3 ms·

>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 pri

by 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
> you have the "right to generally say what you wish" In public. You have that right in public. Twitter is not in public. Twitter is the equivalent to you coming into my house.
- xoa 6y ago
  >In public. You have that right in public. Twitter is not in public. Twitter is the equivalent to you coming into my house. You too are muddling things a bit, and this is important and goes to the core of the point of what US 1A "rights" actually are. A person's right here encompasses not having force used against them, directly or by proxy. If you have someone as a guest in your house, they still have "the right to generally say what they wish", they cannot be criminally prosecuted, fined, and you may not just shoot them or punch them in the face or the like either. But of course you absolutely may say as you wish right back, give them the boot, refuse to help out with a cab fare (you didn't previously contract too), tell other people about it, never voluntarily associated with them ever again, etc. You may freely discriminate based on ideology. Their 1A rights don't go away in your house, and neither do yours. And all that is "Free Speech" as well, because it's not a single solitary thing, it's a system. It's not that ideas are all equal and deserving of "fair treatment" or the like, it's that they're not, but we don't have an oracle to tell us which is which. Keeping consequences to social and economic balances some level of stability and pushing people towards what many/most consider to be good ideas while allowing room for those dedicated enough to try to go against the current accepted wisdom and convince others. A process which may well take years, decades, even centuries, but the hope is that with enough time good ideas and information will tend to succeed better then false, so long as the system remains dynamic.
kls 6y ago
My understanding, and I could have misread the article, but my understating is, that this is a private party that wants the data in a civil matter. Free speech has it's limits and in this case it appears that limit is libel. The governments only involvement is in the interest of that private parties case, in which a civil offense is alleged (libel). Also, I am not advocation for Twitter to make the decision to open their platform to the ills of society. I know the practicality and the ramifications of letting every troll have a voice on any platform they choose, but I do see "hypocrisy" in protecting the anonymity of a troll (generally wrapped up in free speech and association), when one engaging in censoring the spirit of free speech via their platform. I fully understand and support their right to do so, but they are doing so on the back side of this because it serves their interest, not because they are a beacon of free speech and I see it hypocritical to run to hide behind the law once you need it, when one does not subscribe to the spirit of the law, even if it cannot be applied to your entity. To be clear, I don't want any platform to be forced to accept the dregs of society, but I also don't want to see them hide behind regulation when it suits them. Especially when using a law that restrains the government, as a shield against a harmed (allegedly) private parties interest, in a case where, if true, the offending parties right to free speech legally ended at libel. Also a point of clarity I was not trying to insinuate that the bill of rights can or should be applied to private entities. I am clear on the fact that it restrains what the government can and cannot do. I apologize if that was not clear in my post. I still contend that Twitter, the organization, is being hypocritical here.

by xoa 6y ago

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

> you have the "right to generally say what you wish" In public. You have that right in public. Twitter is not in public. Twitter is the equivalent to you coming into my house.

xoa 6y ago
>In public. You have that right in public. Twitter is not in public. Twitter is the equivalent to you coming into my house. You too are muddling things a bit, and this is important and goes to the core of the point of what US 1A "rights" actually are. A person's right here encompasses not having force used against them, directly or by proxy. If you have someone as a guest in your house, they still have "the right to generally say what they wish", they cannot be criminally prosecuted, fined, and you may not just shoot them or punch them in the face or the like either. But of course you absolutely may say as you wish right back, give them the boot, refuse to help out with a cab fare (you didn't previously contract too), tell other people about it, never voluntarily associated with them ever again, etc. You may freely discriminate based on ideology. Their 1A rights don't go away in your house, and neither do yours. And all that is "Free Speech" as well, because it's not a single solitary thing, it's a system. It's not that ideas are all equal and deserving of "fair treatment" or the like, it's that they're not, but we don't have an oracle to tell us which is which. Keeping consequences to social and economic balances some level of stability and pushing people towards what many/most consider to be good ideas while allowing room for those dedicated enough to try to go against the current accepted wisdom and convince others. A process which may well take years, decades, even centuries, but the hope is that with enough time good ideas and information will tend to succeed better then false, so long as the system remains dynamic.

kls 6y ago

My understanding, and I could have misread the article, but my understating is, that this is a private party that wants the data in a civil matter. Free speech has it's limits and in this case it appears that limit is libel. The governments only involvement is in the interest of that private parties case, in which a civil offense is alleged (libel). Also, I am not advocation for Twitter to make the decision to open their platform to the ills of society. I know the practicality and the ramifications of letting every troll have a voice on any platform they choose, but I do see "hypocrisy" in protecting the anonymity of a troll (generally wrapped up in free speech and association), when one engaging in censoring the spirit of free speech via their platform. I fully understand and support their right to do so, but they are doing so on the back side of this because it serves their interest, not because they are a beacon of free speech and I see it hypocritical to run to hide behind the law once you need it, when one does not subscribe to the spirit of the law, even if it cannot be applied to your entity. To be clear, I don't want any platform to be forced to accept the dregs of society, but I also don't want to see them hide behind regulation when it suits them. Especially when using a law that restrains the government, as a shield against a harmed (allegedly) private parties interest, in a case where, if true, the offending parties right to free speech legally ended at libel. Also a point of clarity I was not trying to insinuate that the bill of rights can or should be applied to private entities. I am clear on the fact that it restrains what the government can and cannot do. I apologize if that was not clear in my post. I still contend that Twitter, the organization, is being hypocritical here.