8 ms·

A new bill takes aim at government pressure to silence lawful online speech

299 points by hn_acker 4mo ago

panny 4mo ago
But everyone here loves jawboning and agrees the government should suppress speech. Well, at least when their team is in office. Whether it's ICE Block or IVM Block, you can probably find a reason why you too think speech freedom is just a little too free for your tastes.
- cookingrobot 4mo ago
  What are those things? Googling didn’t help.
  - panny 4mo ago
    [flagged]
    - ToucanLoucan 4mo ago
      So a real thing that people actually made to accomplish something and a fake thing you made up in your head to be angry about.
      - jMyles 4mo ago
        Although I agree that ICE block and its various sibling apps and spinoffs are important and do accomplish something meaningful, it's certainly not a "fake thing" that many of the world's foremost experts on the relevant topics were censored with regard to epidemic response. Facebook's treatment of the BMJ investigation of the unblinding of the Pfizer trial (which of course, turned out to be spot-on) was absolutely shocking, and is just one of the many instances of "ICE block-level" censorship. (In case you need a refresher on the Facebook-censors-BMJ drama, I summarized it a few months ago here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46232902 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46232902 )
        deleted 4mo ago
        [deleted]
      - panny 4mo ago
        The revolving door of corruption between the FDA and Pharma industry is pretty well documented. But it looks like my speech freedom is going to cost me some more karma. Darned consequences of speech freedom are at it again.
        ToucanLoucan 4mo ago
        Firstly, freedom of speech does not guarantee you freedom from consequences of your speech. The government can't stop you from saying stupid shit, however it also can't stop other people from telling you you're stupid. Second, horse dewormer doesn't cure COVID. Censoring dangerous misinformation from fools like yourself who will believe it because it's given to them via the right mouthpiece is a good idea, because if you don't, then you end up with fools like yourself, years after the fact, still regurgitating it.
        carlosjobim 4mo ago
        > Firstly, freedom of speech does not guarantee you freedom from consequences of your speech. It really does, that's the entire point. If you go find somebody and physically attack them for what they've written on HN about for example medicine, that makes you the law-breaker. I understand from the way you write that you might consider it your right to do such things to other people who don't have the same opinions as you, but freedom of speech protects them against retribution from you or anybody else, including from the government.
        ToucanLoucan 4mo ago
        > It really does, that's the entire point. If you go find somebody and physically attack them for what they've written on HN about for example medicine, that makes you the law-breaker. Yeah if I did this thing you completely made up, that would be illegal. Just like if the parent commenter was imprisoned for the post he made, that would also be illegal. Have you considered basing your politics on real things? > I understand from the way you write that you might consider it your right to do such things to other people who don't have the same opinions as you, Oh don't flatter yourselves. I have no interest at all in going to prison for slapping the shit out of COVID deniers. I'll happily tell you you're wrong though. > but freedom of speech protects them against retribution from you or anybody else, including from the government. Correct, but it doesn't protect them from social consequences, in this case getting downvoted, which is what they were pissing and moaning about.
      - khazhoux 4mo ago
        IIRC any FB post claiming that the Wuhan coronavirus originated in the Wuhan coronavirus lab, would be removed and could result in user ban, at request of the federal government.
        platevoltage 4mo ago
        What were the consequences for this "request" not being implemented?
        ShinyLeftPad 4mo ago
        That was true for a period of time. Something like a couple months if I remember right.
      - sellmesoap 4mo ago
        ^^^ Proof that IVM block was very effective!
    - verall 4mo ago
      Are you suggesting ivermectin was a safe and effective enough treatment for COVID that it would obviate the need for the vaccine?
    - triceratops 4mo ago
      > Biden administration doing everything in their power to block discussion of a safe and effective treatment for Covid I've seen it discussed half a million times. > spoil their giant investments in those pharma companies. Whose investments?
  - belorn 4mo ago
    The later is the case that then supreme court ruled on in 2024 (https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c100l6jrjvno https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c100l6jrjvno). I suspect it goes to explain why this new bill is bipartisan. That case failed because the plaintiffs did not have a legal standing to sue. "In a dissent that detailed emails, press conferences, and past decisions, Justice Alito painted the "jawboning" as "blatantly unconstitutional". Wednesday's ruling, he wrote, "permits the successful campaign of coercion in this case to stand as an attractive model for future officials who want to control what the people say, hear, and think"." Regardless if one agree with them, it do demonstrate that conservative side think that there is a risk that governments will attempt to persuade platforms to moderate content, and that this is a risk. This new bill seem to make it much easier to give people a legal standing to sue, thus allowing the supreme court to give a different verdict if a similar situation happen again.
