6 ms·

Yes. And a properly-endowed Justice Department would begin prosecution for Twitter employees that colluded with the government to defraud US citizens of their f

Yes. And a properly-endowed Justice Department would begin prosecution for Twitter employees that colluded with the government to defraud US citizens of their fundamental rights. Twitter officers conspired with rogue elements of the US government to defraud US citizens of their constitutionally protected rights. This is not a game. The people involved should be facing 30 year prison sentences.

patmcc 4y ago
>>The people involved should be facing 30 year prison sentences. For what crime, specifically?
- newZWhoDis 4y ago
  Conspiracy to defraud the United States.
  - patmcc 4y ago
    That's...not a crime? The Justice Department can't just declare things as illegal and throw people in jails for 30 years.
    - newZWhoDis 4y ago
      It is absolutely a crime > The general conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371, creates an offense "[i]f two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose. https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-923-18-usc-371-conspiracy-defraud-us https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual...
      - patmcc 4y ago
        You are misreading that very severely. Even if it was a first amendment violation to ask twitter to review certain tweets. "The intent required for a conspiracy to defraud the government is that the defendant possessed the intent (a) to defraud, (b) to make false statements or representations to the government or its agencies in order to obtain property of the government, or that the defendant performed acts or made statements that he/she knew to be false, fraudulent or deceitful to a government agency, which disrupted the functions of the agency or of the government." What false statements/representations were made, by anyone? In addition, they had to in some way "defraud the United States" which is: "They cheat the government out of money or property; They interfere or obstruct legitimate Government activity; or They make wrongful use of a governmental instrumentality." - None of which apply.
        newZWhoDis 4y ago
        As an employee of the government there is the presumption that you are knowledgeable of your role, and that said role is charged with upholding the founding document of your organization. For example, a teacher hired at a school cannot argue that they could not be expected to teach. Much in the same way, a government employee cannot in good faith argue that they cannot be expected to uphold the constitution. By secretly colluding with private companies (that the government has failed to regulate, I might add) to suppress otherwise constitutionally protected activity government employees are criminally liable
        RonaldRaygun 4y ago
        > All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes Bigly constitutional
        patmcc 4y ago
        There's a really big (and important!) difference between doing something that's wrong and doing something that's criminal.
nathanaldensr 4y ago
And yet it's treated as just the latest Twitter drama. Reactions like the ones I'm seeing--"Republicans are just obsessed with Hunter's ****!"--are the reason why the "I Support the Current Thing" NPC meme exists.
patmcc 4y ago
You don't have a 1st amendment right to post on twitter. If twitter bans me for spamming, do you think I can sue them?
- gavinhoward 4y ago
  It's not that Twitter stopped people from posting. It's that Twitter did that at the behest of the government. That is a clear violation of the First Amendment.
  - patmcc 4y ago
    The government can ask private companies not to publish things, it does that for "national security" all the time. The company can tell them to pound sound - that's been well established. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/05/16/when-the-government-asks-a-newspaper-not-to-publish/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/05/16/wh... for example. But there's nothing illegal (and most certainly not 30 year prison sentence illegal) about the government saying "hey could you review these tweets please"? Do we know what they contained? Were they threats? Spam? Copyright infringing? Disagreements about tax policy?
    - newZWhoDis 4y ago
      It’s clearly illegal, it’s conspiracy to defraud the United States. United States citizens have explicit rights, and corporate employees colluding with government officials to “voluntarily” nullify those rights are guilty of conspiracy to defraud the United States The government represents us, a collusion to defeat our rights is conspiracy against us and subject to civil and criminal action
    - gavinhoward 4y ago
      It's called "soft power," and the use of "review" in those messages is clearly meaning something more than that. Otherwise, the government would not have suggested anything at all.
    - newZWhoDis 4y ago
dd36 4y ago
Now political campaigns are the government? Would be curious on your take of what DeSantis was trying to do to Disney in FL? 30 years in prison for threatening Disney about its speech?
- newZWhoDis 4y ago
  - dd36 4y ago
    In one case, you literally have a government official threatening a private business. In the other, you have the campaign of a private citizen asking for a review. In the first you have actual threats of government power. In the latter, there isn’t even an implied threat. Campaigns ask many private businesses and people for things they don’t receive.
    - newZWhoDis 4y ago
      Officials at the FBI, operating under color of law, mislead Meta/Facebook to believe that the hunter biden content was Russian misinformation prior to an election. In parallel we have a “political campaign that totally isn’t colluding with the government” ordering some of the most powerful tech companies in the world to “review” content tony soprano style. The most charitable take is that you are naive, the realistic take it that you are downplaying criminal acts by major entrenched political entities in the US
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - dd36 4y ago
        I see. So now a demand for review by a campaign is actually the FBI. And the FBI should not engage in countering foreign influence campaigns like the hacked emails in 2016. Foreign adversaries should have free reign to hack and release private data and the media should encourage and distribute it all without any caution. Your reasoning skills are next level.

