6 ms·

> All Americans have been deprived—by the United States government—of their First Amendment rights to hear the views of Alex Berenson, as well as Drs. Bhattacha

> All Americans have been deprived—by the United States government—of their First Amendment rights to hear the views of Alex Berenson, as well as Drs. Bhattacharya and Kulldorff... I think this will be hard to prove. The Declaration is easy to find and read (it has its own DNS name). Is there a right to hear a message along a particular channel?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
darawk 4y ago
There is no right to hear a message from a particular channel, but there is a right not to have the government intervene to suppress that channel. If the private actor decides of their own accord to censor you, that's perfectly legal. If they do so at the behest of government, that is a first amendment issue, and that's what's being asserted here.
- micromacrofoot 4y ago
  Is it different if it's a government demand vs a government recommendation?
  - jtbayly 4y ago
    It depends on what the consequences are (or are assumed to be) of not acceding to the "recommendation."
    - int_19h 4y ago
      What makes it especially interesting is Facebook's legal troubles in this context. It hasn't occurred to me before, but a monopoly with the threat of anti-trust hanging over it is any government's best friend.
  - darawk 4y ago
    That seems to be what the case will turn on: The difference between the government providing "advice" or "helpful recommendations" and implicit/explicit coercion. I don't know enough about the details here to have a strong opinion of which view is right in this case, but that seems like the central issue.
  - t-3 4y ago
    I'm no lawyer, but I can't imagine such a "recommendation" would be a valid legal shield for any entity that didn't control the courts.
    - shadowgovt 4y ago
      The Executive branch doesn't control the courts.
      - puffoflogic 4y ago
        Who said the censorship pressure came from the executive branch and not the other branches as well?
        shadowgovt 4y ago
        The lawsuits in question never alleged any pressure other than Executive as far as I've seen
      - notch656a 4y ago
        No but it does control the FBI and other agencies that can make your life extremely unpleasant if they like, and once that happens even if the courts rule entirely in your favor it won't be a fun ride.
  - somenameforme 4y ago
    "Recommendation" doesn't mean what you're implying when its coming from an entity who is responsible for tens of billions of dollars in revenue for you and for whom losing the favor of could easily result in the collapse of your business. It also doesn't mean the same thing when, in many cases, the governments and the huge corporations are intermingled so heavily that public or private is more a matter of semantics than reality.
  - jandrewrogers 4y ago
    It depends on the details of the case -- I am not familiar with this one. There is Supreme Court precedent for the position that any government "recommendation" that has direct and material financial consequences based on whether that recommendation is followed is de facto coercive and therefore illegal if used to circumvent Constitutional restrictions on the government. The historical context is abusing regulatory or tax power to force acquiescence on an unrelated policy issue that would otherwise be unconstitutional if done directly. The limits of coercion that fall below the threshold of "material" are still not well-defined AFAIK.
  - evandale 4y ago
    What's the difference between a government demand and recommendation delivered over a private channel? Sounds kind of like when the mafia recommends that a business buys their brand of insurance to protect them in the off-chance somebody comes along and smashes all their windows. Sure the business doesn't need the insurance but they might rethink their position the first time all their windows get smashed.
  - maxk42 4y ago
    You seem to misunderstand: The government's position is not at question here. Their use of influence to suppress free speech is.
  - anon291 4y ago
    Given that the government has already (pre-COVID) been wanting to enact anti-trust legislation against Facebook and Meta, one can argue that not following a recommendation is perceived by these companies to be a risk for their existence. At the end of the day, the government needs to be extremely careful here.
  - flipcoder 4y ago
    The school bully highly recommends that I give him my lunch money
jtbayly 4y ago
IANAL, but I don't think they have to prove it's hard or easy to find and read it. The crux of the case is whether the government was seeking to censor it, and if they did to any extent succeed in it. As I posted elsewhere, I think this is the heart of the lawsuit: > public admissions by then-White House press secretary Jennifer Psaki that the Biden administration was ordering social media companies to censor certain posts, as well as statements from Psaki, President Biden, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, and DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas threatening them with regulatory or other legal action if they declined to do so That right there is clearly a First Amendment Violation if the result was one less person seeing and reading it.
- themitigating 4y ago
  It's not because the first amendment says congress shall make no law ... Nothing about the executive branch or threats
  - tastyfreeze 4y ago
    That is because constitutionally the executive doesn't have any authority that would allow that branch to implement any policy that could infringe on rights. However, Congress has given the Executive a vast amount of unconstitutional authority through executive agencies. We are now being taught the lesson of why the Executive has no authority to make laws.
houstonn 4y ago
Not along a particular channel, but right to hear is an important principle. As Frederick Douglass, a former slave and writer, wisely stated, “To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the right of the hearer as well as those of the speaker. It is just as criminal to rob a man of his right to speak and hear as it would be to rob him of his money.”
- themitigating 4y ago
  It doesn't matter what his opinion is the first amendment only deals the government supressing speech
  - SamPatt 4y ago
    >At least 11 federal agencies, and around 80 government officials, have been explicitly directing social media companies to take down posts and remove certain accounts that violate the government’s own preferences and guidelines for coverage on topics ranging from COVID restrictions, to the 2020 election, to the Hunter Biden laptop scandal. Doesn't that apply here?
    - themaninthedark 4y ago
      No no no, see that was still action taken by private business. In order for the government to be doing that, you need a government agent to walk into the companies, sign log into the system and delete the posts. And they have to carry a signed order from their supervisor and saying "I'm doing this for the government" while doing so. Otherwise it might just be a random government employee gone rogue.
  - anon291 4y ago
    Not in California, where the constitution guarantees free speech on privately owned land and property that is publicly accessible.
- staticman2 4y ago
  Frederick Douglas was not claiming that he had entitlement to use someone's printing press without permission.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

darawk 4y ago

There is no right to hear a message from a particular channel, but there is a right not to have the government intervene to suppress that channel. If the private actor decides of their own accord to censor you, that's perfectly legal. If they do so at the behest of government, that is a first amendment issue, and that's what's being asserted here.

