5 ms·

Just to be clear, this appeals ruling mostly reversed the original decision of the original court. The original court's decision applied 10 different restrictio

Just to be clear, this appeals ruling mostly reversed the original decision of the original court. The original court's decision applied 10 different restrictions on government officials. The 5th circuit (itself widely known to be conservative) overturned nine of those ten restrictions, and also overturned many of the agencies they apply to. The appeals ruling, therefore, is being interpreted here (and, in many cases, intentionally spun) in a way exactly opposite to what it actually found, which is the government largely acted correctly.

catiopatio 3y ago
[flagged]
- hackyhacky 3y ago
  > Did you actually read the article or the decision itself? I read the decision. Did you read my comment? Your citation is correct, but you're ignoring the parts where the appeals court disagrees with the trial court. In short, the trial court wildly overshot the mark. The actual violation as found by the appeals court is much more modest. My opinion is that even this version goes too far and will be overturned as well. "Significant encouragement" is likely protected speech and does not constitute a violation.
  - catiopatio 3y ago
    An appeals court overturning portions of a preliminary injunction does not indicate that “the government largely acted correctly” — the appeals court itself says the exact opposite. You stated that “The appeals ruling, therefore, is being interpreted here (and, in many cases, intentionally spun) in a way exactly opposite to what it actually found”, but that’s literally what you’re doing — blatantly in bad faith, contrary to the headline, the article in a major newspaper, and the actual decision itself.
    - hackyhacky 3y ago
      Well, that's your opinion. My opinion is that striking down 9 out of the 10 restrictions placed by the trial court indicates precisely what I said. You're entitled to your opinion, but you have no basis to accuse me of acting in bad faith.
      - catiopatio 3y ago
        It’s not my opinion — it’s the appeals court’s opinion and the New York Times’ reporting of that opinion. They couldn’t have been more plain, and that’s entirely sufficient basis for my accusation. Upholding the position that the plaintiffs have standing, are likely to prevail, and more narrowly targeting the preliminary injunction is unequivocally not a finding against the plaintiffs. Claiming otherwise is blatantly dishonest.
      - user3939382 3y ago
        What’s not an opinion is that the decision explicitly states that the court agrees that some of the most powerful institutions in our society, the White House, CDC, and FBI, violated our most fundamental right of free speech. My opinion is that you’re one of these pro-censorship people and are trying to spin how horrible and illegal the courts are saying this conduct is.
        hackyhacky 3y ago
        Sure, man. Also the libs are coming to force you to get gay married and to steal your guns. This appeals court decision barely supported any of the overreach of the trial judge; and as a well-known super-conservative circuit, they're using the opportunity to grind their own political axe by paying homage to the current Fox News-promoted talking points. If you think this decision isn't political, compare it to similar attempts in the past when the give has requested compliance from media in exchange for favors or threats. Or contrast it to the conspicuous silence from the "anti-censorship" crowd when conservative governors gut their state's educational system and destroy programs that teach subjects they find politically objectionable. And apparently you've bought into that narrative entirely, as soon as you call anyone with a bit more historical perspective "pro-censorship." I'm not "pro-censorship", whatever that means. What I see is a good-faith if inept attempt to combat massive, coordinated, and dangerous misinformation, an activity that falls well within the gov's purview.
- acdha 3y ago
  > Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that". https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - catiopatio 3y ago
    It’s a reasonable question when the comment contradicts the headline, the article, and the decision. It’s not some minor detail in the article.
    - acdha 3y ago
      Your comment is accusatory but not adding anything. A single random quote from a large decision with no context or discussion about the larger case doesn’t contribute the way it would if you wrote some original argument of your own based on your understanding of the original case and the appeal.
      - catiopatio 3y ago
        There’s an entire article, with a plain headline, backing up what I stated. The degree of motivating reasoning involved here is astonishing.
        acdha 3y ago
        Yes, we all read the article. What value does copying and pasting a paragraph add?
        hackyhacky 3y ago
        The headline omits important details. Do you really trust the media to accurately summarize this issue in a few words?
        catiopatio 3y ago

catiopatio 3y ago

[flagged]

hackyhacky 3y ago
> Did you actually read the article or the decision itself? I read the decision. Did you read my comment? Your citation is correct, but you're ignoring the parts where the appeals court disagrees with the trial court. In short, the trial court wildly overshot the mark. The actual violation as found by the appeals court is much more modest. My opinion is that even this version goes too far and will be overturned as well. "Significant encouragement" is likely protected speech and does not constitute a violation.
- catiopatio 3y ago
  An appeals court overturning portions of a preliminary injunction does not indicate that “the government largely acted correctly” — the appeals court itself says the exact opposite. You stated that “The appeals ruling, therefore, is being interpreted here (and, in many cases, intentionally spun) in a way exactly opposite to what it actually found”, but that’s literally what you’re doing — blatantly in bad faith, contrary to the headline, the article in a major newspaper, and the actual decision itself.
  - hackyhacky 3y ago
    Well, that's your opinion. My opinion is that striking down 9 out of the 10 restrictions placed by the trial court indicates precisely what I said. You're entitled to your opinion, but you have no basis to accuse me of acting in bad faith.
    - catiopatio 3y ago
      It’s not my opinion — it’s the appeals court’s opinion and the New York Times’ reporting of that opinion. They couldn’t have been more plain, and that’s entirely sufficient basis for my accusation. Upholding the position that the plaintiffs have standing, are likely to prevail, and more narrowly targeting the preliminary injunction is unequivocally not a finding against the plaintiffs. Claiming otherwise is blatantly dishonest.
    - user3939382 3y ago
      What’s not an opinion is that the decision explicitly states that the court agrees that some of the most powerful institutions in our society, the White House, CDC, and FBI, violated our most fundamental right of free speech. My opinion is that you’re one of these pro-censorship people and are trying to spin how horrible and illegal the courts are saying this conduct is.
      - hackyhacky 3y ago
        Sure, man. Also the libs are coming to force you to get gay married and to steal your guns. This appeals court decision barely supported any of the overreach of the trial judge; and as a well-known super-conservative circuit, they're using the opportunity to grind their own political axe by paying homage to the current Fox News-promoted talking points. If you think this decision isn't political, compare it to similar attempts in the past when the give has requested compliance from media in exchange for favors or threats. Or contrast it to the conspicuous silence from the "anti-censorship" crowd when conservative governors gut their state's educational system and destroy programs that teach subjects they find politically objectionable. And apparently you've bought into that narrative entirely, as soon as you call anyone with a bit more historical perspective "pro-censorship." I'm not "pro-censorship", whatever that means. What I see is a good-faith if inept attempt to combat massive, coordinated, and dangerous misinformation, an activity that falls well within the gov's purview.
acdha 3y ago
> Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that". https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- catiopatio 3y ago
  It’s a reasonable question when the comment contradicts the headline, the article, and the decision. It’s not some minor detail in the article.
  - acdha 3y ago
    Your comment is accusatory but not adding anything. A single random quote from a large decision with no context or discussion about the larger case doesn’t contribute the way it would if you wrote some original argument of your own based on your understanding of the original case and the appeal.
    - catiopatio 3y ago
      There’s an entire article, with a plain headline, backing up what I stated. The degree of motivating reasoning involved here is astonishing.
      - acdha 3y ago
        Yes, we all read the article. What value does copying and pasting a paragraph add?
      - hackyhacky 3y ago
        The headline omits important details. Do you really trust the media to accurately summarize this issue in a few words?
        catiopatio 3y ago