3 ms·

The declaration may very well be 'misinformation', but that is a non-issue. The question being asked here is "Did the US govt violate the First amendment by il

The declaration may very well be 'misinformation', but that is a non-issue. The question being asked here is "Did the US govt violate the First amendment by illegally compelling tech companies to censor certain viewpoints?"

themitigating 4y ago
Why is it illegal? Where is that stated?
- dbsmith83 4y ago
  > Why is it illegal? You are asking why is violating the First Amendment illegal? Because that's how laws work here. The constitution is literally called 'the law of the land', hence violating it would be illegal > Where is that stated? Where is what stated? That this was a violation of the First Amendment? I mean, it's literally in the subheading of the article: "Censorship of wrongthink by Big Tech at the behest of the government is government censorship, which violates the First Amendment". I am not arguing it was or wasn't, I was just letting the OP know what the real issue is
dahart 4y ago
> It remains to be seen whether Bhattacharya and Kulldorff will be able to show that Fauci and Collins explicitly ordered tech companies to censor them and their Great Barrington Declaration. They don’t have evidence that the govt compelled the censorship. And the NIH generally doesn’t have this authority, and I doubt most companies believe that it does. Don’t forget this happened during the previous administration, which officially supported the GBD. They also don’t have evidence that anything was illegal, since preventing misinformation & speculation isn’t illegal and might not be protected by the First Amendment. See the side discussion on freedom of speech exceptions nearby. Whether the GBD is misinformation is totally relevant, freedom of speech depends on the content of the speech.
- dbsmith83 4y ago
  > They also don’t have evidence that anything was illegal, since preventing misinformation & speculation isn’t illegal and might not be protected by the First Amendment. IANAL (and I'm sure you aren't either), but if you actually read the wikipedia article you linked to, that specific area of constitutional law is vague and far from settled: > The basis for this ruling was the Court's fear that "a rule compelling the critic of official conduct to guarantee the truth of all his factual assertions" would lead to "self-censorship".[15] This determination altered the theory of the 'false statements' free speech exception. Even if a false statement generally would be harmful for public discourse, the Court quoted John Stuart Mill in arguing a false statement in this context would bring "the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error".[16] > Issues "of public concern" The leading case on what an issue "of public concern" is Dun & Bradstreet v. Greenmoss Builders (1985). In Dun & Bradstreet, the Supreme Court considered whether a credit reporting service which distributed fliers to their only five subscribers qualified as an action of "public concern". As it was "hardly and unlikely to be deterred by incidental state regulation", the Court concluded it did not qualify.[5] This decision did not provide strong guidance on the issue.[20] This vague area of law in regards to false statements of fact can lead to a variety of arguments over what is relevant or has public importance.[20][21] (emphasis is mine^) Anyway, I'm not arguing it was or was not illegal, since that is a matter for the courts to decide. You could be right, but I'm skeptical

themitigating 4y ago

Why is it illegal? Where is that stated?

dbsmith83 4y ago
> Why is it illegal? You are asking why is violating the First Amendment illegal? Because that's how laws work here. The constitution is literally called 'the law of the land', hence violating it would be illegal > Where is that stated? Where is what stated? That this was a violation of the First Amendment? I mean, it's literally in the subheading of the article: "Censorship of wrongthink by Big Tech at the behest of the government is government censorship, which violates the First Amendment". I am not arguing it was or wasn't, I was just letting the OP know what the real issue is

dahart 4y ago

> It remains to be seen whether Bhattacharya and Kulldorff will be able to show that Fauci and Collins explicitly ordered tech companies to censor them and their Great Barrington Declaration. They don’t have evidence that the govt compelled the censorship. And the NIH generally doesn’t have this authority, and I doubt most companies believe that it does. Don’t forget this happened during the previous administration, which officially supported the GBD. They also don’t have evidence that anything was illegal, since preventing misinformation & speculation isn’t illegal and might not be protected by the First Amendment. See the side discussion on freedom of speech exceptions nearby. Whether the GBD is misinformation is totally relevant, freedom of speech depends on the content of the speech.

dbsmith83 4y ago
> They also don’t have evidence that anything was illegal, since preventing misinformation & speculation isn’t illegal and might not be protected by the First Amendment. IANAL (and I'm sure you aren't either), but if you actually read the wikipedia article you linked to, that specific area of constitutional law is vague and far from settled: > The basis for this ruling was the Court's fear that "a rule compelling the critic of official conduct to guarantee the truth of all his factual assertions" would lead to "self-censorship".[15] This determination altered the theory of the 'false statements' free speech exception. Even if a false statement generally would be harmful for public discourse, the Court quoted John Stuart Mill in arguing a false statement in this context would bring "the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error".[16] > Issues "of public concern" The leading case on what an issue "of public concern" is Dun & Bradstreet v. Greenmoss Builders (1985). In Dun & Bradstreet, the Supreme Court considered whether a credit reporting service which distributed fliers to their only five subscribers qualified as an action of "public concern". As it was "hardly and unlikely to be deterred by incidental state regulation", the Court concluded it did not qualify.[5] This decision did not provide strong guidance on the issue.[20] This vague area of law in regards to false statements of fact can lead to a variety of arguments over what is relevant or has public importance.[20][21] (emphasis is mine^) Anyway, I'm not arguing it was or was not illegal, since that is a matter for the courts to decide. You could be right, but I'm skeptical