10 ms·

July 4th injunction bars feds from encouraging social media to delete content

66 points by hirundo 3y ago

multjoy 3y ago
That's a rollercoaster of a filing...
ren_engineer 3y ago
link to actual document - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520.294.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.18...
unethical_ban 3y ago
>If the allegations made by Plaintiffs are true, the present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States' history. Whatever your opinion on the wisdom or tyranny of government trying to control "misinformation" on private social media platforms, the above line shows the absolute ignorance of the judge. Alien and Sedition Acts, Abrams v. United States come to mind.
- gsibble 3y ago
  I don't think you can downplay how huge the scale of this was. It's a 155 page ruling destroying the federal government's actions.
- remarkEon 3y ago
  Trying to steelman what he's maybe saying, it could be a question of scale. An unelected Federal executive "urging" (lol) private companies to manage content on their platforms in some defined manner has the potential for massive impact. I think that's the difference because there hasn't been a technology able to do that in the past. At least the Alien and Sedition Acts and the Espionage Act were acts of Congress, however misguided.
  - ethanbond 3y ago
    FBI couldn’t walk into NYTimes and ask them not to publish something? Of course they could, and I’m sure they have many times and I’m sure many times NYTimes told them “go fuck yourself, see you in court if you want.”
    - remarkEon 3y ago
      I don't see how that's at all relevant to what is in this case. That the FBI attempts to coerce media outlets and journalists, and has since its inception, is entirely unrelated to a bunch of bureaucrats coordinating approved narratives willingly with the private sector.
      - ethanbond 3y ago
        “Bureaucrats” and “coordinating” are nice wiggle words because they make your description 100% uninterpretable. It’s convenient because if you put meaningful words there instead, it’d be obvious how weak the complaint is. The case is about government officials requesting content moderation and about private companies utilizing their First Amendment rights, at times to deny with government requests and at times to comply with government requests. The government’s right to request content moderation is extremely, extremely well-established in the US. Private companies’ right — in almost all cases — to decline those requests is well established. Companies’ right not to be harassed by excessive requests or coerced by threat (implicit or explicit) is also well established. This case is just making the argument that if a government requests action or brings a platform’s attention to some content, if the platform agrees with their request, acting on that request or notice would violate First Amendment rights of the people who posted the content.
        remarkEon 3y ago
        Those two words mean what they mean. If you want to imagine in your own mind that they mean something different and pretend that it makes the statement "uninterpretable", it's a free country. >This case is just making the argument that if a government requests action or brings a platform’s attention to some content, if the platform agrees with their request, acting on that request or notice would violate First Amendment rights of the people who posted the content. The case is making the argument that the government crossed a line from "request" to "coercion" or "coordination", and that there should be limits on the latter. Overall this case is a good Rorschach test, because if you switched out the content for something more amenable a lot of people would immediately switch sides on this issue.
- ethanbond 3y ago
  Yeah the Red Lion v FCC citation seems a bit tenuous IMO, and what the entire thing relies on. The point about Red Lion was that there is limited spectrum and it’s controlled by the government, so it must impose neutrality or else the government has de facto control over speech. The problem was never that private broadcasters could choose to say what they wanted to say, it was that the government could choose which broadcasters could say whatever the broadcasters could say. Not analogous to the internet at all?
Kon-Peki 3y ago
It’s Judge Doughty in the Western District of Louisiana. Republicans go judge shopping specifically to get him, and he gives them what they want. On appeal, his rulings don’t hold up too well…
- gsibble 3y ago
  Got an example?
  - Kon-Peki 3y ago
    The Covid-19 vaccine requirement for healthcare workers. Doughty issued the nationwide injunction, the Supreme Court overruled.
    - infamouscow 3y ago
      This comparison is laughably stark to say the least. A person must either be genuinely ignorant or literally deranged to believe SCOTUS would rule against the 1st amendment in a case like this. Especially given: 1. The current make up of the court 2. The court's current track of rulings aligned with the Constitution 3. It ignores the entire landmark ruling of New York Times Co. v. United States which describes in explicit detail about how the people's 1st amendment rights ALWAYS trump the government's interest, except under extraordinary circumstances where there's a very clear and imminent gave danger that cannot be prevented. The example given in the case was something being published that endangers troops actively deployed in combat AND with no means to redraw them. Anything less is grounds for rightfully being condemned, ridiculed, and mocked for being a tyrannical psychopath, because that's what the court will be saying.
      - gsibble 3y ago
        Here here.
      - intermerda 3y ago
        [flagged]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
1MachineElf 3y ago
From part of the injunction: IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the following actions are NOT prohibited by this Preliminary Injunction: 1. informing social-media companies of postings involving criminal activity or criminal conspiracies; 2. contacting and/or notifying social-media companies of national security threats, extortion, or other threats posted on its platform; etc. I worry about that 2nd one creating a loophole. A lot of nefarious activity can be loosely justified as "for national security reasons." Why wouldn't the 1st set of actions be sufficient? Are there national security threats that aren't already criminalized?
- viraptor 3y ago
  You can organise a group in a very legal way, with a very nice and clear description, which is an obvious front for something illegal (allegedly). I suspect the goal there is being able to stop/disrupt those groups without going all the way through the legal system.
  - 111111IIIIIII 3y ago
    > I suspect the goal there is being able to stop/disrupt those groups without going all the way through the legal system. In other words: a loophole
- vharuck 3y ago
  A news agency may legally publish leaked classified documents. In the past, this has even applied to documents that could identify active agents in other countries. Though it's not criminal, social media may choose to not be a part of publishing that info after the government tells them what it contains.
gsibble 3y ago
Choice quotes from the ruling: https://innovationnation.blog/p/this-ruling-is-huge-155-pages-documenting https://innovationnation.blog/p/this-ruling-is-huge-155-page...
calgarymicro 3y ago
>However, various emails show Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits through evidence that the motivation of the NIAID Defendants was a “take down” of protected free speech. Dr. Francis Collins, in an email to Dr. Fauci told Fauci there needed to be a “quick and devastating take down” of the GBD—the result was exactly that. What an utterly horrendous misrepresentation of this email by the judge, who seemingly edited it to fit his narrative. Here's the full sentence[0]: >there needs to be a quick and devastating published takedown of its premises. I don't see anything like that online yet - is it underway? So clearly referring to 'takedown' in the sense of a published rebuttal, not an instruction to social media companies to remove content. Notice how he ommitted the word 'published' from his quote. This does not inspire confidence. [0]https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2021/12/18/23/51969841-10324873-image-a-3_1639871403560.jpg https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2021/12/18/23/51969841-10324873...
- ETH_start 3y ago
  Terrible. I fully oppose the anti-GBD side, but deceit like this repugnant.
exabrial 3y ago
I'm fine with this. It's a similar principal to separation of church and state. Reading the exact text has a provision for criminal activity.

