4 ms·

Imagine you are a 5 year old child, and the judge is your parent. You think that this argument would work for them? Trying to logic bomb your way out of this i

by rtpg 4y ago

Imagine you are a 5 year old child, and the judge is your parent. You think that this argument would work for them? Trying to logic bomb your way out of this is just asking for a summary judgement against you. It doesn't matter if it's not logically consistent, most rulings aren't! They will simply ignore this argument. The counter to the "compelled speech" argument is that the government is not the one that forced you to start doing warrant canaries! You started doing warrant canaries, the gov't wouldn't ask for a remedy of you putting up continued canaries. You put the onus on lying on yourself, and if you don't do it you'll just be charged with revealing the facts. Government demanding you to compel speech is not what would happen.

alex_sf 4y ago
It's not a 'logic bomb'. US law sets a high bar for prior restraint, an even higher one for compelled speech, and has never compelled false speech as far as I'm aware. And no, most rulings are, in fact, logically consistent.
- rtpg 4y ago
  I still contend that "compelled speech" is not what's happening when you get charged for publishing the existence of the NSL through a bed of your own making. Though I do agree that the feeling is very different compared to regulation of other commercial speech because of the ... lying aspect. If we take the inverse, and we are talking about prior constraint, I have a really hard time imagining courts not siding with the executive. There are so many more controversial things the courts side with on law enforcement, "do not tell people who we are investigating" feels like such an easy win (and honestly much more acceptable to the general public than anything). I feel like there's some fundamental argument here about negligence. In what way is the government responsible for you making a promise you can't keep to your customers? But... ultimately there's no "real" answer except what the case looks like when it gets in front of judges and how they feel about it. And I will admit arguing it's not compelled speech takes a hell of a lot more effort (even if I believe it's true!).
phpisthebest 4y ago
I would take odds that the current supreme court would rule the government forcing you to continue to publish the canary was compelled speech in violation of the 1st amendment. NSL are already on shaky legal ground in the first place with a good part of the court looking for ways to curb them. Which is why when push comes to shove the government often drops challenges to their authority instead of allowing it to get up to the Supreme Court. They, like common thugs, exist because of the threat and the fact that most people lack the resources to fight them so they just give in
Kamq 4y ago
> Imagine you are a 5 year old child, and the judge is your parent. You think that this argument would work for them? Parents aren't bound by the US constitution.

by rtpg 4y ago

alex_sf 4y ago

It's not a 'logic bomb'. US law sets a high bar for prior restraint, an even higher one for compelled speech, and has never compelled false speech as far as I'm aware. And no, most rulings are, in fact, logically consistent.

rtpg 4y ago
I still contend that "compelled speech" is not what's happening when you get charged for publishing the existence of the NSL through a bed of your own making. Though I do agree that the feeling is very different compared to regulation of other commercial speech because of the ... lying aspect. If we take the inverse, and we are talking about prior constraint, I have a really hard time imagining courts not siding with the executive. There are so many more controversial things the courts side with on law enforcement, "do not tell people who we are investigating" feels like such an easy win (and honestly much more acceptable to the general public than anything). I feel like there's some fundamental argument here about negligence. In what way is the government responsible for you making a promise you can't keep to your customers? But... ultimately there's no "real" answer except what the case looks like when it gets in front of judges and how they feel about it. And I will admit arguing it's not compelled speech takes a hell of a lot more effort (even if I believe it's true!).

phpisthebest 4y ago

I would take odds that the current supreme court would rule the government forcing you to continue to publish the canary was compelled speech in violation of the 1st amendment. NSL are already on shaky legal ground in the first place with a good part of the court looking for ways to curb them. Which is why when push comes to shove the government often drops challenges to their authority instead of allowing it to get up to the Supreme Court. They, like common thugs, exist because of the threat and the fact that most people lack the resources to fight them so they just give in

Kamq 4y ago

> Imagine you are a 5 year old child, and the judge is your parent. You think that this argument would work for them? Parents aren't bound by the US constitution.