5 ms·

It’s a blatantly illegal prior restraint on speech, completely at odds with the values the plaintiffs and judge claim to hold. Free speech cuts both ways. If y

by brasic 3y ago

It’s a blatantly illegal prior restraint on speech, completely at odds with the values the plaintiffs and judge claim to hold. Free speech cuts both ways. If you’re pleased when a judge bans any and all communication among millions of citizens, you don’t actually value the first amendment, you’re just cheering a partisan victory.

ch4s3 3y ago
There's a 5 part test laid out by the 9th circuit in Gibson v. Office of Attorney Gen related to speech rights of government employees. The government has broad latitude to restrict the speech that occurs in the course of a government employee's job, SCOTUS laid this out in Garcetti v. Ceballos. Moreover, this is an injunction related to the pending trial, and while judges can sometimes be a bit too aggressive for my taste there seems to be a compelling reason here.
curiousllama 3y ago
I mean, I don't agree with the top level comment here, but this isn't a reverse-free-speech issue. Courts are absolutely free to restrain what public officials can say. E.g., a regulator cannot say "if you don't burn this book, we'll tax you out of existence" while a person could say "if you don't burn this book, I'll vote to have you taxed out of existence"
- brasic 3y ago
  A narrowly tailored prohibition on specific speech aimed at specific government officials may be permissable in some cases. This injunction is carelessly worded to apply to millions of people and to preclude essentially all communications related to "protected free speech". The breadth and vagueness is specifically what I'm objecting to.
  - shkkmo 3y ago
    Did you read the injunction? it isn't vague at all. The injunction only prohibits actions which should be illegal in the first place. Can you name a specific action that you think this injunction prohibits or potentially prohibits that you think should be allowed?
meragrin_ 3y ago
> If you’re pleased when a judge bans any and all communication among millions of citizens, you don’t actually value the first amendment, you’re just cheering a partisan victory. What? You seem very misinformed. Here's the ruling: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520.294.0_2.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.18...
- brasic 3y ago
  I linked that in my original comment in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36616058 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36616058
  - meragrin_ 3y ago
    Perhaps read(or reread) it? There is literally nothing in there which "bans any and all communication among millions of citizens".
    - brasic 3y ago
      The targets of the injunction are the following agencies. The wording makes clear that all members of said agencies are in scope of the injunction: HHS: 80,000 NIAID: 18,000 CDC: 11,000 Census Bureau: 5,000 FBI: 40,000 (double counted under DOJ) DOJ: 115,000 CISA: 3000 DHS: 260,000 State Department: 14,000 Among the actions prohibited are communicating with "social media companies", defined in the injunction as including: "Facebook/Meta, Twitter, YouTube/Google, WhatsApp, Instagram, WeChat,TikTok, Sina Weibo, QQ, Telegram, Snapchat, Kuaishou, Qzone, Pinterest, Reddit, LinkedIn, Quora, Discord, Twitch, Tumblr, Mastodon, and like companies." That list, especially given the "like companies" part, includes easily several million people. Also "Election Integrity Partnership, the Virality Project, the Stanford Internet Observatory, or any like project or group". What makes a group "like" those orgs? The prohibited topics and purposes of communication are incredibly vague, basically anything contrary to "protected free speech", which has no definition in the injunction and is famously tricky to define in US law. This amounts to a blanket ban from where I'm sitting. If I were a low level staffer at DHS this would arguably prohibit me from expressing opinions on this matter to a friend or spouse working at a social media company, for fear of, for example, "encouraging reduction of content posted with social-media companies containing protected free speech". The fact that that example is silly is precisely my point. Injunctions must be narrowly tailored to address the specific conduct at issue. This is so broad as to make a joke of the process and in doing so harms the free speech and rule of law that are at issue in this case.
engineer_22 3y ago
Thanks! Good discussion follows this comment, thank you :)
phpisthebest 3y ago
>>Free speech cuts both ways. You have completely miss understood the purpose of the Constitution and the 1st amendment, the Constitution is the States and the People limiting the power and role of the federal government. The 1st amendment DOES NOT bestow or grant the US Government any freedom of speech, in fact it specifically limits the US Governments freedom / power in many ways by baring it from actions and activities that curb the speech of the people of these united states. To proclaim this ruling is "violating the rights of the government" is a complete and utter inversion of the how the constitution works, and the direction of power. We the people...
- michaelmrose 3y ago
  We are all "the people" even when acting in our official capacity as government employees. It also doesn't bestow shit. It says our rights are self evident and forbids the government, which includes the judiciary, from stomping on them.
  - AbrahamParangi 3y ago
    Yeah, no this just ain't so. You may in your personal devotion believe that Jesus Christ is Lord. If you say that in your private life, no problem. That's your freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Now let's say you clock in to your job as Attorney General and you make it known that you think Christianity is the best and other religions are sad and misguided. Then we have a problem. You have rights as an individual and you have official duties acting as the government but the government does not also receive your rights by proxy.
    - michaelmrose 3y ago
      You have a right to speak freely, duties you agree to abide by as an employee, laws you must follow, and an obligation to respect the constitution and the rights of citizens. The fact that you can't in your official capacity promote Jeebus means your conduct must not infringe on the rights of others not that you have no rights at all.
chipsa 3y ago
You seem to be under a misapprehension of how free speech works for the government: it doesn't. The government has no rights. It has powers. People have rights, including the right to freedom of speech. If the government is barred from doing something directly, they can't then try to do it indirectly by telling a third party to do it for them.
Manuel_D 3y ago
> If you’re pleased when a judge bans any and all communication among millions of citizens, you don’t actually value the first amendment, you’re just cheering a partisan victory. Except, that's not what's happening? The judge ordered the government not to contact a handful of companies, because it was coercing them into censoring speech it didn't like. A restraining order on a harasser is not a violation of the first amendment. This ruling is like putting a restraining order on an executive branch that was harassing companies into censoring speech.

