3 ms·

If the government is violating my fourth amendment rights if it arranges for a third party to search my property when they cannot themselves, it follows that it

by vdqtp3 3y ago

If the government is violating my fourth amendment rights if it arranges for a third party to search my property when they cannot themselves, it follows that it would be equally unacceptable for them to arrange for a third party to censor my speech. https://www.fletc.gov/audio/definition-government-agent-under-4th-amendment-mp3 https://www.fletc.gov/audio/definition-government-agent-unde...

notpachet 3y ago
I don't think the analogy holds. Twitter is not your house. It would be akin to arguing that federal agents shouldn't be allowed to search your checked bags when you board a domestic flight. Again, I'm not saying that there shouldn't be any restrictions on searching those belongings, but it's less black-and-white than you suggest.
- vdqtp3 3y ago
  Do you think the government would have been overstepping if they ordered Twitter to make the removal, against their will?
  - notpachet 3y ago
    I don't know. I think it depends on a lot of factors. I think there are some circumstances where that sort of heavy-handed approach would be warranted, but I also think there are a lot of cases where it would be unwarranted and potentially an abuse of rights. The challenge is coming up with a litmus test to differentiate the two. As I've pointed out multiple times in this thread, the Supreme Court will soon hear arguments on that exact issue. I am curious to read the opinions of the various justices on the matter.
- superhumanuser 3y ago
  https://apnews.com/article/social-media-protected-speech-lawsuit-injunction-d8070ef43b3b89e8e76b4569c77446d9 https://apnews.com/article/social-media-protected-speech-law... Looks like a federal judge felt that the US Government was overstepping and "seems to have assumed a role similar to an Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth" and decided to block them from engaging in the censorship behavior.
  - notpachet 3y ago
    Did you miss the link I posted above? The Supreme Court put that ruling on hold: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23a243_7l48.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23a243_7l48.pdf Hence my argument about this not being settled law.

by vdqtp3 3y ago

notpachet 3y ago

I don't think the analogy holds. Twitter is not your house. It would be akin to arguing that federal agents shouldn't be allowed to search your checked bags when you board a domestic flight. Again, I'm not saying that there shouldn't be any restrictions on searching those belongings, but it's less black-and-white than you suggest.

vdqtp3 3y ago
Do you think the government would have been overstepping if they ordered Twitter to make the removal, against their will?
- notpachet 3y ago
  I don't know. I think it depends on a lot of factors. I think there are some circumstances where that sort of heavy-handed approach would be warranted, but I also think there are a lot of cases where it would be unwarranted and potentially an abuse of rights. The challenge is coming up with a litmus test to differentiate the two. As I've pointed out multiple times in this thread, the Supreme Court will soon hear arguments on that exact issue. I am curious to read the opinions of the various justices on the matter.
superhumanuser 3y ago
https://apnews.com/article/social-media-protected-speech-lawsuit-injunction-d8070ef43b3b89e8e76b4569c77446d9 https://apnews.com/article/social-media-protected-speech-law... Looks like a federal judge felt that the US Government was overstepping and "seems to have assumed a role similar to an Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth" and decided to block them from engaging in the censorship behavior.
- notpachet 3y ago
  Did you miss the link I posted above? The Supreme Court put that ruling on hold: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23a243_7l48.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23a243_7l48.pdf Hence my argument about this not being settled law.