4 ms·

There's no carve out for "a really good reason". The Government may not "abridge the freedom of speech". It can make educational posters, it can distribute inf

There's no carve out for "a really good reason". The Government may not "abridge the freedom of speech". It can make educational posters, it can distribute information, but it can't use it's authority to limit the speech of others. One of my videogame youtubers, the GameGrumps, couldn't say "We have covid" on youtube. Not fake health advice or anything, just explaining they got it and couldn't record for a few days.

cowpig 3y ago
The real world is not like physics, where you can describe things with an equation and they pretty much hold up absolutely. There is always an edge case, a grey area, a situation where you have to use your judgment. Also "There's no carve out for "a really good reason"" is simply incorrect. Fraud? Child pornography? What about if you put the wrong ingredients on your food product and it kills someone with an allergy?
- vorpalhex 3y ago
  You're confusing a prohibiton on speech with behavior you can get in trouble for. Let's say you put out a fraudulant ad selling a bridge. You can be sued, the FTC can sue you, and there could (unlikely) be jail time for you. What the Government can't do is say you're prohibited to take out an ad until they approve it - which is exactly what happened with covid. The Whitehouse abused it's power to prohibit speech being made - it didn't sue someone for eg selling a false cure. Part of the problem is the process. When I sue you for fraud, we go in front of a judge. I have to prove you're engaged in fraud - the burden is on me. If we prevent any unapproved ad from being posted by Government power, there is no due process and the burden of proof shifts to you that you aren't breaking the law. That's not how our justice system works.
  - cowpig 3y ago
    Really? What was the mechanism by which this was enforced that was fundamentally different from, say, the police coming to someone's house and arresting them for the possession of child pornography?
    - vorpalhex 3y ago
      The ability to go in front of a judge and that the burden of proof is on your accuser, for one. Second, there are defenses to CSAM - it's not whatever the government feels is CSAM. The material has to actually be exploitative of children and for obscene purposes, it can't be a medical photo or a Nirvana album cover. Do you really not see a difference between a probibition on any speech not preapproved by the Whitehouse versus charging people for CSAM posession? This wasn't the Whitehouse post-hoc suing someone for hawking false covid cures. This was the Whitehouse saying unapproved messages could not be even discussed by private citizens on platforms.
      - cowpig 3y ago
        > The ability to go in front of a judge We're commenting on the judgment. Made by judges. I'm going to stop responding here, this strategy of basing arguments in imagined alternative worlds of facts is not interesting.
        vorpalhex 3y ago
        This only went in front of a judge because the Whitehouse was sued by Missouri and Louisiana. The Whitehouse is a defendant, not a plaintiff. None of the people censored have standing or were able to go in front of the judge.
        15457345234 3y ago
        [dead]

cowpig 3y ago

The real world is not like physics, where you can describe things with an equation and they pretty much hold up absolutely. There is always an edge case, a grey area, a situation where you have to use your judgment. Also "There's no carve out for "a really good reason"" is simply incorrect. Fraud? Child pornography? What about if you put the wrong ingredients on your food product and it kills someone with an allergy?

vorpalhex 3y ago
You're confusing a prohibiton on speech with behavior you can get in trouble for. Let's say you put out a fraudulant ad selling a bridge. You can be sued, the FTC can sue you, and there could (unlikely) be jail time for you. What the Government can't do is say you're prohibited to take out an ad until they approve it - which is exactly what happened with covid. The Whitehouse abused it's power to prohibit speech being made - it didn't sue someone for eg selling a false cure. Part of the problem is the process. When I sue you for fraud, we go in front of a judge. I have to prove you're engaged in fraud - the burden is on me. If we prevent any unapproved ad from being posted by Government power, there is no due process and the burden of proof shifts to you that you aren't breaking the law. That's not how our justice system works.
- cowpig 3y ago
  Really? What was the mechanism by which this was enforced that was fundamentally different from, say, the police coming to someone's house and arresting them for the possession of child pornography?
  - vorpalhex 3y ago
    The ability to go in front of a judge and that the burden of proof is on your accuser, for one. Second, there are defenses to CSAM - it's not whatever the government feels is CSAM. The material has to actually be exploitative of children and for obscene purposes, it can't be a medical photo or a Nirvana album cover. Do you really not see a difference between a probibition on any speech not preapproved by the Whitehouse versus charging people for CSAM posession? This wasn't the Whitehouse post-hoc suing someone for hawking false covid cures. This was the Whitehouse saying unapproved messages could not be even discussed by private citizens on platforms.
    - cowpig 3y ago
      > The ability to go in front of a judge We're commenting on the judgment. Made by judges. I'm going to stop responding here, this strategy of basing arguments in imagined alternative worlds of facts is not interesting.
      - vorpalhex 3y ago
        This only went in front of a judge because the Whitehouse was sued by Missouri and Louisiana. The Whitehouse is a defendant, not a plaintiff. None of the people censored have standing or were able to go in front of the judge.
      - 15457345234 3y ago
        [dead]