3 ms·
From part of the injunction: IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the following actions are NOT prohibited by this Preliminary Injunction: 1. informing social-media
by 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 agoYou 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 agoA 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.