16 ms·

> 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 Fir

> 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.
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    Doesn't the First Amendment protect the right to say "I think this should be taken down"? (Side note: The Angus King stuff is a misrepresentation. The screenshots are from a spreadsheet - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vS1PbfNEqDCKX7YFNEvXmm7Lil3Z5unKivX5SA5avFE9tF95kgkbDVJpeRhX4lCig/pubhtml# https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vS1PbfNEqDCK... - in which a column indicates how the account first came to the King campaign's attention, not the reason they think they warranted action.)
    - GeekyBear 3y ago
      Not when your are a government official demanding that political speech be censored.
      - ceejayoz 3y ago
        "you may want to look into and delete" isn't a demand. Politicians demand censorship all the time, as is their right. They usually don't get what they want, as they don't typically have the right to enforce their desires. For example: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9619449/Rand-Paul-blames-Richard-Marx-tweet-praising-neighbor-assaulted-suspicious-package.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9619449/Rand-Paul-b... > Rand Paul blasted Twitter on Tuesday for not immediately taking down Richard Marx’s tweet from Sunday in which he offered to buy drinks for the Kentucky neighbor who assaulted the Republican senator in 2017. He can demand. They can say no. Both are First Amendment protected actions.
        GeekyBear 3y ago
        > Politicians demand censorship all the time, as is their right. Sorry, but that just won't fly. > A federal appeals court in Manhattan says President Trump cannot block critics from his Twitter account, calling it "unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination." In a 29-page ruling on Tuesday, a three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously upheld a lower court's decision that found that Trump violated the First Amendment when he blocked certain Twitter users https://www.npr.org/2019/07/09/739906562/u-s-appeals-court-rules-trump-violated-first-amendment-by-blocking-twitter-follo https://www.npr.org/2019/07/09/739906562/u-s-appeals-court-r... Trump may have wanted to silence criticism, but he didn't get away with it, even on his own personal account.
- snowwrestler 3y ago
  What is your theory in posting this? That people who work for the CIA must give up their right to free speech and future private employment? This just reads like unprincipled scare mongering to me.
tzs 3y ago
That was because Trump often used his personal Twitter account for official Presidential stuff instead of using @POTUS or @WhiteHouse. If Trump had done like other presidents and tried to keep official Presidential business off his personal Twitter account he would have been to block anyone he wanted to.

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.
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  Doesn't the First Amendment protect the right to say "I think this should be taken down"? (Side note: The Angus King stuff is a misrepresentation. The screenshots are from a spreadsheet - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vS1PbfNEqDCKX7YFNEvXmm7Lil3Z5unKivX5SA5avFE9tF95kgkbDVJpeRhX4lCig/pubhtml# https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vS1PbfNEqDCK... - in which a column indicates how the account first came to the King campaign's attention, not the reason they think they warranted action.)
  - GeekyBear 3y ago
    Not when your are a government official demanding that political speech be censored.
    - ceejayoz 3y ago
      "you may want to look into and delete" isn't a demand. Politicians demand censorship all the time, as is their right. They usually don't get what they want, as they don't typically have the right to enforce their desires. For example: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9619449/Rand-Paul-blames-Richard-Marx-tweet-praising-neighbor-assaulted-suspicious-package.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9619449/Rand-Paul-b... > Rand Paul blasted Twitter on Tuesday for not immediately taking down Richard Marx’s tweet from Sunday in which he offered to buy drinks for the Kentucky neighbor who assaulted the Republican senator in 2017. He can demand. They can say no. Both are First Amendment protected actions.
      - GeekyBear 3y ago
        > Politicians demand censorship all the time, as is their right. Sorry, but that just won't fly. > A federal appeals court in Manhattan says President Trump cannot block critics from his Twitter account, calling it "unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination." In a 29-page ruling on Tuesday, a three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously upheld a lower court's decision that found that Trump violated the First Amendment when he blocked certain Twitter users https://www.npr.org/2019/07/09/739906562/u-s-appeals-court-rules-trump-violated-first-amendment-by-blocking-twitter-follo https://www.npr.org/2019/07/09/739906562/u-s-appeals-court-r... Trump may have wanted to silence criticism, but he didn't get away with it, even on his own personal account.
snowwrestler 3y ago
What is your theory in posting this? That people who work for the CIA must give up their right to free speech and future private employment? This just reads like unprincipled scare mongering to me.

tzs 3y ago

That was because Trump often used his personal Twitter account for official Presidential stuff instead of using @POTUS or @WhiteHouse. If Trump had done like other presidents and tried to keep official Presidential business off his personal Twitter account he would have been to block anyone he wanted to.