9 ms·

Lawsuit Uncovers Federal Bureaucrats Coercing Social-Media to Censor Speech

54 points by BrainVirus 4y ago

rashkov 4y ago
Flagging because the original article is completely content-free grandstanding.
- zozbot234 4y ago
  They link to a court filing by the Att'ys General of Missouri and Lousiana. That's anything but "content free".
  - rashkov 4y ago
    can we agree that it’s mostly content free then? The text of the posted article is on par with cable television news, and I mean that derisively. I think we can do better here on HN. Feel free to submit a link to the PDF directly, or at least something that talks about the merits of the case.
- nazgulsenpai 4y ago
  So we can't discuss it and it's no longer on the main page? Seems like there's alot of comments about the content as well.
  - rashkov 4y ago
    What is there to discuss without details? Should we accept the partisan framing presented by the article that there that the current administration across all levels of government are “secretly” instructing social networks to censor content, and go from there without any evidence or nuance? I think we can have a better discussion than that. Now, someone pointed out that I overlooked a link to the court filing. That’s my mistake. That would maybe spur a better discussion.
    - pstuart 4y ago
      They argue in bad faith and there is no consensus to be had. Drives me crazy and I still try despite knowing this.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
pstuart 4y ago
[flagged]
- Cupertino95014 4y ago
  It's black and white. How fancy could it be?
- seibelj 4y ago
  When the facts disagree with your world view, attack the messenger
- UIUC_06 4y ago
  I just did a Find and the words "vax" and "vaccine" do not appear on the page. Maybe you can explain how you concluded that from "a quick skim."
  - blurri 4y ago
    They said they skimmed the website. Not the page. Go to home page and you’ll find the second item is “ NCLA is Challenging Covid-19 Regulations and Orders Imposed by Executive Decree”
    - leftisworse 4y ago
      [flagged]
      - KennyBlanken 4y ago
        [flagged]
        leftisworse 4y ago
    - anonym29 4y ago
      Keep in mind, it was not that long ago when some of us had regulations and orders that mandated you wear a mask... but allowed t-shirts over your face to count, which does absolutely nothing. Some other jurisdictions mandated that certain aisles in supermarkets be closed (yardwork / gardening tools), but others be allowed to remain open (alcohol aisle, where the entire aisle is dedicated to selling a known carcinogen specifically for human consumption). The regulations in your jurisdiction being rational and sound does not mean that the regulations in everyone else's jurisdiction were equally as rational. Consequently, an organization filing legal challenges against C19 regulations doesn't inherently mean they're a bunch of crazy conspiracy nuts who were opposed to things like mask mandates that required functional masks or social distancing. I'm not saying they're guaranteed to be saints, but this doesn't exactly damn them either, at least not without a lot more context & information on the specifics.
bogwog 4y ago
Never heard of this organization, and this is one of the first results I found with a good bit of background on it: https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/New_Civil_Liberties_Alliance https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/New_Civil_Liberties_Al... The site describes them as "a 501(c)(3) right-wing litigation group"
- leftisworse 4y ago
  Being against government censorship is "right-wing" now? Interesting...
  - mrtesthah 4y ago
    Can you tell me any progressive (or merely non-right-wing) causes the organization has supported? Because it certainly looks highly partisan to me. I’d hope that any organization concerned with civil liberties would make the effort to act in a bipartisan, politically neutral way.
    - ceeplusplus 4y ago
      > I’d hope that any organization concerned with civil liberties would make the effort to act in a bipartisan, politically neutral way. Funny, because you could say the same about the ACLU, but swap progressive/conservative.
      - mrtesthah 4y ago
        Here’s a list of cases that the ACLU has defended which are in alignment with right wing causes: https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/defending-speech-we-hate https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/defending-speech-w...
        ceeplusplus 4y ago
        From the ACLU: "a reason to decline taking a free-speech case “the extent to which the speech may assist in advancing the goals of white supremacists or others whose views are contrary to our values." In selecting speech cases to defend, the ACLU will now balance the “impact of the proposed speech and the impact of its suppression.” Factors like the potential effect of the speech on “marginalized communities” and even on “the ACLU’s credibility” could militate against taking a case." [1] [2] [1] https://www.axios.com/2018/06/21/aclu-leaked-memo-free-speech-civil-rights https://www.axios.com/2018/06/21/aclu-leaked-memo-free-speec... [2] https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-aclu-retreats-from-free-expression-1529533065 https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-aclu-retreats-from-free-exp... Your list looks impressive. But what cases did they choose to not accept that aren't listed there?
anon291 4y ago
Government has discovered they can simply outsource all their authoritarianism to private businesses. The unholy alliance between SV executives and government bureaucrats is very scary to any believer in democracy. Especially the revolving door between high-level executive positions in tech companies and presidential administrations deserves some explanation.
mrtesthah 4y ago
Based on the articles linked from the organization’s press releases page, and it does seem like this lawsuit is in service of furthering misinformation about covid. https://nclalegal.org/2022/06/unchecked-by-courts-government-censorship-of-social-media-platforms-will-prove-fatal-to-free-speech-in-digital-age/ https://nclalegal.org/2022/06/unchecked-by-courts-government...
- andrew_ 4y ago
  I'm so very over people tying their identity to their takes on covid and the vaccines. It's unoriginal thought at best, at worst it's primitive and thoughtless tribalism.
mtlynch 4y ago
This is pretty hard to follow. There are no concrete details in the press release. All the direct quotes in the press release are from the lawyers filing suit essentially saying, "the government is behaving so badly!" And then the linked court filing[0] is 700 pages long, so quite a task to parse through it. It's a shame the NCLA couldn't summarize their key points more effectively. [0] https://nclalegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Joint-Statement-on-Discovery-Disputes-Combined.pdf https://nclalegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Joint-State...
- ProAm 4y ago
  > It's a shame the NCLA couldn't summarize their key points more effectively. Pretty sure that is what will happen in court. They don't need to summarize it to gain internet outrage.
- BrainVirus 4y ago
  There are plenty of articles out there that summarize the findings. https://reclaimthenet.org/emails-facebook-coordinating-with-cdc-censorship-policy/ https://reclaimthenet.org/emails-facebook-coordinating-with-... Usually HN comments complain about secondary sources. Now people are complaining about using primary sources. On a website where it's normal to see Git commits and FTC filing documents.
  - pstuart 4y ago
    There's a difference between outright censorship and not promoting garbage conspiracies and hate speech. I've been on the wrong end of a FB ban for the stupidest reason and I get how that can be no fun. But then again, it's FB and it's a tire fire of trash. What ev er.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
vib2dev 4y ago
[dead]
maxprimer 4y ago
[flagged]
illuminerdy 4y ago
I think if what the lawsuit's pleadings allege is true, then it is as serious a violation of the Constitution as if the government had sent police to a street corner to shut down a speaker directly. The marketplace for speech may be changing, but the protection for free speech does not. The beaurocrats in the government should not be allowed to circumvent the Constitution by using 3rd parties.