    - hn_acker 4mo ago
      > The later is the case that then supreme court ruled on in 2024 (https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c100l6jrjvno https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c100l6jrjvno). > I suspect it goes to explain why this new bill is bipartisan. That case failed because the plaintiffs did not have a legal standing to sue. In that case (Murthy v. Missouri), Missouri and Louisiana did not have standing to sue because they did not demonstrate a minimum of evidence that the government coerced (as opposed to requested) platforms to remove speech. > This new bill seem to make it much easier to give people a legal standing to sue, thus allowing the supreme court to give a different verdict if a similar situation happen again. The lack of standing was not due to something like "no law says you can sue for such a violation". This law solves a problem that courts did not consider in Murthy v. Missouri.
- jMyles 4mo ago
  Obviously censorship of both the location of ICE agents (or other terrorist threats bearing state decals) and censorship of discourse over the science of respiratory pathogens has been awful; I don't recall anyone here on HN cheerleading either of them. In fact, it seems to me that you've chosen precisely two areas between which a palpable bridge exists, contradicting the two-party zeitgeist. HN, for all its many flaws, is one of the few places where important evidence such as the diamond princess dataset and the cochrane review of evidence of mask (in)efficacy received robust discussion and, seemingly, resulted in changed minds. Likewise, I don't recall anyone but a few trolls suggesting that Apple's assistance to ICE in covering its tracks was a legitimate exercise of state (to the extent that pressure was a factor) or corporate (to the extent that it created market esteem) pressure.
  - panny 4mo ago
    >HN, for all its many flaws, is one of the few places where important evidence such as the diamond princess dataset and the cochrane review of evidence of mask (in)efficacy received robust discussion and, seemingly, resulted in changed minds. I get the feeling we're not discussing this submission on HN https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48605139 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48605139 I get the feeling it's going to be flagged/dead in short order. edit: Subarashi! How elegant. HN has flagged it less than 30 minutes after I made this comment. So much for the bastion of enlightenment and free speech known as HN, right?
- JoshTriplett 4mo ago
  > But everyone here loves jawboning and agrees the government should suppress speech. That sure is quite an assumption you're making. Governments should have zero control over speech and zero ability to impose consequences on speech. Individuals and most groups should have absolute freedom of association, which is precisely what they're exercising when choosing not to associate with some speech and some speakers
  - bell-cot 4mo ago
    > Governments should have zero control over speech and zero ability to impose consequences on speech... Perhaps you are an "absolute" free speech absolutist, but does that include: - Swatting? - Doxxing? - Yelling "Fire!" in the proverbial crowded theater? - Liable and Slander? - Spreading nude pictures (real or faked) or personal medical information without consent? - Threatening (relatively) defenseless individuals with physical harm? - Impersonation? - Blackmail?
    - JoshTriplett 4mo ago
      > Perhaps you are an "absolute" free speech absolutist Emphatically not, in the sense it's commonly used, but I think the distinction between "shunned by private individuals/groups/companies" and "prosecuted" is critically important. I'm not going to go through all of these point-by-point, but as a couple of examples: > - Swatting? Inciting an action should be charged on the basis of the action and the probability of having incited it. Charge them with attempted murder. Also, fix the mechanisms that make it feasible for a person to too-easily call down excessive force on someone's home or office. > - Yelling "Fire!" in the proverbial crowded theater? Inciting a predictable panic that gets people injured should get you charged over the injuries. But also, the original version of that phrase was used as part of an abominably bad ruling restricting people speaking out against a military draft, so it's a bad example. See also laws about fraud: the speech isn't the issue, the deception leading to swindling people out of something is. Similarly, credible threats to commit a crime should be charged accordingly, not because of the speech but as prevention of an intended/planned crime. (With a great deal of caution, due to the balance between preventing it and the hazards of charging a crime that hasn't happened yet; Minority Report is not a blueprint.)
idiotsecant 4mo ago
Phew, they better be careful what they ask for. The current regime might find themselves hoisted upon their own petard.
- jazz9k 4mo ago
