4 ms·

An entity that has power over you "asking" you to do anything is inherently coercive.

by Karunamon 3y ago

Zetice 3y ago
The point is they don’t have power, as stated in the First Amendment.
- Karunamon 3y ago
  That's a nice legal fiction, but realistically, they did until the moment the courts stepped in and told them to back off. Unless there are severe consequences for unconstitutional actions, the abuse always comes first.
  - Zetice 3y ago
    ...none of this is what the parent comment was talking about in their claim that there is a "war on free speech".
    - Karunamon 3y ago
      You are confusing de jure power with de facto power. Government has shown, again and again, that they will abuse and overstep without any legal right to do so. In the meantime until the courts catch up, that coercive power imbalance still exists.
      - Zetice 3y ago
        I literally just said this isn’t what the person I replied to was talking about. I’m mistaking nothing.
- benmmurphy 3y ago
  The other issue is often it is government employees who have been paid by laws passed by congress (appropriations) making these requests. So the act of making the request potentially makes the appropriation a violation of the first amendment. I don’t think it’s a stretch to interpret the government using money to pay people to request twitter to remove protected speech as ‘abridging free speech’ and such appropriations as congress passing a law. There is similar case law for how publicly funded universities must conduct themselves. Though, even though you could make a similar argument for how public universities work I suspect courts have used a different argument to justify that framework. But it’s very weird to me that universities run by the state must be viewpoint and content neutral in their speech restrictions even if there is no explicit law passed by the government to restrict speech but the government is allowed to employ a mass of people to make ‘requests’ and such requests don’t need to pass a viewpoint and content neutrality test. The situations are very similar because in both cases there is not an explicit law passed by the government punishing people for making bad speech.

An entity that has power over you "asking" you to do anything is inherently coercive.

Zetice 3y ago

The point is they don’t have power, as stated in the First Amendment.

Karunamon 3y ago
That's a nice legal fiction, but realistically, they did until the moment the courts stepped in and told them to back off. Unless there are severe consequences for unconstitutional actions, the abuse always comes first.
- Zetice 3y ago
  ...none of this is what the parent comment was talking about in their claim that there is a "war on free speech".
  - Karunamon 3y ago
    You are confusing de jure power with de facto power. Government has shown, again and again, that they will abuse and overstep without any legal right to do so. In the meantime until the courts catch up, that coercive power imbalance still exists.
    - Zetice 3y ago
      I literally just said this isn’t what the person I replied to was talking about. I’m mistaking nothing.
benmmurphy 3y ago
The other issue is often it is government employees who have been paid by laws passed by congress (appropriations) making these requests. So the act of making the request potentially makes the appropriation a violation of the first amendment. I don’t think it’s a stretch to interpret the government using money to pay people to request twitter to remove protected speech as ‘abridging free speech’ and such appropriations as congress passing a law. There is similar case law for how publicly funded universities must conduct themselves. Though, even though you could make a similar argument for how public universities work I suspect courts have used a different argument to justify that framework. But it’s very weird to me that universities run by the state must be viewpoint and content neutral in their speech restrictions even if there is no explicit law passed by the government to restrict speech but the government is allowed to employ a mass of people to make ‘requests’ and such requests don’t need to pass a viewpoint and content neutrality test. The situations are very similar because in both cases there is not an explicit law passed by the government punishing people for making bad speech.