66 points by hirundo 3y ago

That's a rollercoaster of a filing...

link to actual document - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520.294.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.18...

unethical_ban 3y ago

>If the allegations made by Plaintiffs are true, the present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States' history. Whatever your opinion on the wisdom or tyranny of government trying to control "misinformation" on private social media platforms, the above line shows the absolute ignorance of the judge. Alien and Sedition Acts, Abrams v. United States come to mind.

gsibble 3y ago
I don't think you can downplay how huge the scale of this was. It's a 155 page ruling destroying the federal government's actions.
remarkEon 3y ago
Trying to steelman what he's maybe saying, it could be a question of scale. An unelected Federal executive "urging" (lol) private companies to manage content on their platforms in some defined manner has the potential for massive impact. I think that's the difference because there hasn't been a technology able to do that in the past. At least the Alien and Sedition Acts and the Espionage Act were acts of Congress, however misguided.
- ethanbond 3y ago
  FBI couldn’t walk into NYTimes and ask them not to publish something? Of course they could, and I’m sure they have many times and I’m sure many times NYTimes told them “go fuck yourself, see you in court if you want.”
  - remarkEon 3y ago
    I don't see how that's at all relevant to what is in this case. That the FBI attempts to coerce media outlets and journalists, and has since its inception, is entirely unrelated to a bunch of bureaucrats coordinating approved narratives willingly with the private sector.
    - ethanbond 3y ago
      “Bureaucrats” and “coordinating” are nice wiggle words because they make your description 100% uninterpretable. It’s convenient because if you put meaningful words there instead, it’d be obvious how weak the complaint is. The case is about government officials requesting content moderation and about private companies utilizing their First Amendment rights, at times to deny with government requests and at times to comply with government requests. The government’s right to request content moderation is extremely, extremely well-established in the US. Private companies’ right — in almost all cases — to decline those requests is well established. Companies’ right not to be harassed by excessive requests or coerced by threat (implicit or explicit) is also well established. This case is just making the argument that if a government requests action or brings a platform’s attention to some content, if the platform agrees with their request, acting on that request or notice would violate First Amendment rights of the people who posted the content.
      - remarkEon 3y ago
        Those two words mean what they mean. If you want to imagine in your own mind that they mean something different and pretend that it makes the statement "uninterpretable", it's a free country. >This case is just making the argument that if a government requests action or brings a platform’s attention to some content, if the platform agrees with their request, acting on that request or notice would violate First Amendment rights of the people who posted the content. The case is making the argument that the government crossed a line from "request" to "coercion" or "coordination", and that there should be limits on the latter. Overall this case is a good Rorschach test, because if you switched out the content for something more amenable a lot of people would immediately switch sides on this issue.
ethanbond 3y ago
Yeah the Red Lion v FCC citation seems a bit tenuous IMO, and what the entire thing relies on. The point about Red Lion was that there is limited spectrum and it’s controlled by the government, so it must impose neutrality or else the government has de facto control over speech. The problem was never that private broadcasters could choose to say what they wanted to say, it was that the government could choose which broadcasters could say whatever the broadcasters could say. Not analogous to the internet at all?