  Huh? We have more free speech than ever online at this moment. The last regime colluded with the major social media companies to censor people they didn't like and it's also recently come to light that they attempted to get the Joe Rogan/Spotify deal nuked, all based on censoring speech they don't like. The liberal government of the UK is moving toward complete online censorship with their bill to prevent children from going on social media sites. The reality is that they will now be able to identify and will arrest people for posting opinions they don't like. This has already been happening for the last couple of years and will now be even easier. This is exactly how it works in China. If Democrats come into power again in the US, this will soon be coming to a computer near you. This should be the #1 story on HN, but the tech community has been strangely silent on the subject.... I just wish the people claiming to be champions of free speech and rights will just admit that this all goes out the window when it applies to speech and people you don't like. It would make everything much easier.
  - platevoltage 4mo ago
    I'll give you that Liberals are also antagonistic towards online free speech, but pretending that we have more free speech online right now than ever before is the most insane thing I've ever heard. Just because you can post nazi shit on Twitter now does not mean we have more online freedom.
    - nxm 4mo ago
      Please provide evidence that online speech in the USA is restricted in any way, unlike in Europe where you get fined and/or arrested for mean memes
      - SpicyLemonZest 4mo ago
burningChrome 4mo ago
Do people not read the article, or do they just read the clickbait title and comment? Apparently they missed Ron Wyden (co-sponsor) of the bill is a Democrat and the bill is a bi-partisan effort? Or the fact the EFF is actually in support of the bill: EFF applauds Senators Cruz and Wyden for taking this critical issue seriously, and we look forward to working with Congress on this bipartisan bill as it moves through the process. We hope it lands on the right balance to provide additional protections for everyday users around freedom of expression.
- chmod775 4mo ago
  > Apparently they missed Ron Wyden (co-sponsor) of the bill is a Democrat and the bill is a bi-partisan effort? And thank god for that. I hope this is indicative of a larger trend in the opposite direction. I'm not in the US, but here too free speech and other democratic values have been something the far right could contrast themselves on against the center and left. It pisses me off to no end that the issues I've been harping on about for years are now most effectively championed by a group that is otherwise ideologically opposed to me. I'm not mad at the right for this, I'm mad at the center and left who handed it to them.
  - convolvatron 4mo ago
    what a strange take for a non-US person. one 'side' takes a couple whacks at free speech. the other side calls them on it, gets in power, and then starts taking a chainsaw to it, and you find reason to be angry that's its side A making a fuss now? and not that side B went rogue?
    - chmod775 4mo ago
      I've read this five times and I still can't reconcile it with what I said.
      - gleenn 4mo ago
        Shouldn't you care more about the actual issue than who is writing the laws around it? Why are you so pissed off about the "who" instead of happy you are getting what you want?
intended 4mo ago
I am conflicted. On the one hand getting governments to wade into what is fair speech is absolutely a slippery slope. Yet, platform firms are not correctly incenvitived arbiters of speech either. Square this circle: 1) Big Social Media firms have to make decisions on speech. 2) The ideals of free speech that everyone espouses are from an era where publishing and control of publishing was nascent. 3) As businesses, it is their job to ensure they take care of their shareholders, and thus this means driving engagement. 4) As humans, we respond and engage with certain stimului more actively than others. 5) As of 2026, moderation is still value driven. Private entities must now what is fair speech and moderate according to their values. 6) Platforms, following the incentives that are set out for them, create environments that are as addictive as possible for its users. This is what their job is. You can make small enclaves for long form content. However, the majority of the voting population is drugged to the gills with enrapturing content. This is not a recipie for a healthy information economy, this is the opium wars being waged by our own business structures on our own people - a druggie information economy. Giving governments more power is ... oof... a bad idea. We need more genuine efforts to ensure a healthier content environment that works for society. Do note, that while US based commenters are concerned, the situation is even worse in other nations, given that Authoritarianism is on an upswing. Figuring this out is not a trivial philosophical issue.
- jmull 4mo ago
  This bill is about enhancing the protections of lawful free-speech under the US constitution. Generally speaking, we deem various kinds of speech that harms people as NOT protected under the first amendment, and that kind of speech would not be protected here. Yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater, libel and slander, speech calling for violence, and fraudulent advertising are some typical examples of speech not protected by the first amendment. It would be tricky, but we could reasonably categorize engagement algorithms with certain properties as harmful to people and not subject to first amendment protections. This would be consumer protection, like laws against fraudulent advertising and other misleading claims.
  - rpdillon 4mo ago
    For what it's worth, yelling fire in a crowded theater is First Amendment protected speech. https://www.techdirt.com/2023/03/14/setting-1st-amendment-myths-on-fire-in-a-crowded-theater/ https://www.techdirt.com/2023/03/14/setting-1st-amendment-my... I'm just stating facts. https://www.popehat.com/p/the-first-amendment-isnt-absolute https://www.popehat.com/p/the-first-amendment-isnt-absolute
