31 ms·

I'd look at it the same as a police officer demanding things. It's not illegal for them to say whatever they want, and imply powers they don't have, but it's s

by axus 3y ago

I'd look at it the same as a police officer demanding things. It's not illegal for them to say whatever they want, and imply powers they don't have, but it's still coercive and an abuse of powers we've granted them. Hopefully this ruling applies to more types of government speech.

ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
I'd look at it as some random government bureaucrat demanding it: the fact that the company felt comfortable ignoring said random bureaucrat when it suited them seems to indicate they didn't feel coerced at all
- axus 3y ago
  So if they did it to me, it's bad, but to Facebook it's OK? In some court cases the actual harm matters, and sometimes it's the principle that matters.
  - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
    if the random government bureaucrat "demanded" something of you you didn't want to do, and you laughed him or her out of the room, both actions are okay it seems Facebook was more polite than that, instead just ignoring the random government bureaucrat when it suited them also, in American courts, it is the actual harm that matters. No harm, no standing, no court case.
    - chimeracoder 3y ago
      > also, in American courts, it is the actual harm that matters. No harm, no standing, no court case. Traditionally, yes, although that didn't stop SCOTUS from ruling last week in a case in which the plaintiff experienced no harm (not to mention admitted to perjury).
      - gcoakes 3y ago
        Which one are you referring to? A lot happened last week in the SCOTUS, and I haven't heard of this specific concern.
        ceejayoz 3y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/303_Creative_LLC_v._Elenis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/303_Creative_LLC_v._Elenis > When Smith's suit was filed at the federal district court in 2016, she had not begun designing websites, nor had she received any requests to design a wedding website for a same-sex couple. In 2017, her lawyers ADF filed an affidavit from Smith stating that she had received such a request several days after the initial filing, and appended a copy of the request. Smith never responded to the request, and has stated that she feared she would violate Colorado's law if she were to do so. However, the name, email, and phone number on the online form belong to a man who has long been married to a woman, and who stated that he never submitted such a request, as reported by The New Republic on June 29, 2023, a day before the Supreme Court's decision was released. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/sham-customer-likely-didnt-affect-supreme-court-ruling-sex-weddings-ex-rcna92366 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/sham-customer... > That narrative was thrown into question last week after The New Republic published an article on Stewart, who denied ever having reached out to Smith. It quoted him saying he was a web designer who has been married to a woman for years. > “I wouldn’t want anybody to … make me a wedding website?” the man identified only as Stewart told the magazine. “I’m married, I have a child — I’m not really sure where that came from? But somebody’s using false information in a Supreme Court filing document.” Perjury is probably a stretch, and it's unlikely to affect the ruling any.
        chimeracoder 3y ago
        > Perjury is probably a stretch, and it's unlikely to affect the ruling any. Perjury is not a stretch. The case was revised before it reached SCOTUS, but her original court filing claimed that she had received a request from a specific named individual to design a website for his gay wedding. Not only has that individual - who is a heterosexual man already married to a woman - denied ever making a request, but the plaintiff herself later claimed in court documents, under penalty of perjury, that she had not yet received a request to design a wedding website from a gay couple. The case as presented to SCOTUS did not contain any perjurous claims, but the original case undeniably did.
    - axus 3y ago
