3 ms·
>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: "
by 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 agoNot sure why you're being downvoted. That's precisely how it works.
- runsWphotons 6y agoWouldn't you say that thinly-veiled threats encourage a behaviour?
- ThrustVectoring 6y agoThey 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.