3 ms·

That is not an inaccurate reading of Bantam Books at all. The Court held that informal governmental pressure can violate the First Amendment when it operates "i

by rendall 11mo ago

That is not an inaccurate reading of Bantam Books at all. The Court held that informal governmental pressure can violate the First Amendment when it operates "in a calculated scheme to suppress publication." The key factors weren't only formal regulatory power but the reasonably perceived ability to impose consequences. The state commission in Bantam didn’t issue fines or revoke licenses either. It sent "advisory notices" backed by the implicit threat of referral to the Attorney General. That's exactly why it's relevant: the coercive effect arose from context and authority, not explicit sanctions. Framing the Biden administration’s social-media coordination as "obviously public safety" glosses over the problem. Once "public safety" becomes an elastic justification, it swallows nearly all political discourse. COVID policy and election integrity were both core political debates. The point isn't to demand content-specific enforcement but to note that the subject matter (scientific dissent and political criticism) makes coercion far more dangerous. A good example is Backpage.com v. Dart (2015). Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart, in an example of a Democrat abusing authority, sent letters to Visa and MasterCard "urging" them to stop processing payments for Backpage, claiming it would fight prostitution. On its face, it also was a public-safety rationale, not political censorship. But the Seventh Circuit found it unconstitutional because a government official used his position to coerce private firms into choking off a lawful publisher's speech. Judge Posner called it a "thinly veiled threat." You're right that the First Amendment's test is content-neutral, but that does not immunize state actors from scrutiny when their pressure targets specific viewpoints under the guise of neutrality. Courts have consistently treated viewpoint discrimination as the gravest violation, and political speech is the area of highest protection. As for "no regulators": the officials involved were from the White House, the Surgeon General's office, the CDC, and DHS; all executive agencies with regulatory and funding power over the very platforms and sectors they were contacting. That is not "abstract".

estearum 11mo ago
This is getting extremely tedious as it seems you’re forgetting your own arguments and arguing against yourself. You are the one who alleged some “public safety” test or exception (to draw a boundary around things like PSAs). You have now proven why your own argument makes no sense, and why it is not and should not be the legal standard. Bantam obviously did not establish a “do you have the ability to coerce” test because — again as you have demonstrated against your own point — any instrument of the state can be construed to have “the ability” to coerce any private party. So if this were the test established by Bantam (it’s not), then it would entirely preclude government requests to private parties. Which, again, it does not. Literally none of those agencies or departments you mention have any regulatory authority whatsoever over social media platforms.
- rendall 11mo ago
  You misread what I wrote. My point remains and has always been: when executive offices with regulatory or funding leverage lean on intermediaries to manage public discourse, as both Democrats and Republicans do, it raises the same constitutional concerns Bantam and Backpage warned about. It's astounding to me that there are people who will excuse or deny almost any behavior when it's their team doing it, and be mad when it's the other side doing the same thing, yet here we are. With enough partisans doing that, institutions stop constraining power because every side convinces itself that its use of coercion is "protecting democracy" from the other. If the FBI under Trump colluded with social media to suppress a story during election time about his son doing crack and hiring hookers, would you rightly see it as alarming abuse of power? That shouldn't change just because you like the side who did it.
  - estearum 11mo ago
    Again: The USSG, CDC, HHS, DHS and White House don't have any funding or regulatory leverage over social media platforms. To claim that they do, you are claiming that any federal agency has leverage over any private party, and therefore the government may not ever make requests. Of course it should raise concerns. Then you should look closely at the details and you will find that cases that look apparently similar are actually quite distinct. I personally think it's actually good that our government can offer e.g. its public health expertise to social media platforms to inform their content moderation decisions, and those social media companies are free to accept or reject their requests/suggestions/guidance. > If the FBI under Trump colluded with social media to suppress a story during election time about his son doing crack and hiring hookers, would you rightly see it as alarming abuse of power? That shouldn't change just because you like the side who did it. It sure would! In fact, this would cause significant alarm if the Biden administration did either! Of course this is what you're trying to suggest: but you are, once again, absolutely incorrect on the facts. Not only did the platforms testify as such under oath (once again), but here's a quote from the highly "motivated" Matt Taibi, author of the Twitter Files tasked by Musk to portray Twitter as politically compromised as possible. Even with unfettered internal access, he couldn't find any evidence of your claim. > Although several sources recalled hearing about a “general” warning from federal law enforcement that summer about possible foreign hacks, there’s no evidence - that I've seen - of any government involvement in the laptop story. In fact, that might have been the problem... https://x.com/mtaibbi/status/1598833927405215744 https://x.com/mtaibbi/status/1598833927405215744 You can literally read the internal emails! Nowhere is there any evidence of government intervention, but there is a literal mountain of evidence of confused content moderators struggling to handle a confusing situation. I personally think they made the wrong moderation decision (as many of the principals feel today, too), but there simply isn't any evidence -- ANY -- of your theory of government coercion. You have simply made it up! The issue here is not that I am blinded by partisanship, it's that you don't have a factual understanding of the salient details. It's quite apparent you're blinded by another flavor of partisanship (the most common among the slightly-smarter-than-average folks who congregate on HN) of "both sides are equally bad." Both sides have significant problems and the fact there are only two sides is perhaps a fatal flaw in our democracy, but close inspection of the actual facts will reveal they are not, in fact, equally bad.