Cider9986 4mo ago
Another good bill for privacy that is actually good: https://www.surveillanceaccountability.com/ https://www.surveillanceaccountability.com/
needSomeCoffee 4mo ago
JAWBONE == Justice Against Weaponized Bureaucratic Overreach to Networked Expression. Max Kudos. Ron and Ted owe a staffer (or staffers) a few drinks.
- staticshock 4mo ago
  My favorite of these has always been the USA PATRIOT Act, or the "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act". And that one predates LLMs, so… sheesh.
  - smalltorch 4mo ago
    I always think of this when someone mentions the patriot act. The single senator who opposed it. http://www.archipelago.org/vol6-2/feingold.htm http://www.archipelago.org/vol6-2/feingold.htm
    - anematode 4mo ago
      Thanks for the link, a good read
      - smalltorch 4mo ago
        Its a great little snapshot in time. Some parts that really standout to me and still relevant today. >And, of course, there is no doubt that if we lived in a police state, it would be easier to catch terrorists. If we lived in a country that allowed the police to search your home at any time for any reason; if we lived in a country that allowed the government to open your mail, eavesdrop on your phone conversations, or intercept your email communications; if we lived in a country that allowed the government to hold people in jail indefinitely based on what they write or think, or based on mere suspicion that they are up to no good, then the government would no doubt discover and arrest more terrorists. But that probably would not be a country in which we would want to live. And >Preserving our freedom is the reason that we are now engaged in this new war on terrorism. We will lose that war without firing a shot if we sacrifice the liberties of the American people. And, this one. Which leaves me feeling heavyhearted. >In the end, the high water mark for my three amendments was 13 votes – that was on the amendment to the computer trespass provision. Prior to that vote the majority leader of the Senate stood up and implored the Senate to vote down all of my amendments, not on their merits, but because a deal had been struck on this bill. This was not, in my view, the finest hour for the United States Senate. The debate on a bill that may have the most far reaching consequences on the civil liberties of the American people in a generation was a non-debate. The merits took a back seat to the deal.
jmyeet 4mo ago
So the EFF and ACLU seem to support this bill. I'm skeptical given one of the sponsors is Ted Cruz who famously said [1]: > After earlier stating he first ran for Congress in 2012 “with the stated intention of being the leading defender of Israel in the United States Senate,” Texas has laws that government contractors must promise not to boycott the state of Israel [2]. 35+ US states have similar laws [3]. This on its face seems like a government restriction on speech, squarely violating the First Amendment. The Supreme Court, who otherwise love to pay lip service to the First Amendment, go out of their way to avoid anti-BDS challenges [4]. Courts have generally split hairs here saying anti-BDS impacts commerce and is speec-neutral. That's a complete cop out. So do I think that Ted Cruz really cares about free speech? Not for a second. I suspect that if this passes, it'll only ever be applied in cases where governments officials attack conservative misinformation (eg stolen elections, anti-vaxxer anything). Any speech contradicting US foreign policy will be labelled as domestic terrorism so First Amendment freedoms don't seem to apply (I suspect). US tech platforms already have incredible conservative bias. Meta's policy chief, Jordana Cutler (who worked in Benjamin Netanyahu's office), boasts about taking down pro-Palestinian content [5]. Twitter is a Nazi shithole [6]. And worse [7]. The whole manosphere, which is an alt-right entry point, flourishes on every platform. So, no, I have no confidence in anything Ted Cruz supports. [1]: https://www.christianpost.com/news/ted-cruz-cites-genesis-123-for-support-of-israel.html https://www.christianpost.com/news/ted-cruz-cites-genesis-12... [2]: https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/anti-israel-policies-are-anti-texas-policies https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/anti-israel-policies-are-ant... [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-BDS_laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-BDS_laws [4]: https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/supreme-court-declines-to-review-challenge-to-law-restricting-israel-boycotts https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/supreme-court-declines-t... [5]: https://theintercept.com/2024/10/21/instagram-israel-palestine-censorship-sjp/ https://theintercept.com/2024/10/21/instagram-israel-palesti... [6]: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/x-twitter-elon-musk-nazi-extremist-white-nationalist-accounts-rcna145020 https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/x-twitter-elon-mus... [7]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/conormurray/2023/07/27/twitter-suspends-then-unsuspends-popular-right-wing-user-who-tweeted-image-of-child-sexual-abuse/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/conormurray/2023/07/27/twitter-...
ngai_aku 4mo ago
> At EFF, we’re continuing to fight back on behalf of those censored by government coercion. One recent example: we represent the creator of ICEBlock, an app that allows the public to report immigration enforcement activity in their communities.… > EFF applauds Senators Cruz and Wyden for taking this critical issue seriously Credit where it’s due, but I doubt that ICEBlock was the first thing Ted Cruz wanted to benefit from this bill
