3 ms·

Lol using the one instance that trump asked for something stupid and was denied and pretending that happened a lot is again a very intentional mischaracterizati

by vxNsr 3y ago

Lol using the one instance that trump asked for something stupid and was denied and pretending that happened a lot is again a very intentional mischaracterization of what happened. Not only is that apparently like one of the only times trump asked for something it’s totally dwarfed in comparison to the Biden admin’s many censorship requests which had no pushback despite being equally frivolous. Not to mention the laptop from hell. Really this sort of thing should be seen as an in-kind political contribution, and the fact it’s not shows just how captured the entire judicial and regulatory branch is.

ceejayoz 3y ago
If you think Trump's team only ever asked for one single tweet to come down, I don't know what to tell you. Again, censorship requests aren't a First Amendment violation. Joe Biden can request you go fuck yourself. He cannot order you to go fuck yourself. The Twitter Files make it quite clear Twitter etc. understood this distinction. For example, here's a Twitter Files post of them saying "go get a court order" to a data request. https://twitter.com/shellenberger/status/1604888013422485505/photo/2 https://twitter.com/shellenberger/status/1604888013422485505...
- vxNsr 3y ago
  Wow, why does it always feel like I get into this same merrygoround every 6 months with the same goalposts being retreated to the same positions, with each argument until we’re suddenly talking about how Reagan once brushed past a reporter so clearly his party is the authoritarian one. It’s so tiring. We went from politicians ordering (with implied threats) political action from private citizens to the FBI requesting something without a warrent… if you can’t see the difference idk why we’re even talking.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - mrguyorama 3y ago
    Because you are absolutely full of shit and not acting in good faith. You claimed "companies acting in lockstep", and then the other guy provided multiple sourced examples of of twitter employees giving the feds a clear "Nope, not going to happen", which IS NOT LOCKSTEP
    - vxNsr 3y ago
      He gave a single example of refusing an FBI inquiry which isn't anywhere close to the same thing as accepting every single political request. In case this is news to you, the FBI is not supposed to be politically motivated. The fact that you think this is the same thing is incredibly concerning. Conflating an FBI inquiry with a political do this or else "request" shows exactly how you view the FBI in relation to your political party... kinda saying the quiet part out loud...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- claytongulick 3y ago
  > Again, censorship requests aren't a First Amendment violation That's probably not true. Volumes of case law support that even subtle pressure from the government to influence speech is a first amendment violation.
  - mjamil 3y ago
    Clayton, you've made this claim a couple of times. Do you mind citing specific decisions?
    - claytongulick 3y ago
      This is pretty easy to find, but for an excellent judicial review and multiple case law citations I highly recommend reading Judge Doughty's recent decision.
- vxNsr 3y ago
  omg, I just went through that thread in its entirety, it makes it very clear that Roth has a very cozy relationship with the FBI and his only issue was not wanting to change their stance wrt to mass surveillance, which was already compromised due to fisa warrants anyway.
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    I guess I missed the “Congress shall have no cozy relationships” amendment.

by vxNsr 3y ago

ceejayoz 3y ago

If you think Trump's team only ever asked for one single tweet to come down, I don't know what to tell you. Again, censorship requests aren't a First Amendment violation. Joe Biden can request you go fuck yourself. He cannot order you to go fuck yourself. The Twitter Files make it quite clear Twitter etc. understood this distinction. For example, here's a Twitter Files post of them saying "go get a court order" to a data request. https://twitter.com/shellenberger/status/1604888013422485505/photo/2 https://twitter.com/shellenberger/status/1604888013422485505...

vxNsr 3y ago
Wow, why does it always feel like I get into this same merrygoround every 6 months with the same goalposts being retreated to the same positions, with each argument until we’re suddenly talking about how Reagan once brushed past a reporter so clearly his party is the authoritarian one. It’s so tiring. We went from politicians ordering (with implied threats) political action from private citizens to the FBI requesting something without a warrent… if you can’t see the difference idk why we’re even talking.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- mrguyorama 3y ago
  Because you are absolutely full of shit and not acting in good faith. You claimed "companies acting in lockstep", and then the other guy provided multiple sourced examples of of twitter employees giving the feds a clear "Nope, not going to happen", which IS NOT LOCKSTEP
  - vxNsr 3y ago
    He gave a single example of refusing an FBI inquiry which isn't anywhere close to the same thing as accepting every single political request. In case this is news to you, the FBI is not supposed to be politically motivated. The fact that you think this is the same thing is incredibly concerning. Conflating an FBI inquiry with a political do this or else "request" shows exactly how you view the FBI in relation to your political party... kinda saying the quiet part out loud...
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
claytongulick 3y ago
> Again, censorship requests aren't a First Amendment violation That's probably not true. Volumes of case law support that even subtle pressure from the government to influence speech is a first amendment violation.
- mjamil 3y ago
  Clayton, you've made this claim a couple of times. Do you mind citing specific decisions?
  - claytongulick 3y ago
    This is pretty easy to find, but for an excellent judicial review and multiple case law citations I highly recommend reading Judge Doughty's recent decision.
vxNsr 3y ago
omg, I just went through that thread in its entirety, it makes it very clear that Roth has a very cozy relationship with the FBI and his only issue was not wanting to change their stance wrt to mass surveillance, which was already compromised due to fisa warrants anyway.
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  I guess I missed the “Congress shall have no cozy relationships” amendment.