4 ms·

In a system of free speech, the government may also speak. I think that is where a lot of people are getting confused or hung up. They think the First Amendmen

In a system of free speech, the government may also speak. I think that is where a lot of people are getting confused or hung up. They think the First Amendment means the government is not allowed to speak at all. That is incorrect. It prohibits "abridging the freedom of speech," in other words, forcibly restraining other people from speaking. So: it is legal for the FBI to call up a company and say what they think. And the company is free to act on that, or not, as they wish. If the FBI wishes to apply the force of law, that is when they would need to show evidence, get a warrant, etc. But just speaking to companies is normal, and often welcomed by the company if the FBI is sharing information that is useful.

ekianjo 4y ago
Nope, free speech applies to individuals, not to the government as a single entity. And this for good reasons, since they wield much more power than a single individual.
- otterley 4y ago
  Do you have citations to any cases to support this theory of yours?
rideontime 4y ago
Marc Andreesen seems convinced that indictments are coming. Delusional.
- jacquesm 4y ago
  Yet another name that I once looked up to.
  - revscat 4y ago
    It seems that to be included in the billionaire tech bro club you must adhere to a certain right-wing worldview. Or, if you are more Marxist in bent, that the accumulation of capital naturally and inevitably leads to the internalization of right-wing worldviews.
    - jacquesm 4y ago
      It may be a cause-and-effect thing. Possibly when you get into that kind of money you start to behave, think and act more like a king.
spritefs 4y ago
> But just speaking to companies is normal, and often welcomed by the company if the FBI is sharing information that is useful. But how do you know that the FBI was "just speaking" and merely that? We all are looking at the same source here, there's clearly ambiguity with respect to what was discussed in the FBI's repeated calls with Roth It seems to me like you're incredibly eager to assume that there's nothing more to this, and that the FBI is just merely "speaking to companies" and nothing more I'm not saying that the FBI is merely speaking or doing more than speaking, I'm saying that we don't know and there's insufficient information available to make that kind of judgement
jhfjhgjhfg 4y ago
"The Bill of Rights guarantees that the government can never deprive people in the U.S. of certain fundamental rights including the right to freedom of religion and to free speech and the due process of law."[1] [1] https://www.aclu.org/other/your-right-free-expression https://www.aclu.org/other/your-right-free-expression
- Apocryphon 4y ago
  https://www.law.georgetown.edu/icap/wp-content/uploads/sites/32/2020/10/Voter-Intimidation-Fact-Sheet.pdf https://www.law.georgetown.edu/icap/wp-content/uploads/sites... > Does the First Amendment protect intimidating speech? Not always. The First Amendment does not protect intimidation in the form of “true threats,” “where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence” against another person or group. Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343, 360 (2003). Even when speech is not openly threatening, states and localities nonetheless may impose some restrictions on speech in order to protect the integrity of elections and the rights of voters to cast their ballots free from intimidation. In Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191 (1992), the Supreme Court upheld a Tennessee law that banned campaigning within 100 feet of the entrance to a polling place. https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context=public_integrity https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?art... > Long before the Court affirmed the right to vote as constitutionally protected, Congress had passed a series of laws which extended civil rights protections, including suffrage protections, to recently emancipated slaves following the civil war. These laws, deemed the “Enforcement Acts,” are to some extent still in place today, and those statutes continue to be the primary method by which the federal government enforces the civil rights of individual citizens. 18 U.S.C. §§241 and 242 provide broad jurisdiction to prosecute corruption of rights. The statutes cover the intentional deprivation of any right protected under the Constitution or federal law. §241 makes it unlawful for two or more persons “to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States.”38 §242 makes it unlawful for anyone “acting under color of law” to deprive a person of such a right. > The Supreme Court acknowledged the broad scope of §241 when it opined that “[t]he language of §241 is plain and unlimited. [It] embraces all of the rights and privileges secured to citizens by all of the Constitution and all of the laws of the United States....We think [its] history leaves no doubt that, if we are to give §241 the scope its origins dictate, we must accord it a sweep as broad as its language.”51 The broad scope of the law allows for the sweeping protection of federally recognized rights. At the same time, it constructs some barriers for applying the law when new types of violations must be articulated. To that end, the statute has been the target of a vast number of vagueness challenges in federal courts – although to little avail.
ergocoder 4y ago
> So: it is legal for the FBI to call up a company and say what they think. And the company is free to act on that, or not, as they wish. This makes me think of "the implication" in it's always sunny in philadephia. FBI calls you up and tell you what they think, and you'll totally ignore FBI. Totally. People hate Musk way too much that they are blind. If this was trump, the shitstorm would begin. It would be drummed up as the biggest scandal ever.
- Apocryphon 4y ago
  These companies are just as afraid, if not far more afraid, of "the implication" from other companies, namely their advertisers and sponsors, as well as influential individuals such as celebrity influencers who drive traffic for their sites. The G-men will have to get in line for Twitter bending over backwards to all of these interests. Threats to the bottom line are probably even more menacing than legal threats- and many of these businesses and individuals are just as litigious as the FBI, as well. > FBI calls you up and tell you what they think, and you'll totally ignore FBI. Totally. The OP literally says that's an option that certain companies have opted to do: > An FBI agent just reached out with a key point about the “gross” subservience of Twitter before the FBI: “A lot of companies we deal with are adversarial to us. Like T-Mobile is totally adversarial. They love leaking things we're saying if we don't get our process right.” (1/2) > “I feel like that’s the default position. People used to get mad about that in the Bureau, but — they're supposed to represent their clients and their customers. Why in the hell would you expect them to make it easy on you? Do the right thing. Do it the right way.” https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1603890210252668928 https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1603890210252668928 It sounds like Twitter was choosing to play nice with the feds, unless any evidence of coercion arises.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - ergocoder 4y ago
    Not the companies who are afraid. It's the employees that are afraid of FBI. This is like your bosses make sexual advances at you. The power dynamics would make you uncomfortable.
marvin 4y ago
"Hi man, yeah, it's the FBI. Yeah, we see here you fished a small lobster. Yeah, that's a felony, but don't worry about it. So hey, that thing you said on your blog, we don't like that. Yeah. Yeah, good. Talk to you later, take care man."
partiallypro 4y ago
You have a fundamental lack of understanding about coercion, you don't have to make a direct threat of physical force to stop free speech and be in violation of the 1st Amendment.
- snowwrestler 4y ago
  Coercive speech is a point of concern, but that does not mean that all speech by people at the FBI is coercive.