54 points by BrainVirus 4y ago

rashkov 4y ago

Flagging because the original article is completely content-free grandstanding.

zozbot234 4y ago
They link to a court filing by the Att'ys General of Missouri and Lousiana. That's anything but "content free".
- rashkov 4y ago
  can we agree that it’s mostly content free then? The text of the posted article is on par with cable television news, and I mean that derisively. I think we can do better here on HN. Feel free to submit a link to the PDF directly, or at least something that talks about the merits of the case.
nazgulsenpai 4y ago
So we can't discuss it and it's no longer on the main page? Seems like there's alot of comments about the content as well.
- rashkov 4y ago
  What is there to discuss without details? Should we accept the partisan framing presented by the article that there that the current administration across all levels of government are “secretly” instructing social networks to censor content, and go from there without any evidence or nuance? I think we can have a better discussion than that. Now, someone pointed out that I overlooked a link to the court filing. That’s my mistake. That would maybe spur a better discussion.
  - pstuart 4y ago
    They argue in bad faith and there is no consensus to be had. Drives me crazy and I still try despite knowing this.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]

pstuart 4y ago

[flagged]

Cupertino95014 4y ago
It's black and white. How fancy could it be?
seibelj 4y ago
When the facts disagree with your world view, attack the messenger
UIUC_06 4y ago
I just did a Find and the words "vax" and "vaccine" do not appear on the page. Maybe you can explain how you concluded that from "a quick skim."
- blurri 4y ago
  They said they skimmed the website. Not the page. Go to home page and you’ll find the second item is “ NCLA is Challenging Covid-19 Regulations and Orders Imposed by Executive Decree”
  - leftisworse 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - KennyBlanken 4y ago
      [flagged]
      - leftisworse 4y ago
  - anonym29 4y ago
    Keep in mind, it was not that long ago when some of us had regulations and orders that mandated you wear a mask... but allowed t-shirts over your face to count, which does absolutely nothing. Some other jurisdictions mandated that certain aisles in supermarkets be closed (yardwork / gardening tools), but others be allowed to remain open (alcohol aisle, where the entire aisle is dedicated to selling a known carcinogen specifically for human consumption). The regulations in your jurisdiction being rational and sound does not mean that the regulations in everyone else's jurisdiction were equally as rational. Consequently, an organization filing legal challenges against C19 regulations doesn't inherently mean they're a bunch of crazy conspiracy nuts who were opposed to things like mask mandates that required functional masks or social distancing. I'm not saying they're guaranteed to be saints, but this doesn't exactly damn them either, at least not without a lot more context & information on the specifics.