- crypttales 4mo ago
  [dead]
shevy-java 4mo ago
On the bright side: it means the current dictator clowns in charge, are afraid of people having their own opinion. On the not so bright side: this is literally KGB textbook 101. Yuri explained this in the 1980s already: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9apDnRRSOCk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9apDnRRSOCk Ultimtately, though, while the billionaires running the show are ruthless, their puppets in the current administration are really so incompetent that they will literally ruin everything, including their own corrupt ambitions.
petilon 4mo ago
I think "government pressure" needs to be defined. If vaccination misinformation is spreading like wildfire on social media, and measles and other deadly diseases are getting out of control, and the government urges social media to control the spread of misinformation, is that "government pressure" and should it be illegal? Now you can argue that the right way to counter misinformation is by countering it with legit information, and that's certainly a valid argument. But that idealistic approach quickly runs into a wall. As Bill Gates said on Oprah's show, "We were a bit naive: we thought the internet, with the availability of information, would make us all a lot more factual. The fact that people would seek out—kind of a niche of misinformation—we were a bit naive." So yes, people seek out misinformation, because of some inherent belief that there is a vast conspiracy going on that they aren't aware of, and the more conspiratorial some news sounds, the more likely they are to believe it. So you can't necessarily fight misinformation with legit information, unfortunately. As a result, a public health crisis is likely if social media companies do nothing to control the spread of misinformation.
- JumpCrisscross 4mo ago
  > and the government urges social media to control the spread of misinformation, is that "government pressure" and should it be illegal? Honestly, yeah. The government can counterprogram. But it shouldn’t be allowed to pressure anyone to take that content down (or limit its visibility). Half the reason this anti-vax nonsense gained staying power is as a backlash to such government interventions. The proper solution to misinformation is standard liability. If you say measles vaccines are useless and cause autism, neither of which is true, and someone’s kid dies of measles after listening to you, you cut them a cheque. (But don’t go to jail.)
  - petilon 4mo ago
    There is an important difference between government persuasion and government coercion. The government should not be allowed to threaten platforms with punishment unless they remove lawful speech. But public-health officials should be allowed to tell platforms, "This claim is false, it is contributing to real-world harm, and we urge you to reduce its reach." Just like you and I have a right to free speech, so does the government. The government can urge, warn, criticize, request, and share public-health information.
mc32 4mo ago
I wonder if the EFF had something specific to say when various PACs and a former president tried getting Spotify to take Joe Rogan off the air for his Covid opinions?
- Benlovescnn 4mo ago
  You have a source for that?? It is not that i think all right wing hosts are liars,they love to play the victim, but all I see as a source is "Joe Rogan says...". Quoting yourself is not a source.
  - Benlovescnn 4mo ago
    [flagged]
- hn_acker 4mo ago
  "Government coercion" are important keywords used by EFF here.
- triceratops 4mo ago
  This act wouldn't apply to PACs or former presidents.
- SpicyLemonZest 4mo ago
  This is a new allegation Joe Rogan made offhand in a podcast two days ago, and he said while making it that he can't tell us which PACs or which presidents were involved. What specifics could the EFF offer in the absence of any meaningful details about what happened?
  - Benlovescnn 4mo ago
    [dead]
- QuadmasterXLII 4mo ago
  A PAC talking to Spotify is obviously protected speech. At least try to look like you have principles.
po1nt 4mo ago
Remember fact checking, snopes and stuff? Yeah, maybe a bit too late.
seattle_spring 4mo ago
A good reminder in the article about something a lot of folks here tend to forget: > Finally, contrary to what many in Congress have been saying, social media platforms and other internet intermediaries have their own First Amendment rights to decide how they moderate users’ speech. They are not “state actors” and do not have an obligation under the First Amendment to allow all user speech on their platforms. Private platforms do not have an obligation, legal, moral, or otherwise, to host or boost your harmful opinions and mis/disinformation campaigns.
- fc417fc802 4mo ago
  They ought to be regulated as common carriers above a certain size IMO justified by network effects. Which is too say I agree with you that they don't currently have a legal obligation but I think we should change that.
  - seattle_spring 4mo ago
    Completely disagree, given algorithms artificially boost content. The comparison to being an "online town square" is inapt, and I think a lot of people pushing that particular narrative actually know it too.
_heimdall 4mo ago
I'm surprised to see Ted Cruz co-sponsoring this bill given Trump's proclivity to pressure TV networks into silencing and/or firing hosts.
- Anamon 4mo ago
  Cruz was also an outspoken critic of the FCC pressuring/threatening late night shows.