Kon-Peki 3y ago

It’s Judge Doughty in the Western District of Louisiana. Republicans go judge shopping specifically to get him, and he gives them what they want. On appeal, his rulings don’t hold up too well…

gsibble 3y ago
Got an example?
- Kon-Peki 3y ago
  The Covid-19 vaccine requirement for healthcare workers. Doughty issued the nationwide injunction, the Supreme Court overruled.
  - infamouscow 3y ago
    This comparison is laughably stark to say the least. A person must either be genuinely ignorant or literally deranged to believe SCOTUS would rule against the 1st amendment in a case like this. Especially given: 1. The current make up of the court 2. The court's current track of rulings aligned with the Constitution 3. It ignores the entire landmark ruling of New York Times Co. v. United States which describes in explicit detail about how the people's 1st amendment rights ALWAYS trump the government's interest, except under extraordinary circumstances where there's a very clear and imminent gave danger that cannot be prevented. The example given in the case was something being published that endangers troops actively deployed in combat AND with no means to redraw them. Anything less is grounds for rightfully being condemned, ridiculed, and mocked for being a tyrannical psychopath, because that's what the court will be saying.
    - gsibble 3y ago
      Here here.
    - intermerda 3y ago
      [flagged]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

1MachineElf 3y ago

From part of the injunction: IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the following actions are NOT prohibited by this Preliminary Injunction: 1. informing social-media companies of postings involving criminal activity or criminal conspiracies; 2. contacting and/or notifying social-media companies of national security threats, extortion, or other threats posted on its platform; etc. I worry about that 2nd one creating a loophole. A lot of nefarious activity can be loosely justified as "for national security reasons." Why wouldn't the 1st set of actions be sufficient? Are there national security threats that aren't already criminalized?

viraptor 3y ago
You can organise a group in a very legal way, with a very nice and clear description, which is an obvious front for something illegal (allegedly). I suspect the goal there is being able to stop/disrupt those groups without going all the way through the legal system.
- 111111IIIIIII 3y ago
  > I suspect the goal there is being able to stop/disrupt those groups without going all the way through the legal system. In other words: a loophole
vharuck 3y ago
A news agency may legally publish leaked classified documents. In the past, this has even applied to documents that could identify active agents in other countries. Though it's not criminal, social media may choose to not be a part of publishing that info after the government tells them what it contains.

gsibble 3y ago

Choice quotes from the ruling: https://innovationnation.blog/p/this-ruling-is-huge-155-pages-documenting https://innovationnation.blog/p/this-ruling-is-huge-155-page...

calgarymicro 3y ago

>However, various emails show Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits through evidence that the motivation of the NIAID Defendants was a “take down” of protected free speech. Dr. Francis Collins, in an email to Dr. Fauci told Fauci there needed to be a “quick and devastating take down” of the GBD—the result was exactly that. What an utterly horrendous misrepresentation of this email by the judge, who seemingly edited it to fit his narrative. Here's the full sentence[0]: >there needs to be a quick and devastating published takedown of its premises. I don't see anything like that online yet - is it underway? So clearly referring to 'takedown' in the sense of a published rebuttal, not an instruction to social media companies to remove content. Notice how he ommitted the word 'published' from his quote. This does not inspire confidence. [0]https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2021/12/18/23/51969841-10324873-image-a-3_1639871403560.jpg https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2021/12/18/23/51969841-10324873...

ETH_start 3y ago
Terrible. I fully oppose the anti-GBD side, but deceit like this repugnant.

exabrial 3y ago

I'm fine with this. It's a similar principal to separation of church and state. Reading the exact text has a provision for criminal activity.