3 ms·

You're right, this isn't unexplored. The ACLU says this specific example is unconstitutional. There's also been legal cases about this in the past. It's illegal

You're right, this isn't unexplored. The ACLU says this specific example is unconstitutional. There's also been legal cases about this in the past. It's illegal for the government to do this. "They could sue if they don't want to do it" does not make the request legal. https://twitter.com/aclu/status/1587198479608303622 https://twitter.com/aclu/status/1587198479608303622 What's shocking is that people's perceptions of what's legal have changed so dramatically in just a few years. I can't imagine anyone making these arguments in 2005. It seems some powerful interests have been able to successfully co-opt SV companies and change the entire public conversation about what the First Amendment means. I would like to know a lot more about what's going on here. I don't think the same tired arguments about "disinformation" and "social harmony" that have been trotted out for centuries against free speech have suddenly gained all this credence by accident.

ethanbond 4y ago
Not clear what you mean by “this specific example” given that your linked article is about DHS’s defunct Disinformation board and AFAIK this board never even became operational (and in any case hasn’t been mentioned in Twitter Files). It seems to me rather that all these folks shocked to hear this stuff just haven’t been paying attention to either their high school civics course or to current events of the last 20 years. You actually think the FBI doesn’t report content? Obviously they do. You don’t think the FBI gets a privileged reporting line over newuser1848391? Obviously they do. You don’t think Twitter regularly gets content moderation requests, from governments or elsewhere, that they simply decline? Obviously they do. And you don’t think they sometimes get content moderation requests from governments or elsewhere that they oblige? Obviously they do. Here’s a good overview of relevant case law: https://reason.com/volokh/2021/07/19/when-government-urges-private-entities-to-restrict-others-speech/ https://reason.com/volokh/2021/07/19/when-government-urges-p... Will you also be surprised to hear that almost all private companies can (and many will) simply choose to hand over your private data to the government upon warrantless request?
- Amezarak 4y ago
  I never said I was shocked about it. The government and particularly agencies like the FBI have long engaged in illegal abuses of their power, ranging from illegal speech restrictions like this to the knowing legal persecution of innocent people to outright murder and blackmail. Nor is it news to me that companies are increasingly voluntarily sharing vast amounts of data with the government, to the point that the surveillance state we feared has come to pass as a corporate-state partnership. What I’m surprised about is the increasing number of people who see it as normal and acceptable, or choose to dismiss it as “oh, this has been happening.” Yeah, that doesn’t make it okay.
  - ethanbond 4y ago
    Shocked to learn that it’s legal, not that it happens. So long as there’s no coercion it’s completely legal. Not considered a controversial topic. https://reason.com/volokh/2021/07/19/when-government-urges-private-entities-to-restrict-others-speech/ https://reason.com/volokh/2021/07/19/when-government-urges-p... There are lots of dangers with this pattern but this is simply an extremely extremely poor case to try to take up the fight on.
    - TeeMassive 4y ago
      > So long as there’s no coercion it’s completely legal. If the police ask you to do something, do you usually feel generally obligated to comply? What about an even more powerful organization that can and do prosecute people for simply lying or obstructing?
      - ethanbond 4y ago
        > If the police ask you to do something, do you usually feel generally obligated to comply? Uh, no? I'm pretty sure every American schoolchild is educated on his or her rights under the Constitution. It's not unusual at all for police to pull people over for minor infractions and assert they have the ability to search their cars, and for people who know their rights to decline said search, and for everyone to go on their merry way. If the cop chooses to force a search anyway, it's not unusual at all for them to get sued and for all evidence collected to be deemed inadmissible. This is all, again, extremely well established. Twitter surely has an army of extremely capable and well-paid lawyers who know very well which requests they have a right to decline. They've got to be more legally equipped than your average 9th grader. This is why it's important for people to have an accurate understanding of their rights and their relationship with their government. The position you're taking weakens people's understanding of their rights. So let it be known for any future operators of social media networks: the US government cannot coerce you – even implicitly – to remove legal content from your website. If they do, decline and let them bring you to court, hit up the ACLU to represent you, and sue the fucking daylights out of the US Government. It's your right and your duty!

ethanbond 4y ago

Not clear what you mean by “this specific example” given that your linked article is about DHS’s defunct Disinformation board and AFAIK this board never even became operational (and in any case hasn’t been mentioned in Twitter Files). It seems to me rather that all these folks shocked to hear this stuff just haven’t been paying attention to either their high school civics course or to current events of the last 20 years. You actually think the FBI doesn’t report content? Obviously they do. You don’t think the FBI gets a privileged reporting line over newuser1848391? Obviously they do. You don’t think Twitter regularly gets content moderation requests, from governments or elsewhere, that they simply decline? Obviously they do. And you don’t think they sometimes get content moderation requests from governments or elsewhere that they oblige? Obviously they do. Here’s a good overview of relevant case law: https://reason.com/volokh/2021/07/19/when-government-urges-private-entities-to-restrict-others-speech/ https://reason.com/volokh/2021/07/19/when-government-urges-p... Will you also be surprised to hear that almost all private companies can (and many will) simply choose to hand over your private data to the government upon warrantless request?

Amezarak 4y ago
I never said I was shocked about it. The government and particularly agencies like the FBI have long engaged in illegal abuses of their power, ranging from illegal speech restrictions like this to the knowing legal persecution of innocent people to outright murder and blackmail. Nor is it news to me that companies are increasingly voluntarily sharing vast amounts of data with the government, to the point that the surveillance state we feared has come to pass as a corporate-state partnership. What I’m surprised about is the increasing number of people who see it as normal and acceptable, or choose to dismiss it as “oh, this has been happening.” Yeah, that doesn’t make it okay.
- ethanbond 4y ago
  Shocked to learn that it’s legal, not that it happens. So long as there’s no coercion it’s completely legal. Not considered a controversial topic. https://reason.com/volokh/2021/07/19/when-government-urges-private-entities-to-restrict-others-speech/ https://reason.com/volokh/2021/07/19/when-government-urges-p... There are lots of dangers with this pattern but this is simply an extremely extremely poor case to try to take up the fight on.
  - TeeMassive 4y ago
    > So long as there’s no coercion it’s completely legal. If the police ask you to do something, do you usually feel generally obligated to comply? What about an even more powerful organization that can and do prosecute people for simply lying or obstructing?
    - ethanbond 4y ago
      > If the police ask you to do something, do you usually feel generally obligated to comply? Uh, no? I'm pretty sure every American schoolchild is educated on his or her rights under the Constitution. It's not unusual at all for police to pull people over for minor infractions and assert they have the ability to search their cars, and for people who know their rights to decline said search, and for everyone to go on their merry way. If the cop chooses to force a search anyway, it's not unusual at all for them to get sued and for all evidence collected to be deemed inadmissible. This is all, again, extremely well established. Twitter surely has an army of extremely capable and well-paid lawyers who know very well which requests they have a right to decline. They've got to be more legally equipped than your average 9th grader. This is why it's important for people to have an accurate understanding of their rights and their relationship with their government. The position you're taking weakens people's understanding of their rights. So let it be known for any future operators of social media networks: the US government cannot coerce you – even implicitly – to remove legal content from your website. If they do, decline and let them bring you to court, hit up the ACLU to represent you, and sue the fucking daylights out of the US Government. It's your right and your duty!