From a legal point of view, the purpose of freedom of speech and freedom of association is to allow the public at large to sort out what ideas and information is useful within extremely loose boundaries rather then the government using its monopoly on physical force to impose it. Part of that freedom is naturally social and economic consequences (as opposed to physical consequences): you have the "right to generally say what you wish" but other people by the same token have the right to have nothing to do with you, and to refuse to help you if they think you are wrong. So no, like most of the times people use "hypocrisy" on the internet you've gotten it wrong. There is nothing hypocritical in the stance you describe, because the United States Government and private actors are not legally equivalent. The USG is both empowered to do things private actors may not, and forbidden from doing things that private actors can. Twitter may assert its rights to associate with whom it pleases. Under different law (the same that protects Hacker News and every other US-based user content site in existence), Section 230 of the CDA, Twitter is also empowered to moderate as it wishes to the best of its abilities without having to be 100% perfect without incurring liability rather then being forced to choose between full common carrier or full publisher. It could also voluntarily cooperate, within its various contracts and law. But the USG doesn't get to do the same. And rightfully so.

nobody9999 6y ago
>Twitter may assert its rights to associate with whom it pleases. Under different law (the same that protects Hacker News and every other US-based user content site in existence), Section 230 of the CDA, Twitter is also empowered to moderate as it wishes to the best of its abilities without having to be 100% perfect without incurring liability rather then being forced to choose between full common carrier or full publisher. Absolutely. Your analysis WRT 1st Amendement and CDA230 were spot on. I'd add that while Twitter isn't liable for the speech of the anonymous "FBI Agent", in this case no one is suing Twitter for liability. Rather, Twitter was trying to quash a subpoena for potentially identifying data about the twitter handle "@whyspertech" in a civil suit brought by Seth Rich's brother. The judge's order[0] upholding the subpoena lists Twitter as a "non-party" in the defamation lawsuit and provides background and context to the court's denial of the motion to quash the subpoena. This isn't a First Amendment case at all, it's an issue of discovery in a civil case, regardless of Twitter's claim to be attempting to protect the anonymity of the twitter handle. As the order[0] states: "Motions to quash are limited by the scope of discovery under of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, which states that “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The relevancy standard under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 also applies to third-party subpoenas." [Removed excess whitespace for readability.] [0] https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/7223134/ORDER-RICH.txt https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/7223134/ORDER-RIC...
- sjy 6y ago
  It is a First Amendment case though, in that the discussion is all about the principle that “non-party disclosure is only appropriate in the exceptional case where the compelling need for the discovery sought outweighs the First Amendment rights of the anonymous speaker.”
cwhiz 6y ago

chc 6y ago

So your reading of the First Amendment is that if I'm hosting a party and somebody starts belligerently accusing me of trying to steal their wife, I can't kick them out or else the First Amendment will no longer protect me from government censorship? I don't think that's a common interpretation of how the law works. The First Amendment is generally held to protect you from government restraint or retaliation, but not private restraint or retaliation, and having retaliated against someone for speech you find objectionable is not generally held to remove your Constitutional rights.

kls 6y ago
To clarify, as I read this situation, it would be more analogous to you host a party, someone at your party tells someone else that I killed a person, it is a factually untrue statement, it ends up having real world ramifications for me. I go to you and ask who it was and you say I am not going to tell you, so I go to the government and petition my right to not be slandered and then you say well my party is protected by this first amendment law, I will not tell you or the government who it was. In this case my being slandered trumps and terminates (civilly) your and your guests free speech rights. I should get the persons name and I walk away going what a hypocrite (to be clear not real you personally, but imaginary you at our imaginary party). Which is what I was expressing in my first post, I think they are being hypocritical in using the law as a shield. They don't want a law that restrains government applied to them, but they want to use a law applied against the government to block a private party from seeking redress from harm.

root_axis 6y ago

There is no contradiction. It's the prerogative of a website owner to control the content of their own website, this includes the freedom to remove content from the site they don't want to rebroadcast for whatever reason they like. It's a completely separate issue when the government is trying to coerce a private company to unmask a private citizen because of their speech. However, at the end of the day, the judge's ruling seems pretty reasonable considering the user fabricated FBI documents that are material in the question of the defamation case.

saghm 6y ago

> it seems convenient to argue for their users first amendment rights when out the other side of their mouth they argue that they are a private platform and should not be subject to free speech regulations when they choose to censure speech Even ignoring the other arguments made about companies versus the government, I don't think the right to be anonymous is from the First Amendment. Most often the Fourth Amendment is cited as the basis; although it's not as explicit as the First Amendment is about the protection of speech, the Ninth Amendment does say that rights don't have to be explicitly enumerated.

schoen 6y ago
The right to anonymity has been grounded in the first amendment by U.S. court decisions before, maybe most notably https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchtower_Bible_%26_Tract_Society_of_New_York,_Inc._v._Village_of_Stratton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchtower_Bible_%26_Tract_Soc... (You can feel free to disagree with this approach, it's just not "made up".)
sjy 6y ago
This is mentioned in the article (“attorneys for the social media giant claimed such a disclosure would violate the First Amendment rights of a user to be anonymous”) and further explained, with citations, in the court’s decision: > “An author's decision to remain anonymous, like other decisions concerning omissions or additions to the content of a publication, is an aspect of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment.” McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U.S. 334, 352 (1995). The Ninth Circuit recognizes that the decision to remain anonymous extends to anonymous speech made on the internet … The Ninth Circuit has explained that “the ability to speak anonymously on the Internet promotes the robust exchange of ideas and allows individuals to express themselves freely without ‘… concern about social ostracism.’” https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/7223134-ORDER-RICH.pdf https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/7223134-ORDER-RICH.p...

jungletime 6y ago

Twitter just banned the hashtag #obamagate after Trump reposted it. Hypocrisy is pretending Twitter are a free speech platform. They don't even respect your President's free speech. Twitter attaches "Learn how Voting by mail is safe and Secure"to his posts now too. Like how exactly do they know how well the mail-in voting will go, and the future? Some states have laws so they won't even start counting the mail in votes until election night, and there is a hard deadline to declare a president. Do you really think it will go well? Or do they want to drag out the counting for weeks, and create instability? Also, why take the chance your mail in ballot might be lost or rejected. Tens of Thousands have been rejected in past elections. Just vote in person if you can. Don't listen to Twitter fact checkers. They are actually promoting the higher risk option, thats easier to cheat with.