4 ms·

This is blatantly unconstitutional under the First Amendment. Supreme Court has already ruled in the past that it is unconstitutional for the government to pun

This is blatantly unconstitutional under the First Amendment. Supreme Court has already ruled in the past that it is unconstitutional for the government to punt to the private sector infringements on the constitution that it is prevented from doing itself.

rrook 5y ago
What about this is blatantly unconstitutional? The linked article isn't particularly specific, "countering misinformation" could mean replying to "misinformation" with debunking facts. Unless there's something else I'm missing, this seems like an overreaction.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- Cederfjard 5y ago
  Disclaimer: I’m not an American, definitely not a lawyer. But I agree with your take. The wording in the linked text makes it seem to have much more to do with counter-messaging than preventing or stifling speech in the first place.
  - rubyist5eva 5y ago
    The government cannot coerce you to message or "counter-message" one way or the other.
    - Cederfjard 5y ago
      No, I’m assuming this would be done by the company being paid to do so?
- rubyist5eva 5y ago
  > "countering misinformation" could mean replying to "misinformation" with debunking facts. Do you really think the US government should have the power to force you to "debunk" something? Do they decide what gets debunked and what does not?
  - rrook 5y ago
    > Do you really think the US government should have the power to force you to "debunk" something? You're the only one suggesting that the government might be forcing anyone to do anything. Calling this a blatant first amendment violation is an over the top knee-jerk reaction to the headline; it's a hot take that is completely unsubstantiated in the article itself.
rhacker 5y ago
And a $1B price tag that we're paying for that unconstitutional act.
- rubyist5eva 5y ago
  money printer go brrrrrrrrrr
stalkingvictim 5y ago
Counterpoint: The framers could never have predicted the current day technology status quo. While the core values of the constitution are still applicable, we do need to consider the realities of the information technology marvels that we've created. Question: Are the core national values of centuries ago universally applicable in 2021?
Octoth0rpe 5y ago
Upfront: I'm not a fan of this at all. That said, >This is blatantly unconstitutional under the First Amendment. Uh. Maybe inside US borders, re: speech by US nationals. I don't see how this could be unconstitutional if we're talking about 'speech' in say the form of blog, news, video posts by non-US nationals, hosted outside of the US. > Supreme Court has already ruled in the past that it is unconstitutional for the government to punt to the private sector infringements on the constitution that it is prevented from doing itself. That may be, but that also seems to be remarkably underenforced in any case.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  Blocking it? Unconstitutional (I hope) for US nationals. Countering it? If an employee of a government contractor shows up here, says "Actually AnimalMuppet is a Russian disinformation operator, don't believe anything he says", is that a violation of my constitutional rights? IANAL, but I would say no, not if my original post isn't removed. (It might still be libel, though.) Saying that someone else is wrong is not censorship.
  - rubyist5eva 5y ago
    > If an employee of a government contractor shows up here, says "Actually AnimalMuppet is a Russian disinformation operator, don't believe anything he says", is that a violation of my constitutional rights? If that contractor then says to HN - you must ban them, or you must put a user flair saying they are a spy. Then yes, it is a violation of the first amendment.
dane-pgp 5y ago
Given that this is the DoD, isn't the Third Amendment also relevant? "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law." If the government wants to fight a cyberwar on civilian property, it needs to put into law exactly what abilities it is giving itself, and actually declare such a war so we know who the supposed enemies are.
- rubyist5eva 5y ago
  100% agreed

rrook 5y ago

What about this is blatantly unconstitutional? The linked article isn't particularly specific, "countering misinformation" could mean replying to "misinformation" with debunking facts. Unless there's something else I'm missing, this seems like an overreaction.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Cederfjard 5y ago
Disclaimer: I’m not an American, definitely not a lawyer. But I agree with your take. The wording in the linked text makes it seem to have much more to do with counter-messaging than preventing or stifling speech in the first place.
- rubyist5eva 5y ago
  The government cannot coerce you to message or "counter-message" one way or the other.
  - Cederfjard 5y ago
    No, I’m assuming this would be done by the company being paid to do so?
rubyist5eva 5y ago
> "countering misinformation" could mean replying to "misinformation" with debunking facts. Do you really think the US government should have the power to force you to "debunk" something? Do they decide what gets debunked and what does not?
- rrook 5y ago
  > Do you really think the US government should have the power to force you to "debunk" something? You're the only one suggesting that the government might be forcing anyone to do anything. Calling this a blatant first amendment violation is an over the top knee-jerk reaction to the headline; it's a hot take that is completely unsubstantiated in the article itself.

rhacker 5y ago

And a $1B price tag that we're paying for that unconstitutional act.

rubyist5eva 5y ago
money printer go brrrrrrrrrr

stalkingvictim 5y ago

Counterpoint: The framers could never have predicted the current day technology status quo. While the core values of the constitution are still applicable, we do need to consider the realities of the information technology marvels that we've created. Question: Are the core national values of centuries ago universally applicable in 2021?

Octoth0rpe 5y ago

Upfront: I'm not a fan of this at all. That said, >This is blatantly unconstitutional under the First Amendment. Uh. Maybe inside US borders, re: speech by US nationals. I don't see how this could be unconstitutional if we're talking about 'speech' in say the form of blog, news, video posts by non-US nationals, hosted outside of the US. > Supreme Court has already ruled in the past that it is unconstitutional for the government to punt to the private sector infringements on the constitution that it is prevented from doing itself. That may be, but that also seems to be remarkably underenforced in any case.

AnimalMuppet 5y ago
Blocking it? Unconstitutional (I hope) for US nationals. Countering it? If an employee of a government contractor shows up here, says "Actually AnimalMuppet is a Russian disinformation operator, don't believe anything he says", is that a violation of my constitutional rights? IANAL, but I would say no, not if my original post isn't removed. (It might still be libel, though.) Saying that someone else is wrong is not censorship.
- rubyist5eva 5y ago
  > If an employee of a government contractor shows up here, says "Actually AnimalMuppet is a Russian disinformation operator, don't believe anything he says", is that a violation of my constitutional rights? If that contractor then says to HN - you must ban them, or you must put a user flair saying they are a spy. Then yes, it is a violation of the first amendment.

dane-pgp 5y ago

Given that this is the DoD, isn't the Third Amendment also relevant? "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law." If the government wants to fight a cyberwar on civilian property, it needs to put into law exactly what abilities it is giving itself, and actually declare such a war so we know who the supposed enemies are.

rubyist5eva 5y ago
100% agreed