4 ms·

It violates the right to due process and to face one's evidence and accusers. I don't find it particularly relevant that the ruling class hides behind a facade

It violates the right to due process and to face one's evidence and accusers. I don't find it particularly relevant that the ruling class hides behind a facade of privatization to perform this abuse, and frankly that excuse should be wearing very thin these days, especially in light of the recent IG report concluding very clearly that the government performs exactly the abuse I just described and especially in light of the Twitter files.

dantheman 3y ago
People voluntarily interact and should be able to use whatever criteria they want when doing that. As for twitter files, the problem is the government involvement and coercion.
- shadowgovt 3y ago
  I didn't actually see anything in the Twitter files to be concerned about. It looked like ordinary coordination between government and a private service provider. What in the Twitter files are people supposed to be upset about? I think I might be missing the proper rubric to fill outraged about it.
  - krapp 3y ago
    Even Twitter's own lawyers have admitted nothing in the Twitter Files shows evidence of government coercion, censorship or wrongdoing[0]. Basically Elon Musk is just delusional and the people who bought into it lack any capacity for critical thinking. [0]https://www.techdirt.com/2023/06/05/twitter-admits-in-court-filing-elon-musk-is-simply-wrong-about-government-interference-at-twitter/ https://www.techdirt.com/2023/06/05/twitter-admits-in-court-...
  - ofslidingfeet 3y ago
    Yeah the rubric is called the Bill of Rights.
    - tqi 3y ago
      Using that rubric, what violations do you think occurred?
dghlsakjg 3y ago
In what way is this a violation of those rights? The right to face your accusers arises from the sixth amendment and applies to criminal cases being prosecuted by the government. Due process comes from the fifth amendment and, again, only applies to actions by the government. You can be upset that this is happening, and that it is legal, but there are no constitutional rights in play here.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- sclarisse 3y ago
  Yeah; there’s a case for the ninth and tenth, but that’s about it. And those never really work.
  - MereInterest 3y ago
    Arguably, the fourth amendment, though this would be a rather large departure from its current interpretation. The fourth amendment states that “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…” It does not state from whom these violations may not occur, so this clause would not be limited to violations being performed by the government. Therefore, this could be interpreted just as a limitation of the government against violating this right, but also the allowance of the government to prevent other violations.
- ofslidingfeet 3y ago
  Yeah so the government has implemented payola schemes to subvert those items. Again, I'm glad that this isn't quite so mysterious and difficult to comprehend for policymakers in the EU.
  - dghlsakjg 3y ago
    I’m not sure what you’re talking about with payola schemes. This is a comment on an article about how an international company violated EU law. The US government (the only organization bound by constitutional law) was never involved in any way.
golemotron 3y ago
> It violates the right to due process and to face one's evidence and accusers. Due process is from the government when they accuse you of a crime. In this case, the government is not attacking your privacy and there are no accusers.
Manuel_D 3y ago
This is only a right in a court of law. Unfortunately, people can accuse you of rape on a college campus and you have no right to see the evidence against you even though the consequence is being marked as a rapist for life (you won't go to prison for a Title IX conviction, but it'll show up if you ever reapply to college, it shows up for the Bar Association, and on security clearance investigations).
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  It's a clear-cut end-run around the constitution, particularly so in the case of state schools, but trying to address this will have you touching a third rail with enough power in it to fry your political aspirations forever.
- withinboredom 3y ago
  This was some stupid precedent set. Hopefully someday, someone will successfully argue that the government _not_ enforcing the constitutional bill of rights in a civil setting is the same as a criminal setting.

dantheman 3y ago

People voluntarily interact and should be able to use whatever criteria they want when doing that. As for twitter files, the problem is the government involvement and coercion.

shadowgovt 3y ago
I didn't actually see anything in the Twitter files to be concerned about. It looked like ordinary coordination between government and a private service provider. What in the Twitter files are people supposed to be upset about? I think I might be missing the proper rubric to fill outraged about it.
- krapp 3y ago
  Even Twitter's own lawyers have admitted nothing in the Twitter Files shows evidence of government coercion, censorship or wrongdoing[0]. Basically Elon Musk is just delusional and the people who bought into it lack any capacity for critical thinking. [0]https://www.techdirt.com/2023/06/05/twitter-admits-in-court-filing-elon-musk-is-simply-wrong-about-government-interference-at-twitter/ https://www.techdirt.com/2023/06/05/twitter-admits-in-court-...
- ofslidingfeet 3y ago
  Yeah the rubric is called the Bill of Rights.
  - tqi 3y ago
    Using that rubric, what violations do you think occurred?

dghlsakjg 3y ago

In what way is this a violation of those rights? The right to face your accusers arises from the sixth amendment and applies to criminal cases being prosecuted by the government. Due process comes from the fifth amendment and, again, only applies to actions by the government. You can be upset that this is happening, and that it is legal, but there are no constitutional rights in play here.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
sclarisse 3y ago
Yeah; there’s a case for the ninth and tenth, but that’s about it. And those never really work.
- MereInterest 3y ago
  Arguably, the fourth amendment, though this would be a rather large departure from its current interpretation. The fourth amendment states that “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…” It does not state from whom these violations may not occur, so this clause would not be limited to violations being performed by the government. Therefore, this could be interpreted just as a limitation of the government against violating this right, but also the allowance of the government to prevent other violations.
ofslidingfeet 3y ago
Yeah so the government has implemented payola schemes to subvert those items. Again, I'm glad that this isn't quite so mysterious and difficult to comprehend for policymakers in the EU.
- dghlsakjg 3y ago
  I’m not sure what you’re talking about with payola schemes. This is a comment on an article about how an international company violated EU law. The US government (the only organization bound by constitutional law) was never involved in any way.

golemotron 3y ago

> It violates the right to due process and to face one's evidence and accusers. Due process is from the government when they accuse you of a crime. In this case, the government is not attacking your privacy and there are no accusers.

Manuel_D 3y ago

This is only a right in a court of law. Unfortunately, people can accuse you of rape on a college campus and you have no right to see the evidence against you even though the consequence is being marked as a rapist for life (you won't go to prison for a Title IX conviction, but it'll show up if you ever reapply to college, it shows up for the Bar Association, and on security clearance investigations).

mcpackieh 3y ago
It's a clear-cut end-run around the constitution, particularly so in the case of state schools, but trying to address this will have you touching a third rail with enough power in it to fry your political aspirations forever.
withinboredom 3y ago
This was some stupid precedent set. Hopefully someday, someone will successfully argue that the government _not_ enforcing the constitutional bill of rights in a civil setting is the same as a criminal setting.