5 ms·

Is it? Reading over pages 4 and 5 of the injunction[0], based on points 4, 5, 9, and 10, it seems government employees are now barred in any way from discussing

Is it? Reading over pages 4 and 5 of the injunction[0], based on points 4, 5, 9, and 10, it seems government employees are now barred in any way from discussing any social media content or company policy protected by the 1st amendment with the companies or nonprofits. > (4) emailing, calling, sending letters, texting, or engaging in any communication of any kind with social-media companies urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner for removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech; > (5) collaborating, coordinating, partnering, switchboarding, and/or jointly working with the Election Integrity Partnership, the Virality Project, the Stanford Internet Observatory, or any like project or group for the purpose of urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content posted with social-media companies containing protected free speech; > (9) requesting content reports from social-media companies detailing actions taken to remove, delete, suppress, or reduce content containing protected free speech; and > (10) notifying social-media companies to Be on The Lookout (“BOLO”) for postings containing protected free speech. As you'll see from my above post, the judge has a curious idea of what 'inducing' censorship entails (among other things: making public statements that might be heard by Reddit mods, who in turn take it upon themselves to remove links to content). [0]https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520.294.0_3.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.18...

dragonwriter 3y ago
> Reading over pages 4 and 5 of the injunction[0], it seems government employees are now barred in any way from discussing any social media content or company policy that isn't explicitly illegal with social media Whether or not any involved content is “explicitly illegal”, they are explicitly permitted to discuss that content so long as it is related to threats to public safety and security of the US, content that may be misleading voters on voting processes, or about content that isn’t Constitutionally protected, among other exceptions; see the explicit exceptions on pp. 5-6. As framed, the exceptions are cumulative and trump the restrictions, so, e.g., a BOLO for content whose context was efforts to protect the public safety and security of the US would permissible under the injunction even if the content was itself Constitutionally protected free speech.
- calgarymicro 3y ago
  Lying about an election to mislead voters on election processes (i.e. time, place, and manner) is illegal.[0] "Threats that threaten the public safety or security of the United States" are also illegal. The judge lists several other things that are also illegal, such as malicious cyber activity and criminal conspiracy, so it doesn't seem like that section is intended to contains exceptions to section 8. [0]https://www.fbi.gov/how-we-can-help-you/safety-resources/scams-and-safety/common-scams-and-crimes/election-crimes-and-security https://www.fbi.gov/how-we-can-help-you/safety-resources/sca...
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > Lying about an election to mislead voters is illegal The big exception is, of course, the last, which covers any content that isn’t protected by the Free Speech Clause whether or not it is expressly illegal.
    - calgarymicro 3y ago
      Ah, you're right; I think most of that speech (fighting words, obscenity, etc.) is already illegal anyway, but in case there's any that isn't, I will edit that to say speech that's "protected by the 1st amendment".
shkkmo 3y ago
"Nearly all contact" != "social media content or company policy that isn't explicitly illegal with social media companies" The types of contact that are still allowed are still the vast majority. The types of contact that are prohibited are those that are potentially viewed as part of efforts to suppress free speech. I really don't understand the objection unless you support the efforts to suppress this free speech.

dragonwriter 3y ago

> Reading over pages 4 and 5 of the injunction[0], it seems government employees are now barred in any way from discussing any social media content or company policy that isn't explicitly illegal with social media Whether or not any involved content is “explicitly illegal”, they are explicitly permitted to discuss that content so long as it is related to threats to public safety and security of the US, content that may be misleading voters on voting processes, or about content that isn’t Constitutionally protected, among other exceptions; see the explicit exceptions on pp. 5-6. As framed, the exceptions are cumulative and trump the restrictions, so, e.g., a BOLO for content whose context was efforts to protect the public safety and security of the US would permissible under the injunction even if the content was itself Constitutionally protected free speech.

calgarymicro 3y ago
Lying about an election to mislead voters on election processes (i.e. time, place, and manner) is illegal.[0] "Threats that threaten the public safety or security of the United States" are also illegal. The judge lists several other things that are also illegal, such as malicious cyber activity and criminal conspiracy, so it doesn't seem like that section is intended to contains exceptions to section 8. [0]https://www.fbi.gov/how-we-can-help-you/safety-resources/scams-and-safety/common-scams-and-crimes/election-crimes-and-security https://www.fbi.gov/how-we-can-help-you/safety-resources/sca...
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > Lying about an election to mislead voters is illegal The big exception is, of course, the last, which covers any content that isn’t protected by the Free Speech Clause whether or not it is expressly illegal.
  - calgarymicro 3y ago
    Ah, you're right; I think most of that speech (fighting words, obscenity, etc.) is already illegal anyway, but in case there's any that isn't, I will edit that to say speech that's "protected by the 1st amendment".

shkkmo 3y ago

"Nearly all contact" != "social media content or company policy that isn't explicitly illegal with social media companies" The types of contact that are still allowed are still the vast majority. The types of contact that are prohibited are those that are potentially viewed as part of efforts to suppress free speech. I really don't understand the objection unless you support the efforts to suppress this free speech.