bogwog 4y ago

Never heard of this organization, and this is one of the first results I found with a good bit of background on it: https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/New_Civil_Liberties_Alliance https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/New_Civil_Liberties_Al... The site describes them as "a 501(c)(3) right-wing litigation group"

leftisworse 4y ago
Being against government censorship is "right-wing" now? Interesting...
- mrtesthah 4y ago
  Can you tell me any progressive (or merely non-right-wing) causes the organization has supported? Because it certainly looks highly partisan to me. I’d hope that any organization concerned with civil liberties would make the effort to act in a bipartisan, politically neutral way.
  - ceeplusplus 4y ago
    > I’d hope that any organization concerned with civil liberties would make the effort to act in a bipartisan, politically neutral way. Funny, because you could say the same about the ACLU, but swap progressive/conservative.
    - mrtesthah 4y ago
      Here’s a list of cases that the ACLU has defended which are in alignment with right wing causes: https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/defending-speech-we-hate https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/defending-speech-w...
      - ceeplusplus 4y ago
        From the ACLU: "a reason to decline taking a free-speech case “the extent to which the speech may assist in advancing the goals of white supremacists or others whose views are contrary to our values." In selecting speech cases to defend, the ACLU will now balance the “impact of the proposed speech and the impact of its suppression.” Factors like the potential effect of the speech on “marginalized communities” and even on “the ACLU’s credibility” could militate against taking a case." [1] [2] [1] https://www.axios.com/2018/06/21/aclu-leaked-memo-free-speech-civil-rights https://www.axios.com/2018/06/21/aclu-leaked-memo-free-speec... [2] https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-aclu-retreats-from-free-expression-1529533065 https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-aclu-retreats-from-free-exp... Your list looks impressive. But what cases did they choose to not accept that aren't listed there?

anon291 4y ago

Government has discovered they can simply outsource all their authoritarianism to private businesses. The unholy alliance between SV executives and government bureaucrats is very scary to any believer in democracy. Especially the revolving door between high-level executive positions in tech companies and presidential administrations deserves some explanation.

mrtesthah 4y ago

Based on the articles linked from the organization’s press releases page, and it does seem like this lawsuit is in service of furthering misinformation about covid. https://nclalegal.org/2022/06/unchecked-by-courts-government-censorship-of-social-media-platforms-will-prove-fatal-to-free-speech-in-digital-age/ https://nclalegal.org/2022/06/unchecked-by-courts-government...

andrew_ 4y ago
I'm so very over people tying their identity to their takes on covid and the vaccines. It's unoriginal thought at best, at worst it's primitive and thoughtless tribalism.

mtlynch 4y ago

This is pretty hard to follow. There are no concrete details in the press release. All the direct quotes in the press release are from the lawyers filing suit essentially saying, "the government is behaving so badly!" And then the linked court filing[0] is 700 pages long, so quite a task to parse through it. It's a shame the NCLA couldn't summarize their key points more effectively. [0] https://nclalegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Joint-Statement-on-Discovery-Disputes-Combined.pdf https://nclalegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Joint-State...

ProAm 4y ago
> It's a shame the NCLA couldn't summarize their key points more effectively. Pretty sure that is what will happen in court. They don't need to summarize it to gain internet outrage.
BrainVirus 4y ago
There are plenty of articles out there that summarize the findings. https://reclaimthenet.org/emails-facebook-coordinating-with-cdc-censorship-policy/ https://reclaimthenet.org/emails-facebook-coordinating-with-... Usually HN comments complain about secondary sources. Now people are complaining about using primary sources. On a website where it's normal to see Git commits and FTC filing documents.
- pstuart 4y ago
  There's a difference between outright censorship and not promoting garbage conspiracies and hate speech. I've been on the wrong end of a FB ban for the stupidest reason and I get how that can be no fun. But then again, it's FB and it's a tire fire of trash. What ev er.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

vib2dev 4y ago

[dead]

maxprimer 4y ago

[flagged]

illuminerdy 4y ago

I think if what the lawsuit's pleadings allege is true, then it is as serious a violation of the Constitution as if the government had sent police to a street corner to shut down a speaker directly. The marketplace for speech may be changing, but the protection for free speech does not. The beaurocrats in the government should not be allowed to circumvent the Constitution by using 3rd parties.