by rendall 11mo ago

estearum 11mo ago

This is getting extremely tedious as it seems you’re forgetting your own arguments and arguing against yourself. You are the one who alleged some “public safety” test or exception (to draw a boundary around things like PSAs). You have now proven why your own argument makes no sense, and why it is not and should not be the legal standard. Bantam obviously did not establish a “do you have the ability to coerce” test because — again as you have demonstrated against your own point — any instrument of the state can be construed to have “the ability” to coerce any private party. So if this were the test established by Bantam (it’s not), then it would entirely preclude government requests to private parties. Which, again, it does not. Literally none of those agencies or departments you mention have any regulatory authority whatsoever over social media platforms.

rendall 11mo ago
You misread what I wrote. My point remains and has always been: when executive offices with regulatory or funding leverage lean on intermediaries to manage public discourse, as both Democrats and Republicans do, it raises the same constitutional concerns Bantam and Backpage warned about. It's astounding to me that there are people who will excuse or deny almost any behavior when it's their team doing it, and be mad when it's the other side doing the same thing, yet here we are. With enough partisans doing that, institutions stop constraining power because every side convinces itself that its use of coercion is "protecting democracy" from the other. If the FBI under Trump colluded with social media to suppress a story during election time about his son doing crack and hiring hookers, would you rightly see it as alarming abuse of power? That shouldn't change just because you like the side who did it.
- estearum 11mo ago
  Again: The USSG, CDC, HHS, DHS and White House don't have any funding or regulatory leverage over social media platforms. To claim that they do, you are claiming that any federal agency has leverage over any private party, and therefore the government may not ever make requests. Of course it should raise concerns. Then you should look closely at the details and you will find that cases that look apparently similar are actually quite distinct. I personally think it's actually good that our government can offer e.g. its public health expertise to social media platforms to inform their content moderation decisions, and those social media companies are free to accept or reject their requests/suggestions/guidance. > If the FBI under Trump colluded with social media to suppress a story during election time about his son doing crack and hiring hookers, would you rightly see it as alarming abuse of power? That shouldn't change just because you like the side who did it. It sure would! In fact, this would cause significant alarm if the Biden administration did either! Of course this is what you're trying to suggest: but you are, once again, absolutely incorrect on the facts. Not only did the platforms testify as such under oath (once again), but here's a quote from the highly "motivated" Matt Taibi, author of the Twitter Files tasked by Musk to portray Twitter as politically compromised as possible. Even with unfettered internal access, he couldn't find any evidence of your claim. > Although several sources recalled hearing about a “general” warning from federal law enforcement that summer about possible foreign hacks, there’s no evidence - that I've seen - of any government involvement in the laptop story. In fact, that might have been the problem... https://x.com/mtaibbi/status/1598833927405215744 https://x.com/mtaibbi/status/1598833927405215744 You can literally read the internal emails! Nowhere is there any evidence of government intervention, but there is a literal mountain of evidence of confused content moderators struggling to handle a confusing situation. I personally think they made the wrong moderation decision (as many of the principals feel today, too), but there simply isn't any evidence -- ANY -- of your theory of government coercion. You have simply made it up! The issue here is not that I am blinded by partisanship, it's that you don't have a factual understanding of the salient details. It's quite apparent you're blinded by another flavor of partisanship (the most common among the slightly-smarter-than-average folks who congregate on HN) of "both sides are equally bad." Both sides have significant problems and the fact there are only two sides is perhaps a fatal flaw in our democracy, but close inspection of the actual facts will reveal they are not, in fact, equally bad.