299 points by hn_acker 4mo ago

panny 4mo ago

But everyone here loves jawboning and agrees the government should suppress speech. Well, at least when their team is in office. Whether it's ICE Block or IVM Block, you can probably find a reason why you too think speech freedom is just a little too free for your tastes.

cookingrobot 4mo ago
What are those things? Googling didn’t help.
- panny 4mo ago
  [flagged]
  - ToucanLoucan 4mo ago
    So a real thing that people actually made to accomplish something and a fake thing you made up in your head to be angry about.
    - jMyles 4mo ago
      Although I agree that ICE block and its various sibling apps and spinoffs are important and do accomplish something meaningful, it's certainly not a "fake thing" that many of the world's foremost experts on the relevant topics were censored with regard to epidemic response. Facebook's treatment of the BMJ investigation of the unblinding of the Pfizer trial (which of course, turned out to be spot-on) was absolutely shocking, and is just one of the many instances of "ICE block-level" censorship. (In case you need a refresher on the Facebook-censors-BMJ drama, I summarized it a few months ago here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46232902 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46232902 )
      - deleted 4mo ago
        [deleted]
    - panny 4mo ago
      The revolving door of corruption between the FDA and Pharma industry is pretty well documented. But it looks like my speech freedom is going to cost me some more karma. Darned consequences of speech freedom are at it again.
      - ToucanLoucan 4mo ago
        Firstly, freedom of speech does not guarantee you freedom from consequences of your speech. The government can't stop you from saying stupid shit, however it also can't stop other people from telling you you're stupid. Second, horse dewormer doesn't cure COVID. Censoring dangerous misinformation from fools like yourself who will believe it because it's given to them via the right mouthpiece is a good idea, because if you don't, then you end up with fools like yourself, years after the fact, still regurgitating it.
        carlosjobim 4mo ago
        > Firstly, freedom of speech does not guarantee you freedom from consequences of your speech. It really does, that's the entire point. If you go find somebody and physically attack them for what they've written on HN about for example medicine, that makes you the law-breaker. I understand from the way you write that you might consider it your right to do such things to other people who don't have the same opinions as you, but freedom of speech protects them against retribution from you or anybody else, including from the government.
        ToucanLoucan 4mo ago
        > It really does, that's the entire point. If you go find somebody and physically attack them for what they've written on HN about for example medicine, that makes you the law-breaker. Yeah if I did this thing you completely made up, that would be illegal. Just like if the parent commenter was imprisoned for the post he made, that would also be illegal. Have you considered basing your politics on real things? > I understand from the way you write that you might consider it your right to do such things to other people who don't have the same opinions as you, Oh don't flatter yourselves. I have no interest at all in going to prison for slapping the shit out of COVID deniers. I'll happily tell you you're wrong though. > but freedom of speech protects them against retribution from you or anybody else, including from the government. Correct, but it doesn't protect them from social consequences, in this case getting downvoted, which is what they were pissing and moaning about.
    - khazhoux 4mo ago
      IIRC any FB post claiming that the Wuhan coronavirus originated in the Wuhan coronavirus lab, would be removed and could result in user ban, at request of the federal government.
      - platevoltage 4mo ago
        What were the consequences for this "request" not being implemented?
      - ShinyLeftPad 4mo ago
        That was true for a period of time. Something like a couple months if I remember right.
    - sellmesoap 4mo ago
      ^^^ Proof that IVM block was very effective!
  - verall 4mo ago
    Are you suggesting ivermectin was a safe and effective enough treatment for COVID that it would obviate the need for the vaccine?
  - triceratops 4mo ago
    > Biden administration doing everything in their power to block discussion of a safe and effective treatment for Covid I've seen it discussed half a million times. > spoil their giant investments in those pharma companies. Whose investments?
- belorn 4mo ago
  The later is the case that then supreme court ruled on in 2024 (https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c100l6jrjvno https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c100l6jrjvno). I suspect it goes to explain why this new bill is bipartisan. That case failed because the plaintiffs did not have a legal standing to sue. "In a dissent that detailed emails, press conferences, and past decisions, Justice Alito painted the "jawboning" as "blatantly unconstitutional". Wednesday's ruling, he wrote, "permits the successful campaign of coercion in this case to stand as an attractive model for future officials who want to control what the people say, hear, and think"." Regardless if one agree with them, it do demonstrate that conservative side think that there is a risk that governments will attempt to persuade platforms to moderate content, and that this is a risk. This new bill seem to make it much easier to give people a legal standing to sue, thus allowing the supreme court to give a different verdict if a similar situation happen again.
  - hn_acker 4mo ago
    > The later is the case that then supreme court ruled on in 2024 (https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c100l6jrjvno https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c100l6jrjvno). > I suspect it goes to explain why this new bill is bipartisan. That case failed because the plaintiffs did not have a legal standing to sue. In that case (Murthy v. Missouri), Missouri and Louisiana did not have standing to sue because they did not demonstrate a minimum of evidence that the government coerced (as opposed to requested) platforms to remove speech. > This new bill seem to make it much easier to give people a legal standing to sue, thus allowing the supreme court to give a different verdict if a similar situation happen again. The lack of standing was not due to something like "no law says you can sue for such a violation". This law solves a problem that courts did not consider in Murthy v. Missouri.
jMyles 4mo ago
Obviously censorship of both the location of ICE agents (or other terrorist threats bearing state decals) and censorship of discourse over the science of respiratory pathogens has been awful; I don't recall anyone here on HN cheerleading either of them. In fact, it seems to me that you've chosen precisely two areas between which a palpable bridge exists, contradicting the two-party zeitgeist. HN, for all its many flaws, is one of the few places where important evidence such as the diamond princess dataset and the cochrane review of evidence of mask (in)efficacy received robust discussion and, seemingly, resulted in changed minds. Likewise, I don't recall anyone but a few trolls suggesting that Apple's assistance to ICE in covering its tracks was a legitimate exercise of state (to the extent that pressure was a factor) or corporate (to the extent that it created market esteem) pressure.
- panny 4mo ago
  >HN, for all its many flaws, is one of the few places where important evidence such as the diamond princess dataset and the cochrane review of evidence of mask (in)efficacy received robust discussion and, seemingly, resulted in changed minds. I get the feeling we're not discussing this submission on HN https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48605139 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48605139 I get the feeling it's going to be flagged/dead in short order. edit: Subarashi! How elegant. HN has flagged it less than 30 minutes after I made this comment. So much for the bastion of enlightenment and free speech known as HN, right?
JoshTriplett 4mo ago
> But everyone here loves jawboning and agrees the government should suppress speech. That sure is quite an assumption you're making. Governments should have zero control over speech and zero ability to impose consequences on speech. Individuals and most groups should have absolute freedom of association, which is precisely what they're exercising when choosing not to associate with some speech and some speakers
- bell-cot 4mo ago
  > Governments should have zero control over speech and zero ability to impose consequences on speech... Perhaps you are an "absolute" free speech absolutist, but does that include: - Swatting? - Doxxing? - Yelling "Fire!" in the proverbial crowded theater? - Liable and Slander? - Spreading nude pictures (real or faked) or personal medical information without consent? - Threatening (relatively) defenseless individuals with physical harm? - Impersonation? - Blackmail?
  - JoshTriplett 4mo ago
    > Perhaps you are an "absolute" free speech absolutist Emphatically not, in the sense it's commonly used, but I think the distinction between "shunned by private individuals/groups/companies" and "prosecuted" is critically important. I'm not going to go through all of these point-by-point, but as a couple of examples: > - Swatting? Inciting an action should be charged on the basis of the action and the probability of having incited it. Charge them with attempted murder. Also, fix the mechanisms that make it feasible for a person to too-easily call down excessive force on someone's home or office. > - Yelling "Fire!" in the proverbial crowded theater? Inciting a predictable panic that gets people injured should get you charged over the injuries. But also, the original version of that phrase was used as part of an abominably bad ruling restricting people speaking out against a military draft, so it's a bad example. See also laws about fraud: the speech isn't the issue, the deception leading to swindling people out of something is. Similarly, credible threats to commit a crime should be charged accordingly, not because of the speech but as prevention of an intended/planned crime. (With a great deal of caution, due to the balance between preventing it and the hazards of charging a crime that hasn't happened yet; Minority Report is not a blueprint.)

