4 ms·

Is anyone else confused at how this is legal? I have no expertise in law, but my understanding is that the Supreme Court has agreed with the U.S. District Court

by qntty 6y ago

Is anyone else confused at how this is legal? I have no expertise in law, but my understanding is that the Supreme Court has agreed with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama that. > Racial discrimination in state-operated schools is barred by the Constitution and "[i]t is also axiomatic that a state may not induce, encourage or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish." Lee v. Macon County Board of Education, 267 F. Supp. 458, 475-476 (MD Ala. 1967). Isn't this promoting a private person to accomplish what the federal government is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish? And wouldn't this also apply to the federal government as well as states? https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/108851/norwood-v-harrison/ https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/108851/norwood-v-harri...

kodah 6y ago
There was nothing about race in this entire document.
- qntty 6y ago
  Ignore the part about race.
- finnthehuman 6y ago
  Court precedents are about the legal principals. When the supreme court rules on forth amendment matters in a murder case, the precedent also applies to drug cases.
noodles_nomore 6y ago
Yes, Greenwald pointed out the same thing in a recent article: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/congress-escalates-pressure-on-tech https://greenwald.substack.com/p/congress-escalates-pressure... Edit: Another article just went up about exactly this. https://greenwald.substack.com/p/house-democrats-targeting-right-wing https://greenwald.substack.com/p/house-democrats-targeting-r...
- qntty 6y ago
  Yes that's were I originally saw the reference
macspoofing 6y ago
>Is anyone else confused at how this is legal? I They can't legally force the companies to comply and they know that but it doesn't matter. This is a threat: "If you don't do what we tell you to do, we'll make your life miserable". If the companies don't willingly comply, then they can launch a FUD PR campaign through activist non-profits orgs and claim that these companies are hosting hate speech. Too cynical?
- hcurtiss 6y ago
  Not sure why you're being downvoted. That's precisely how it works.
- runsWphotons 6y ago
  Wouldn't you say that thinly-veiled threats encourage a behaviour?
- ThrustVectoring 6y ago
  They don't have to be nearly that indirect; they are, after all, members of congress. They have broad power to advocate for and pass all sorts of legislation if their demands are not met, to drag C-suite executives in for testimony, and to confer with and oversee executive-branch regulators and bureaucrats. It's often "better" for congress to get "voluntary" cooperation. Not just because it does an end-run around constitutional limits on powers, but also because it launders government action through ostensibly-private actors. Note well that this letter is not addressed to Fox News, but to an important business partner. There's recent history of this strategy, Operation Choke Point did this sort of thing with banks.
korethr 6y ago
I'm not confused as to how it's legal. I'm quite sure it's not. However, it seems to me that except in rare cases, no matter the color of the tie worn by the politician, nominal legality is not an impediment. There's an ideological opponent out there who must be publicly punished for his wrongness as an example to anyone else who might dare be wrong, and while the Constitution forbids various explicit means of doing so, there are myriad implicit ways of approaching the same goal.

by qntty 6y ago

kodah 6y ago

There was nothing about race in this entire document.

qntty 6y ago
Ignore the part about race.
finnthehuman 6y ago
Court precedents are about the legal principals. When the supreme court rules on forth amendment matters in a murder case, the precedent also applies to drug cases.

noodles_nomore 6y ago

Yes, Greenwald pointed out the same thing in a recent article: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/congress-escalates-pressure-on-tech https://greenwald.substack.com/p/congress-escalates-pressure... Edit: Another article just went up about exactly this. https://greenwald.substack.com/p/house-democrats-targeting-right-wing https://greenwald.substack.com/p/house-democrats-targeting-r...

qntty 6y ago
Yes that's were I originally saw the reference

macspoofing 6y ago

>Is anyone else confused at how this is legal? I They can't legally force the companies to comply and they know that but it doesn't matter. This is a threat: "If you don't do what we tell you to do, we'll make your life miserable". If the companies don't willingly comply, then they can launch a FUD PR campaign through activist non-profits orgs and claim that these companies are hosting hate speech. Too cynical?

hcurtiss 6y ago
Not sure why you're being downvoted. That's precisely how it works.
runsWphotons 6y ago
Wouldn't you say that thinly-veiled threats encourage a behaviour?
ThrustVectoring 6y ago
They don't have to be nearly that indirect; they are, after all, members of congress. They have broad power to advocate for and pass all sorts of legislation if their demands are not met, to drag C-suite executives in for testimony, and to confer with and oversee executive-branch regulators and bureaucrats. It's often "better" for congress to get "voluntary" cooperation. Not just because it does an end-run around constitutional limits on powers, but also because it launders government action through ostensibly-private actors. Note well that this letter is not addressed to Fox News, but to an important business partner. There's recent history of this strategy, Operation Choke Point did this sort of thing with banks.

korethr 6y ago

I'm not confused as to how it's legal. I'm quite sure it's not. However, it seems to me that except in rare cases, no matter the color of the tie worn by the politician, nominal legality is not an impediment. There's an ideological opponent out there who must be publicly punished for his wrongness as an example to anyone else who might dare be wrong, and while the Constitution forbids various explicit means of doing so, there are myriad implicit ways of approaching the same goal.