3 ms·
> If the government has the power to override the First Amendment by declaring an emergency, we'll always have "emergencies." If you simply listened to the ora
by o-90 2y ago
> If the government has the power to override the First Amendment by declaring an emergency, we'll always have "emergencies."
If you simply listened to the oral arguments in this case, you would know that is not what is being discussed or suggested should happen in this case. They are debating what constitutes government coercion. The government can asks, suggest, encourage, etc, but it cannot coerce. Facebook as a private entity can censor posts however it wishes (editorial discretion / freedom of the press). If the government asks Facebook to censor posts it is already censoring anyways, is that coercion? That's what this case is debating. The nuance of this case is being stripped away, and being served to you as "conservative voices are being silenced" and "liberal justices don't want you to have 1st Amendment protections" when nothing could be further from the truth.
> even if state interests are "narrowly tailored," the government will always tailor the situation to match.
The opposite of this is also a perverse incentive: anytime anyone says anything and they receive push back, they can simply claim a 1st amendment violation and ALWAYS win, as though nuance and context somehow don't matter. What if the slight suppression of one persons' 1st amendment rights would alleviate the suppression of millions of other peoples' 1st amendment rights?
> Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
Its interesting that you chose this quote because, the same way that you clearly haven't read the minutes of this case, you probably haven't read 1984 either, but are just cherry-picking quotes from it. Winston remembers being at war with Eurasia and not Eastasia. But if the propaganda machine just gives people short snippets like "Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia" then that becomes truth. Just like if the propaganda machine feeds you that "this is about a pandemic where the government lied and censored people" then you don't have to actually read the minutes of specific court cases.
---
Another point is that you're implying that the pandemic was the "emergency". But the emergency for you is that "the government lied and censored people" during the pandemic. But by your logic, this can be used to "override the first Amendment". Which is what seems to be happening in NetChoice vs Paxton (22-555) and Moody vs NetChoice (22-277). These are being presented in the media that users' 1st Amendment rights on these platforms are being violated but what is really happening is there are interest groups in the government that are trying to force social media companies to host content the companies do not agree with. This is a 1st Amendment violation, namely, a violation of the freedom of the press. You are being convinced to participate in and argue for the thing that you are telling me you are the most worried about.
- gavinhoward 2y agoJust so you know, I read through it. > If the government asks Facebook to censor posts it is already censoring anyways, is that coercion? That's an odd thing to say on a case where the government did absolutely coerce Facebook. > The opposite of this is also a perverse incentive: anytime anyone says anything and they receive push back, they can simply claim a 1st amendment violation and ALWAYS win, as though nuance and context somehow don't matter. Heh, no. The Supreme Court has already ruled on what speech is legal and illegal. > What if the slight suppression of one persons' 1st amendment rights would alleviate the suppression of millions of other peoples' 1st amendment rights? That what if doesn't matter in a case where the government suppressed the truth. But anyway, that is a valid case, but you'll have to come up with a more specific example than that. The only case I can think of where that might happen is when a government official uses his First Amendment rights to shut down the speech of people, and then it is obvious that the government official is wrong. > Just like if the propaganda machine feeds you that "this is about a pandemic where the government lied and censored people" then you don't have to actually read the minutes of specific court cases. Again, I read it. > These are being presented in the media that users' 1st Amendment rights on these platforms are being violated but what is really happening is there are interest groups in the government that are trying to force social media companies to host content the companies do not agree with. This is a 1st Amendment violation, namely, a violation of the freedom of the press. You are being convinced to participate in and argue for the thing that you are telling me you are the most worried about. It is only a First Amendment violation if companies are people. IIRC, that's not a good thing. So "being convinced to participate in and argue for the thing that you are telling me you are the most worried about"? Not at all. I want companies to lose their personhood. Especially these MASSIVE companies that basically control the digital town square. And I own a company, by the way. Do not assume things about me. Anyway, wouldn't these companies refusing to post content be the very example you gave earlier? > What if the slight suppression of one persons' 1st amendment rights would alleviate the suppression of millions of other peoples' 1st amendment rights? Isn't that the exact situation? The First Amendment rights of one person, a CEO, suppresses the First Amendment rights of millions. So yeah, I agree with you on the example, but it still means you're wrong about the cases.
- 2y ago