idiotsecant 4mo ago

Phew, they better be careful what they ask for. The current regime might find themselves hoisted upon their own petard.

jazz9k 4mo ago
Huh? We have more free speech than ever online at this moment. The last regime colluded with the major social media companies to censor people they didn't like and it's also recently come to light that they attempted to get the Joe Rogan/Spotify deal nuked, all based on censoring speech they don't like. The liberal government of the UK is moving toward complete online censorship with their bill to prevent children from going on social media sites. The reality is that they will now be able to identify and will arrest people for posting opinions they don't like. This has already been happening for the last couple of years and will now be even easier. This is exactly how it works in China. If Democrats come into power again in the US, this will soon be coming to a computer near you. This should be the #1 story on HN, but the tech community has been strangely silent on the subject.... I just wish the people claiming to be champions of free speech and rights will just admit that this all goes out the window when it applies to speech and people you don't like. It would make everything much easier.
- platevoltage 4mo ago
  I'll give you that Liberals are also antagonistic towards online free speech, but pretending that we have more free speech online right now than ever before is the most insane thing I've ever heard. Just because you can post nazi shit on Twitter now does not mean we have more online freedom.
  - nxm 4mo ago
    Please provide evidence that online speech in the USA is restricted in any way, unlike in Europe where you get fined and/or arrested for mean memes
    - SpicyLemonZest 4mo ago

burningChrome 4mo ago

Do people not read the article, or do they just read the clickbait title and comment? Apparently they missed Ron Wyden (co-sponsor) of the bill is a Democrat and the bill is a bi-partisan effort? Or the fact the EFF is actually in support of the bill: EFF applauds Senators Cruz and Wyden for taking this critical issue seriously, and we look forward to working with Congress on this bipartisan bill as it moves through the process. We hope it lands on the right balance to provide additional protections for everyday users around freedom of expression.