micromacrofoot 4y ago
Is it different if it's a government demand vs a government recommendation?
- jtbayly 4y ago
  It depends on what the consequences are (or are assumed to be) of not acceding to the "recommendation."
  - int_19h 4y ago
    What makes it especially interesting is Facebook's legal troubles in this context. It hasn't occurred to me before, but a monopoly with the threat of anti-trust hanging over it is any government's best friend.
- darawk 4y ago
  That seems to be what the case will turn on: The difference between the government providing "advice" or "helpful recommendations" and implicit/explicit coercion. I don't know enough about the details here to have a strong opinion of which view is right in this case, but that seems like the central issue.
- t-3 4y ago
  I'm no lawyer, but I can't imagine such a "recommendation" would be a valid legal shield for any entity that didn't control the courts.
  - shadowgovt 4y ago
    The Executive branch doesn't control the courts.
    - puffoflogic 4y ago
      Who said the censorship pressure came from the executive branch and not the other branches as well?
      - shadowgovt 4y ago
        The lawsuits in question never alleged any pressure other than Executive as far as I've seen
    - notch656a 4y ago
      No but it does control the FBI and other agencies that can make your life extremely unpleasant if they like, and once that happens even if the courts rule entirely in your favor it won't be a fun ride.
- somenameforme 4y ago
  "Recommendation" doesn't mean what you're implying when its coming from an entity who is responsible for tens of billions of dollars in revenue for you and for whom losing the favor of could easily result in the collapse of your business. It also doesn't mean the same thing when, in many cases, the governments and the huge corporations are intermingled so heavily that public or private is more a matter of semantics than reality.
- jandrewrogers 4y ago
  It depends on the details of the case -- I am not familiar with this one. There is Supreme Court precedent for the position that any government "recommendation" that has direct and material financial consequences based on whether that recommendation is followed is de facto coercive and therefore illegal if used to circumvent Constitutional restrictions on the government. The historical context is abusing regulatory or tax power to force acquiescence on an unrelated policy issue that would otherwise be unconstitutional if done directly. The limits of coercion that fall below the threshold of "material" are still not well-defined AFAIK.
- evandale 4y ago
  What's the difference between a government demand and recommendation delivered over a private channel? Sounds kind of like when the mafia recommends that a business buys their brand of insurance to protect them in the off-chance somebody comes along and smashes all their windows. Sure the business doesn't need the insurance but they might rethink their position the first time all their windows get smashed.
- maxk42 4y ago
  You seem to misunderstand: The government's position is not at question here. Their use of influence to suppress free speech is.
- anon291 4y ago
  Given that the government has already (pre-COVID) been wanting to enact anti-trust legislation against Facebook and Meta, one can argue that not following a recommendation is perceived by these companies to be a risk for their existence. At the end of the day, the government needs to be extremely careful here.
- flipcoder 4y ago
  The school bully highly recommends that I give him my lunch money

jtbayly 4y ago

IANAL, but I don't think they have to prove it's hard or easy to find and read it. The crux of the case is whether the government was seeking to censor it, and if they did to any extent succeed in it. As I posted elsewhere, I think this is the heart of the lawsuit: > public admissions by then-White House press secretary Jennifer Psaki that the Biden administration was ordering social media companies to censor certain posts, as well as statements from Psaki, President Biden, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, and DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas threatening them with regulatory or other legal action if they declined to do so That right there is clearly a First Amendment Violation if the result was one less person seeing and reading it.

themitigating 4y ago
It's not because the first amendment says congress shall make no law ... Nothing about the executive branch or threats
- tastyfreeze 4y ago
  That is because constitutionally the executive doesn't have any authority that would allow that branch to implement any policy that could infringe on rights. However, Congress has given the Executive a vast amount of unconstitutional authority through executive agencies. We are now being taught the lesson of why the Executive has no authority to make laws.

houstonn 4y ago

Not along a particular channel, but right to hear is an important principle. As Frederick Douglass, a former slave and writer, wisely stated, “To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the right of the hearer as well as those of the speaker. It is just as criminal to rob a man of his right to speak and hear as it would be to rob him of his money.”

themitigating 4y ago
It doesn't matter what his opinion is the first amendment only deals the government supressing speech
- SamPatt 4y ago
  >At least 11 federal agencies, and around 80 government officials, have been explicitly directing social media companies to take down posts and remove certain accounts that violate the government’s own preferences and guidelines for coverage on topics ranging from COVID restrictions, to the 2020 election, to the Hunter Biden laptop scandal. Doesn't that apply here?
  - themaninthedark 4y ago
    No no no, see that was still action taken by private business. In order for the government to be doing that, you need a government agent to walk into the companies, sign log into the system and delete the posts. And they have to carry a signed order from their supervisor and saying "I'm doing this for the government" while doing so. Otherwise it might just be a random government employee gone rogue.
- anon291 4y ago
  Not in California, where the constitution guarantees free speech on privately owned land and property that is publicly accessible.
staticman2 4y ago
Frederick Douglas was not claiming that he had entitlement to use someone's printing press without permission.