patmcc 4y ago

>>The people involved should be facing 30 year prison sentences. For what crime, specifically?

newZWhoDis 4y ago
Conspiracy to defraud the United States.
- patmcc 4y ago
  That's...not a crime? The Justice Department can't just declare things as illegal and throw people in jails for 30 years.
  - newZWhoDis 4y ago
    It is absolutely a crime > The general conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371, creates an offense "[i]f two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose. https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-923-18-usc-371-conspiracy-defraud-us https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual...
    - patmcc 4y ago
      You are misreading that very severely. Even if it was a first amendment violation to ask twitter to review certain tweets. "The intent required for a conspiracy to defraud the government is that the defendant possessed the intent (a) to defraud, (b) to make false statements or representations to the government or its agencies in order to obtain property of the government, or that the defendant performed acts or made statements that he/she knew to be false, fraudulent or deceitful to a government agency, which disrupted the functions of the agency or of the government." What false statements/representations were made, by anyone? In addition, they had to in some way "defraud the United States" which is: "They cheat the government out of money or property; They interfere or obstruct legitimate Government activity; or They make wrongful use of a governmental instrumentality." - None of which apply.
      - newZWhoDis 4y ago
        As an employee of the government there is the presumption that you are knowledgeable of your role, and that said role is charged with upholding the founding document of your organization. For example, a teacher hired at a school cannot argue that they could not be expected to teach. Much in the same way, a government employee cannot in good faith argue that they cannot be expected to uphold the constitution. By secretly colluding with private companies (that the government has failed to regulate, I might add) to suppress otherwise constitutionally protected activity government employees are criminally liable
        RonaldRaygun 4y ago
        > All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes Bigly constitutional
        patmcc 4y ago
        There's a really big (and important!) difference between doing something that's wrong and doing something that's criminal.

nathanaldensr 4y ago

And yet it's treated as just the latest Twitter drama. Reactions like the ones I'm seeing--"Republicans are just obsessed with Hunter's ****!"--are the reason why the "I Support the Current Thing" NPC meme exists.

patmcc 4y ago

You don't have a 1st amendment right to post on twitter. If twitter bans me for spamming, do you think I can sue them?

gavinhoward 4y ago
It's not that Twitter stopped people from posting. It's that Twitter did that at the behest of the government. That is a clear violation of the First Amendment.
- patmcc 4y ago
  The government can ask private companies not to publish things, it does that for "national security" all the time. The company can tell them to pound sound - that's been well established. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/05/16/when-the-government-asks-a-newspaper-not-to-publish/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/05/16/wh... for example. But there's nothing illegal (and most certainly not 30 year prison sentence illegal) about the government saying "hey could you review these tweets please"? Do we know what they contained? Were they threats? Spam? Copyright infringing? Disagreements about tax policy?
  - newZWhoDis 4y ago
    It’s clearly illegal, it’s conspiracy to defraud the United States. United States citizens have explicit rights, and corporate employees colluding with government officials to “voluntarily” nullify those rights are guilty of conspiracy to defraud the United States The government represents us, a collusion to defeat our rights is conspiracy against us and subject to civil and criminal action
  - gavinhoward 4y ago
    It's called "soft power," and the use of "review" in those messages is clearly meaning something more than that. Otherwise, the government would not have suggested anything at all.
  - newZWhoDis 4y ago

dd36 4y ago

Now political campaigns are the government? Would be curious on your take of what DeSantis was trying to do to Disney in FL? 30 years in prison for threatening Disney about its speech?

newZWhoDis 4y ago
- dd36 4y ago
  In one case, you literally have a government official threatening a private business. In the other, you have the campaign of a private citizen asking for a review. In the first you have actual threats of government power. In the latter, there isn’t even an implied threat. Campaigns ask many private businesses and people for things they don’t receive.
  - newZWhoDis 4y ago
    Officials at the FBI, operating under color of law, mislead Meta/Facebook to believe that the hunter biden content was Russian misinformation prior to an election. In parallel we have a “political campaign that totally isn’t colluding with the government” ordering some of the most powerful tech companies in the world to “review” content tony soprano style. The most charitable take is that you are naive, the realistic take it that you are downplaying criminal acts by major entrenched political entities in the US
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - dd36 4y ago
      I see. So now a demand for review by a campaign is actually the FBI. And the FBI should not engage in countering foreign influence campaigns like the hacked emails in 2016. Foreign adversaries should have free reign to hack and release private data and the media should encourage and distribute it all without any caution. Your reasoning skills are next level.