by brasic 3y ago

ch4s3 3y ago

There's a 5 part test laid out by the 9th circuit in Gibson v. Office of Attorney Gen related to speech rights of government employees. The government has broad latitude to restrict the speech that occurs in the course of a government employee's job, SCOTUS laid this out in Garcetti v. Ceballos. Moreover, this is an injunction related to the pending trial, and while judges can sometimes be a bit too aggressive for my taste there seems to be a compelling reason here.

curiousllama 3y ago

I mean, I don't agree with the top level comment here, but this isn't a reverse-free-speech issue. Courts are absolutely free to restrain what public officials can say. E.g., a regulator cannot say "if you don't burn this book, we'll tax you out of existence" while a person could say "if you don't burn this book, I'll vote to have you taxed out of existence"

brasic 3y ago
A narrowly tailored prohibition on specific speech aimed at specific government officials may be permissable in some cases. This injunction is carelessly worded to apply to millions of people and to preclude essentially all communications related to "protected free speech". The breadth and vagueness is specifically what I'm objecting to.
- shkkmo 3y ago
  Did you read the injunction? it isn't vague at all. The injunction only prohibits actions which should be illegal in the first place. Can you name a specific action that you think this injunction prohibits or potentially prohibits that you think should be allowed?

meragrin_ 3y ago

> If you’re pleased when a judge bans any and all communication among millions of citizens, you don’t actually value the first amendment, you’re just cheering a partisan victory. What? You seem very misinformed. Here's the ruling: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520.294.0_2.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.18...

brasic 3y ago
I linked that in my original comment in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36616058 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36616058
- meragrin_ 3y ago
  Perhaps read(or reread) it? There is literally nothing in there which "bans any and all communication among millions of citizens".
  - brasic 3y ago
    The targets of the injunction are the following agencies. The wording makes clear that all members of said agencies are in scope of the injunction: HHS: 80,000 NIAID: 18,000 CDC: 11,000 Census Bureau: 5,000 FBI: 40,000 (double counted under DOJ) DOJ: 115,000 CISA: 3000 DHS: 260,000 State Department: 14,000 Among the actions prohibited are communicating with "social media companies", defined in the injunction as including: "Facebook/Meta, Twitter, YouTube/Google, WhatsApp, Instagram, WeChat,TikTok, Sina Weibo, QQ, Telegram, Snapchat, Kuaishou, Qzone, Pinterest, Reddit, LinkedIn, Quora, Discord, Twitch, Tumblr, Mastodon, and like companies." That list, especially given the "like companies" part, includes easily several million people. Also "Election Integrity Partnership, the Virality Project, the Stanford Internet Observatory, or any like project or group". What makes a group "like" those orgs? The prohibited topics and purposes of communication are incredibly vague, basically anything contrary to "protected free speech", which has no definition in the injunction and is famously tricky to define in US law. This amounts to a blanket ban from where I'm sitting. If I were a low level staffer at DHS this would arguably prohibit me from expressing opinions on this matter to a friend or spouse working at a social media company, for fear of, for example, "encouraging reduction of content posted with social-media companies containing protected free speech". The fact that that example is silly is precisely my point. Injunctions must be narrowly tailored to address the specific conduct at issue. This is so broad as to make a joke of the process and in doing so harms the free speech and rule of law that are at issue in this case.

engineer_22 3y ago

Thanks! Good discussion follows this comment, thank you :)

phpisthebest 3y ago

>>Free speech cuts both ways. You have completely miss understood the purpose of the Constitution and the 1st amendment, the Constitution is the States and the People limiting the power and role of the federal government. The 1st amendment DOES NOT bestow or grant the US Government any freedom of speech, in fact it specifically limits the US Governments freedom / power in many ways by baring it from actions and activities that curb the speech of the people of these united states. To proclaim this ruling is "violating the rights of the government" is a complete and utter inversion of the how the constitution works, and the direction of power. We the people...

michaelmrose 3y ago
We are all "the people" even when acting in our official capacity as government employees. It also doesn't bestow shit. It says our rights are self evident and forbids the government, which includes the judiciary, from stomping on them.
- AbrahamParangi 3y ago
  Yeah, no this just ain't so. You may in your personal devotion believe that Jesus Christ is Lord. If you say that in your private life, no problem. That's your freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Now let's say you clock in to your job as Attorney General and you make it known that you think Christianity is the best and other religions are sad and misguided. Then we have a problem. You have rights as an individual and you have official duties acting as the government but the government does not also receive your rights by proxy.
  - michaelmrose 3y ago
    You have a right to speak freely, duties you agree to abide by as an employee, laws you must follow, and an obligation to respect the constitution and the rights of citizens. The fact that you can't in your official capacity promote Jeebus means your conduct must not infringe on the rights of others not that you have no rights at all.

chipsa 3y ago

You seem to be under a misapprehension of how free speech works for the government: it doesn't. The government has no rights. It has powers. People have rights, including the right to freedom of speech. If the government is barred from doing something directly, they can't then try to do it indirectly by telling a third party to do it for them.

Manuel_D 3y ago

> If you’re pleased when a judge bans any and all communication among millions of citizens, you don’t actually value the first amendment, you’re just cheering a partisan victory. Except, that's not what's happening? The judge ordered the government not to contact a handful of companies, because it was coercing them into censoring speech it didn't like. A restraining order on a harasser is not a violation of the first amendment. This ruling is like putting a restraining order on an executive branch that was harassing companies into censoring speech.