3 ms·

But he has been publicly threatened by the Attorney General: > "We are looking at him," she said on Fox News, "and he better watch out." (Source: The submitte

But he has been publicly threatened by the Attorney General: > "We are looking at him," she said on Fox News, "and he better watch out." (Source: The submitted Apple Insider article, citing Wired, which as noted in the quote was citing Fox News.) When the head of the DOJ publicly threatens someone, saying that she "goes after" that person is entirely accurate.

gorlilla 1y ago
How is that not prior restraint?
- akerl_ 1y ago
  Sort of by definition, prior restraint is when the government prevents someone from doing something (in the context, of the term, generally always speech/expression) prior to it happening. This is the kind of bluster that has certainly become more common in recent years, but has to some extent always been part of political theater. You'll see the same kind of thing every now and then if somebody tweets about how they'd love to feed a political figure into a wood chipper, or that the government should be launched into the sun. The Secret Service or some executive official will post that they're "investigating the matter and will take all available action", only for it to turn out that the comment was obviously protected speech.
  - Fluorescence 1y ago
    This doesn't seem to be true. Implications of Government speech are not taken lightly and I can see examples of "informal censorship" including implied threats of legal action being classed as prior restraint. Pretty moot given today's US legal environment though. e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bantam_Books,_Inc._v._Sullivan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bantam_Books,_Inc._v._Sullivan "Justice William J. Brennan Jr. delivered the majority opinion that stated that the actions of the Rhode Island commission to Encourage Morality in Youth were unconstitutional due to their actions violating the First Amendment by placing a prior restraint on free speech. Justice Brennan's opinion stated that the commission's practice of notifying book distributors and retailers about "objectionable" publications, combined with implied threats of legal action, effectively made a system of informal censorship."
- jkaplowitz 1y ago
  It's certainly some inappropriate kind of intimidation, but the concept of prior restraint includes some claim that the person is forbidden from doing something, and it typically pertains to speech acts rather than to the distribution of functional tools. "He better watch out" from the AG is certainly a serious threat, but its meaning is too vague and implicit to reach the level of a prohibition or to definitively pertain to speech acts.
msgodel 1y ago
Just a reminder for those who aren't aware: Apple typically makes you upload your government ID to publish apps. I used to be part of their developer program (although I never finished any of the apps I wrote) and was forced to upload mine. For those of you who think there's no problem with forcing everyone to go through the app store, here's just one more serious issue that creates. Now they can be subpoenaed for something that could otherwise have been done anonymously.
- vdfs 1y ago
  anonymous app submissions will make the app store more dangerous. You can go the extra mile and create a company or legal entity if you want to hide your name, but it's straightforward for gov. to get your identity no matter what, they can just ask Apple or Google
  - msgodel 1y ago
    There still should be a way to share software anonymously. Just saying "it's dangerous so the whole use case is invalid" is retarded, lazy, and if you're an OS vendor benefiting from an app store the way Apple does, malicious.
- spacemadness 1y ago
  Maybe it’s better as a web app in that case.

gorlilla 1y ago

How is that not prior restraint?

akerl_ 1y ago
Sort of by definition, prior restraint is when the government prevents someone from doing something (in the context, of the term, generally always speech/expression) prior to it happening. This is the kind of bluster that has certainly become more common in recent years, but has to some extent always been part of political theater. You'll see the same kind of thing every now and then if somebody tweets about how they'd love to feed a political figure into a wood chipper, or that the government should be launched into the sun. The Secret Service or some executive official will post that they're "investigating the matter and will take all available action", only for it to turn out that the comment was obviously protected speech.
- Fluorescence 1y ago
  This doesn't seem to be true. Implications of Government speech are not taken lightly and I can see examples of "informal censorship" including implied threats of legal action being classed as prior restraint. Pretty moot given today's US legal environment though. e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bantam_Books,_Inc._v._Sullivan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bantam_Books,_Inc._v._Sullivan "Justice William J. Brennan Jr. delivered the majority opinion that stated that the actions of the Rhode Island commission to Encourage Morality in Youth were unconstitutional due to their actions violating the First Amendment by placing a prior restraint on free speech. Justice Brennan's opinion stated that the commission's practice of notifying book distributors and retailers about "objectionable" publications, combined with implied threats of legal action, effectively made a system of informal censorship."
jkaplowitz 1y ago
It's certainly some inappropriate kind of intimidation, but the concept of prior restraint includes some claim that the person is forbidden from doing something, and it typically pertains to speech acts rather than to the distribution of functional tools. "He better watch out" from the AG is certainly a serious threat, but its meaning is too vague and implicit to reach the level of a prohibition or to definitively pertain to speech acts.

msgodel 1y ago

Just a reminder for those who aren't aware: Apple typically makes you upload your government ID to publish apps. I used to be part of their developer program (although I never finished any of the apps I wrote) and was forced to upload mine. For those of you who think there's no problem with forcing everyone to go through the app store, here's just one more serious issue that creates. Now they can be subpoenaed for something that could otherwise have been done anonymously.

vdfs 1y ago
anonymous app submissions will make the app store more dangerous. You can go the extra mile and create a company or legal entity if you want to hide your name, but it's straightforward for gov. to get your identity no matter what, they can just ask Apple or Google
- msgodel 1y ago
  There still should be a way to share software anonymously. Just saying "it's dangerous so the whole use case is invalid" is retarded, lazy, and if you're an OS vendor benefiting from an app store the way Apple does, malicious.
spacemadness 1y ago
Maybe it’s better as a web app in that case.