3 ms·
“How are actions like this not a violation of the first amendment to the US constitution?” There’s still no right to publish statements on Facebook enshrined i
by uptown 4y ago
“How are actions like this not a violation of the first amendment to the US constitution?”
There’s still no right to publish statements on Facebook enshrined in the Constitution.
- mc32 4y agoRight but this is the FBI, the government telling FB to censor a story.
- loeg 4y agoThe FBI warned about general election misinformation. They did not mention or direct FB re: this specific story. That was FB's choice.
- mwint 4y agoThe FBI has too much coercive power to ever merely “warn”. Everything they say necessarily has a second implied meaning, and any large company understands that.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- UncleMeat 4y agoNo it isn't. The FBI said "hey heads up there is likely to be a lot of interference and misinformation for this election" and then considerably later facebook goes "hey this story looks like it fits the pattern the FBI told us about" and took independent action.
- not_a_shill 4y agoYet a government official can't block you on Facebook. Was that made explicit in the constitution? I think the better reason is that they never actually told Meta to suppress the story, and I'm not sure if there was a stick to ensure that they'd do it.
- IIAOPSW 4y agoA government official can block you. The office of government official cannot block you. As a general rule, objects in the Constitution (such as a press, personal things and affects etc) are understood to be defined by their function not by their form. Eg, 4th Amendment protection extends to your private correspondences via phone call despite no paper correspondence being present. Yes your hypothetical Facebook blocking situation is explicitly in the Constitution so long as you accept Facebook is a printing-press-by-way-of-function. If you refuse this minimal fair rule of interpretation, the Constitution is hopelessly stuck in the late 1700s.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]