ekianjo 4y ago

Nope, free speech applies to individuals, not to the government as a single entity. And this for good reasons, since they wield much more power than a single individual.

otterley 4y ago
Do you have citations to any cases to support this theory of yours?

rideontime 4y ago

Marc Andreesen seems convinced that indictments are coming. Delusional.

jacquesm 4y ago
Yet another name that I once looked up to.
- revscat 4y ago
  It seems that to be included in the billionaire tech bro club you must adhere to a certain right-wing worldview. Or, if you are more Marxist in bent, that the accumulation of capital naturally and inevitably leads to the internalization of right-wing worldviews.
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    It may be a cause-and-effect thing. Possibly when you get into that kind of money you start to behave, think and act more like a king.

spritefs 4y ago

> But just speaking to companies is normal, and often welcomed by the company if the FBI is sharing information that is useful. But how do you know that the FBI was "just speaking" and merely that? We all are looking at the same source here, there's clearly ambiguity with respect to what was discussed in the FBI's repeated calls with Roth It seems to me like you're incredibly eager to assume that there's nothing more to this, and that the FBI is just merely "speaking to companies" and nothing more I'm not saying that the FBI is merely speaking or doing more than speaking, I'm saying that we don't know and there's insufficient information available to make that kind of judgement

jhfjhgjhfg 4y ago

"The Bill of Rights guarantees that the government can never deprive people in the U.S. of certain fundamental rights including the right to freedom of religion and to free speech and the due process of law."[1] [1] https://www.aclu.org/other/your-right-free-expression https://www.aclu.org/other/your-right-free-expression