      There are "criminal attempt" and "conspiracy" charges, so in general it's possible, but probably not in this case. If I'm reading this right, the plaintiffs felt harmed because their information they might have received was effectively censored. Not all of the sources were, but enough of them were removed that would have been published without the government's intervention.
    - gcoakes 3y ago
      This is one of those times where I look at what someone says, and think, "Aren't you the same people who thought X about Y, and now, you think something that seems totally contradictory because Y' happens to support the opposite side?" Then, I realize all sides are comprised of heterogenous people with ideas that happen to have similar throughlines, and I'm comparing your statement to something I read from someone I perceived as being from the same side. To this specific topic, could you clarify your position? Do you think the same is applicable to a police officer or an IRS agent? The specific thing that made me think your statement was contradictory was police. The left was demanding police to be accountable seemingly five minutes ago. For most police departments, I think they went too far in saying the whole system was corrupt. I think there's at least an argument to be made about the extent of the Biden administration's involvement, but certainly you think the person doing the coercion should be punished, right? It seems to me that any case of a "random bureaucrat" attempting to coerce a citizen or company outside of their civil mandate should be punished to the maximum extent of the law. If there isn't a criminal punishment already for this, one should be created and applied retroactively because it should be common sense.
      - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
        if an IRS employee told you that you needed to delete a social media post, you'd obviously realize they have no authority to do so, just like a BLS employee for example, and you could tell either to go stuff themselves in as polite a fashion as you prefer in the case of a police officer, our current society is one in which police officers can and often do immediately assault and/or shoot and/or kill you for doing or being something they don't like, regardless of whether you're right or wrong, and they can do so with little question and no internal criticism or retribution or punishment, which is an entirely different issue in and of itself the same is obviously not true of Steve who works at the IRS. Steve would be tried for murder. So would Flaherty.
  - mrguyorama 3y ago
    Laura at the DMV could tell me to disallow ISIS from buying stuff from my company and there's no way I could consider that an actionable threat of any kind.
GeekyBear 3y ago
> I'd look at it the same as a police officer demanding things. The Government cannot demand that political speech be censored without running afoul of the First Amendment. If you recall, the courts didn't allow Trump to block critical accounts on Twitter.
- efitz 3y ago
  That is literally what the government was found to be doing by a court.
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    That's not what a preliminary injunction is. A judge has ordered that the government not do the in-dispute things while the dispute is being ajudicated in court.
- krona 3y ago
  Facebook is employing former CIA agents to moderate content/determine misinformation policies. https://thehill.com/hilltv/3566225-reporter-facebook-using-ex-cia-to-decide-misinformation-policy-is-very-very-worrying/ https://thehill.com/hilltv/3566225-reporter-facebook-using-e...
  - GeekyBear 3y ago
    I don't know that former government officials are the same level of problem that demands from (then) current government officials are. For example: > We released a list of 354 names Maine Senate Angus King wanted taken down for reasons like “Rand Paul visit excitement,” “followed by [former Republican opponent Eric] Brakey,” and my personal favorite, “mentions immigration.” For balance we also released a letter from a Republican official at the State Department, Mark Lenzi, who tells Twitter about 14 real Americans “you may want to look into and delete.” https://www.racket.news/p/capsule-summaries-of-all-twitter https://www.racket.news/p/capsule-summaries-of-all-twitter This behavior clearly violates the First Amendment.
    - 3y ago

