5 ms·
We have a First Amendment... but if you run a platform that does not even use the First Amendment, you'll get subpoenaed and harassed. In theory, I ran a platf
by gjsman-1000 5y ago
We have a First Amendment... but if you run a platform that does not even use the First Amendment, you'll get subpoenaed and harassed.
In theory, I ran a platform that protected everything the First Amendment did, and protected nothing that the Amendment did not protect, I should be legally in the clear.
But I'm not going to attempt such a thing - because it's clear Congress would do the ultimate shakedown.
- Ardon 5y agoBut this subpoena has nothing to do with the first amendment, they're demanding for more records, not levying a penalty for not removing these people.
- barney54 5y agoNot necessarily. The First Amendment is implicated if the federal government is trying to get these companies to act on their behalf and censor speech.
- Ardon 5y agoRight, but this subpoena isn't doing that. The 'inadequate response' in the title of the post is referring to the companies' response to congress' request for data, not saying the companies' response to the speech on their platform was inadequate.
- barney54 5y agoYes, I understand that. My point is that many in Congress want these companies to preemptively censor what happens on their platforms and these subpoenas is an attempt to build that case.
- shrimpx 5y agoWhat do Twitter and Reddit have to do with the first amendment?
- throw_nbvc1234 5y agoIf you assume the companies are operating in a vacuum, probably nothing. If the government is trying to influence a private company what rules to use for moderation then the lines are blurred. As other have said, this is a bit different then that since it's an investigation but I'm sure you can find some examples from the past years of politicians and government officials trying to influence moderation policies for better or worse.
- IgorPartola 5y agoHow to misunderstand the situation 101: bring the first amendment into the discussion when that’s not what the discussion is about. Let me break this down for you: you host a weekly poker night. My buddies and I come and during these nights plan a crime. We than carry out a crime and get arrested. The investigators come to you and ask “what did those guys talk about at your poker nights?” You say “poker stuff”. They subpoena you to get a better answer. Where in all of this did the first amendment come into play?
- gjsman-1000 5y ago
- ModernMech 5y agoYou may have missed the indictment yesterday for seditious conspiracy against the Oath Keepers. It contains evidence of the kind you are looking for.
- IgorPartola 5y agoSounds like you haven’t seen much evidence then. https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/13/politics/oath-keepers-sedition-takeaways/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/13/politics/oath-keepers-seditio...
- gjsman-1000 5y agoIn that case, I am still not convinced, because how many people have ever heard of the Oath Keepers? To me, from what I can tell, this means that there was a bunch of people protesting there, as was their legal right. A very small group had plans to break in, and unexpectedly succeeded in doing so. Everyone else then followed even though this hadn't been pre-planned. So, from Facebook's perspective, you would have to censor at the level of squashing ants to have prevented this. Again, this is just from what I can see though and could be proven wrong.
- IgorPartola 5y ago
- gilbetron 5y agoYou have the first amendment right to talk about crimes you are planning, but the government still gets to use what you said against you if you actually commit that crime.
- oneoff786 5y agoSeditious conspiracy is a crime in itself