Apocryphon 4y ago
https://www.law.georgetown.edu/icap/wp-content/uploads/sites/32/2020/10/Voter-Intimidation-Fact-Sheet.pdf https://www.law.georgetown.edu/icap/wp-content/uploads/sites... > Does the First Amendment protect intimidating speech? Not always. The First Amendment does not protect intimidation in the form of “true threats,” “where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence” against another person or group. Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343, 360 (2003). Even when speech is not openly threatening, states and localities nonetheless may impose some restrictions on speech in order to protect the integrity of elections and the rights of voters to cast their ballots free from intimidation. In Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191 (1992), the Supreme Court upheld a Tennessee law that banned campaigning within 100 feet of the entrance to a polling place. https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context=public_integrity https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?art... > Long before the Court affirmed the right to vote as constitutionally protected, Congress had passed a series of laws which extended civil rights protections, including suffrage protections, to recently emancipated slaves following the civil war. These laws, deemed the “Enforcement Acts,” are to some extent still in place today, and those statutes continue to be the primary method by which the federal government enforces the civil rights of individual citizens. 18 U.S.C. §§241 and 242 provide broad jurisdiction to prosecute corruption of rights. The statutes cover the intentional deprivation of any right protected under the Constitution or federal law. §241 makes it unlawful for two or more persons “to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States.”38 §242 makes it unlawful for anyone “acting under color of law” to deprive a person of such a right. > The Supreme Court acknowledged the broad scope of §241 when it opined that “[t]he language of §241 is plain and unlimited. [It] embraces all of the rights and privileges secured to citizens by all of the Constitution and all of the laws of the United States....We think [its] history leaves no doubt that, if we are to give §241 the scope its origins dictate, we must accord it a sweep as broad as its language.”51 The broad scope of the law allows for the sweeping protection of federally recognized rights. At the same time, it constructs some barriers for applying the law when new types of violations must be articulated. To that end, the statute has been the target of a vast number of vagueness challenges in federal courts – although to little avail.

ergocoder 4y ago

> So: it is legal for the FBI to call up a company and say what they think. And the company is free to act on that, or not, as they wish. This makes me think of "the implication" in it's always sunny in philadephia. FBI calls you up and tell you what they think, and you'll totally ignore FBI. Totally. People hate Musk way too much that they are blind. If this was trump, the shitstorm would begin. It would be drummed up as the biggest scandal ever.

Apocryphon 4y ago
These companies are just as afraid, if not far more afraid, of "the implication" from other companies, namely their advertisers and sponsors, as well as influential individuals such as celebrity influencers who drive traffic for their sites. The G-men will have to get in line for Twitter bending over backwards to all of these interests. Threats to the bottom line are probably even more menacing than legal threats- and many of these businesses and individuals are just as litigious as the FBI, as well. > FBI calls you up and tell you what they think, and you'll totally ignore FBI. Totally. The OP literally says that's an option that certain companies have opted to do: > An FBI agent just reached out with a key point about the “gross” subservience of Twitter before the FBI: “A lot of companies we deal with are adversarial to us. Like T-Mobile is totally adversarial. They love leaking things we're saying if we don't get our process right.” (1/2) > “I feel like that’s the default position. People used to get mad about that in the Bureau, but — they're supposed to represent their clients and their customers. Why in the hell would you expect them to make it easy on you? Do the right thing. Do it the right way.” https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1603890210252668928 https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1603890210252668928 It sounds like Twitter was choosing to play nice with the feds, unless any evidence of coercion arises.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- ergocoder 4y ago
  Not the companies who are afraid. It's the employees that are afraid of FBI. This is like your bosses make sexual advances at you. The power dynamics would make you uncomfortable.

marvin 4y ago

"Hi man, yeah, it's the FBI. Yeah, we see here you fished a small lobster. Yeah, that's a felony, but don't worry about it. So hey, that thing you said on your blog, we don't like that. Yeah. Yeah, good. Talk to you later, take care man."

partiallypro 4y ago

You have a fundamental lack of understanding about coercion, you don't have to make a direct threat of physical force to stop free speech and be in violation of the 1st Amendment.

snowwrestler 4y ago
Coercive speech is a point of concern, but that does not mean that all speech by people at the FBI is coercive.