4 ms·
The legal issue is that they used the authority of the Whitehouse to do a "comply or there will be consequences". We've all sat through various crappy powerpoi
by vorpalhex 3y ago
The legal issue is that they used the authority of the Whitehouse to do a "comply or there will be consequences".
We've all sat through various crappy powerpoints on ethics. That is plain and simple coercion. That's a first amendment issue and prohibited.
- ethanbond 3y agoOne minor hiccup being that the allegedly coerced entities didn’t claim (and still haven’t claimed) to have been coerced.
- perhonen 3y agoperhaps because the threat of "comply or there will be consequences" worked.
- rtkwe 3y agoExcept most of the posts pointed out to places like Twitter stayed up with no moderation applied and the worst thing that's happened to Twitter recently is it's acquisition by Musk.
- mistrial9 3y agothis is rewriting history .. the hysterical and high-pitched censorship of all things COVID-19 set a new low for the USA in modern times IMHO California here
- vorpalhex 3y agoCoercion doesn't have to be effective to be illegal, just like a bribe doesn't have to be accepted to be a bribe.
- EricE 3y agoWhy coerce when you can pay for it? The FBI just paid Twitter to do their dirty work.
- thieving_magpie 3y agoI haven't looked into this issue in detail and was surprised to see such a brazen threat so I wanted to find information on your quote "comply or there will be consequences". I'm not able to see that in the context of white house or twitter. I haven't found anything close to it yet. Could you point me to that information?
- throwoutway 3y ago> President Biden, press secretary Jen Psaki and Surgeon General Vivek Murthy later publicly vowed to hold the platforms accountable if they didn’t heighten censorship. https://nclalegal.org/2023/01/the-white-house-covid-censorship-machine/ https://nclalegal.org/2023/01/the-white-house-covid-censorsh...