by axus 3y ago

ImPostingOnHN 3y ago

I'd look at it as some random government bureaucrat demanding it: the fact that the company felt comfortable ignoring said random bureaucrat when it suited them seems to indicate they didn't feel coerced at all

axus 3y ago
So if they did it to me, it's bad, but to Facebook it's OK? In some court cases the actual harm matters, and sometimes it's the principle that matters.
- ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
  if the random government bureaucrat "demanded" something of you you didn't want to do, and you laughed him or her out of the room, both actions are okay it seems Facebook was more polite than that, instead just ignoring the random government bureaucrat when it suited them also, in American courts, it is the actual harm that matters. No harm, no standing, no court case.
  - chimeracoder 3y ago
    > also, in American courts, it is the actual harm that matters. No harm, no standing, no court case. Traditionally, yes, although that didn't stop SCOTUS from ruling last week in a case in which the plaintiff experienced no harm (not to mention admitted to perjury).
    - gcoakes 3y ago
      Which one are you referring to? A lot happened last week in the SCOTUS, and I haven't heard of this specific concern.
      - ceejayoz 3y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/303_Creative_LLC_v._Elenis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/303_Creative_LLC_v._Elenis > When Smith's suit was filed at the federal district court in 2016, she had not begun designing websites, nor had she received any requests to design a wedding website for a same-sex couple. In 2017, her lawyers ADF filed an affidavit from Smith stating that she had received such a request several days after the initial filing, and appended a copy of the request. Smith never responded to the request, and has stated that she feared she would violate Colorado's law if she were to do so. However, the name, email, and phone number on the online form belong to a man who has long been married to a woman, and who stated that he never submitted such a request, as reported by The New Republic on June 29, 2023, a day before the Supreme Court's decision was released. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/sham-customer-likely-didnt-affect-supreme-court-ruling-sex-weddings-ex-rcna92366 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/sham-customer... > That narrative was thrown into question last week after The New Republic published an article on Stewart, who denied ever having reached out to Smith. It quoted him saying he was a web designer who has been married to a woman for years. > “I wouldn’t want anybody to … make me a wedding website?” the man identified only as Stewart told the magazine. “I’m married, I have a child — I’m not really sure where that came from? But somebody’s using false information in a Supreme Court filing document.” Perjury is probably a stretch, and it's unlikely to affect the ruling any.
        chimeracoder 3y ago
        > Perjury is probably a stretch, and it's unlikely to affect the ruling any. Perjury is not a stretch. The case was revised before it reached SCOTUS, but her original court filing claimed that she had received a request from a specific named individual to design a website for his gay wedding. Not only has that individual - who is a heterosexual man already married to a woman - denied ever making a request, but the plaintiff herself later claimed in court documents, under penalty of perjury, that she had not yet received a request to design a wedding website from a gay couple. The case as presented to SCOTUS did not contain any perjurous claims, but the original case undeniably did.
  - axus 3y ago
    There are "criminal attempt" and "conspiracy" charges, so in general it's possible, but probably not in this case. If I'm reading this right, the plaintiffs felt harmed because their information they might have received was effectively censored. Not all of the sources were, but enough of them were removed that would have been published without the government's intervention.
  - gcoakes 3y ago
    This is one of those times where I look at what someone says, and think, "Aren't you the same people who thought X about Y, and now, you think something that seems totally contradictory because Y' happens to support the opposite side?" Then, I realize all sides are comprised of heterogenous people with ideas that happen to have similar throughlines, and I'm comparing your statement to something I read from someone I perceived as being from the same side. To this specific topic, could you clarify your position? Do you think the same is applicable to a police officer or an IRS agent? The specific thing that made me think your statement was contradictory was police. The left was demanding police to be accountable seemingly five minutes ago. For most police departments, I think they went too far in saying the whole system was corrupt. I think there's at least an argument to be made about the extent of the Biden administration's involvement, but certainly you think the person doing the coercion should be punished, right? It seems to me that any case of a "random bureaucrat" attempting to coerce a citizen or company outside of their civil mandate should be punished to the maximum extent of the law. If there isn't a criminal punishment already for this, one should be created and applied retroactively because it should be common sense.
    - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
      if an IRS employee told you that you needed to delete a social media post, you'd obviously realize they have no authority to do so, just like a BLS employee for example, and you could tell either to go stuff themselves in as polite a fashion as you prefer in the case of a police officer, our current society is one in which police officers can and often do immediately assault and/or shoot and/or kill you for doing or being something they don't like, regardless of whether you're right or wrong, and they can do so with little question and no internal criticism or retribution or punishment, which is an entirely different issue in and of itself the same is obviously not true of Steve who works at the IRS. Steve would be tried for murder. So would Flaherty.
- mrguyorama 3y ago
  Laura at the DMV could tell me to disallow ISIS from buying stuff from my company and there's no way I could consider that an actionable threat of any kind.

GeekyBear 3y ago

> I'd look at it the same as a police officer demanding things. The Government cannot demand that political speech be censored without running afoul of the First Amendment. If you recall, the courts didn't allow Trump to block critical accounts on Twitter.

efitz 3y ago
That is literally what the government was found to be doing by a court.
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  That's not what a preliminary injunction is. A judge has ordered that the government not do the in-dispute things while the dispute is being ajudicated in court.
krona 3y ago
Facebook is employing former CIA agents to moderate content/determine misinformation policies. https://thehill.com/hilltv/3566225-reporter-facebook-using-ex-cia-to-decide-misinformation-policy-is-very-very-worrying/ https://thehill.com/hilltv/3566225-reporter-facebook-using-e...
- GeekyBear 3y ago
  I don't know that former government officials are the same level of problem that demands from (then) current government officials are. For example: > We released a list of 354 names Maine Senate Angus King wanted taken down for reasons like “Rand Paul visit excitement,” “followed by [former Republican opponent Eric] Brakey,” and my personal favorite, “mentions immigration.” For balance we also released a letter from a Republican official at the State Department, Mark Lenzi, who tells Twitter about 14 real Americans “you may want to look into and delete.” https://www.racket.news/p/capsule-summaries-of-all-twitter https://www.racket.news/p/capsule-summaries-of-all-twitter This behavior clearly violates the First Amendment.
  - 3y ago