chmod775 4mo ago
> Apparently they missed Ron Wyden (co-sponsor) of the bill is a Democrat and the bill is a bi-partisan effort? And thank god for that. I hope this is indicative of a larger trend in the opposite direction. I'm not in the US, but here too free speech and other democratic values have been something the far right could contrast themselves on against the center and left. It pisses me off to no end that the issues I've been harping on about for years are now most effectively championed by a group that is otherwise ideologically opposed to me. I'm not mad at the right for this, I'm mad at the center and left who handed it to them.
- convolvatron 4mo ago
  what a strange take for a non-US person. one 'side' takes a couple whacks at free speech. the other side calls them on it, gets in power, and then starts taking a chainsaw to it, and you find reason to be angry that's its side A making a fuss now? and not that side B went rogue?
  - chmod775 4mo ago
    I've read this five times and I still can't reconcile it with what I said.
    - gleenn 4mo ago
      Shouldn't you care more about the actual issue than who is writing the laws around it? Why are you so pissed off about the "who" instead of happy you are getting what you want?

intended 4mo ago

I am conflicted. On the one hand getting governments to wade into what is fair speech is absolutely a slippery slope. Yet, platform firms are not correctly incenvitived arbiters of speech either. Square this circle: 1) Big Social Media firms have to make decisions on speech. 2) The ideals of free speech that everyone espouses are from an era where publishing and control of publishing was nascent. 3) As businesses, it is their job to ensure they take care of their shareholders, and thus this means driving engagement. 4) As humans, we respond and engage with certain stimului more actively than others. 5) As of 2026, moderation is still value driven. Private entities must now what is fair speech and moderate according to their values. 6) Platforms, following the incentives that are set out for them, create environments that are as addictive as possible for its users. This is what their job is. You can make small enclaves for long form content. However, the majority of the voting population is drugged to the gills with enrapturing content. This is not a recipie for a healthy information economy, this is the opium wars being waged by our own business structures on our own people - a druggie information economy. Giving governments more power is ... oof... a bad idea. We need more genuine efforts to ensure a healthier content environment that works for society. Do note, that while US based commenters are concerned, the situation is even worse in other nations, given that Authoritarianism is on an upswing. Figuring this out is not a trivial philosophical issue.

jmull 4mo ago
This bill is about enhancing the protections of lawful free-speech under the US constitution. Generally speaking, we deem various kinds of speech that harms people as NOT protected under the first amendment, and that kind of speech would not be protected here. Yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater, libel and slander, speech calling for violence, and fraudulent advertising are some typical examples of speech not protected by the first amendment. It would be tricky, but we could reasonably categorize engagement algorithms with certain properties as harmful to people and not subject to first amendment protections. This would be consumer protection, like laws against fraudulent advertising and other misleading claims.
- rpdillon 4mo ago
  For what it's worth, yelling fire in a crowded theater is First Amendment protected speech. https://www.techdirt.com/2023/03/14/setting-1st-amendment-myths-on-fire-in-a-crowded-theater/ https://www.techdirt.com/2023/03/14/setting-1st-amendment-my... I'm just stating facts. https://www.popehat.com/p/the-first-amendment-isnt-absolute https://www.popehat.com/p/the-first-amendment-isnt-absolute

Cider9986 4mo ago

Another good bill for privacy that is actually good: https://www.surveillanceaccountability.com/ https://www.surveillanceaccountability.com/

needSomeCoffee 4mo ago

JAWBONE == Justice Against Weaponized Bureaucratic Overreach to Networked Expression. Max Kudos. Ron and Ted owe a staffer (or staffers) a few drinks.

staticshock 4mo ago
My favorite of these has always been the USA PATRIOT Act, or the "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act". And that one predates LLMs, so… sheesh.
- smalltorch 4mo ago
  I always think of this when someone mentions the patriot act. The single senator who opposed it. http://www.archipelago.org/vol6-2/feingold.htm http://www.archipelago.org/vol6-2/feingold.htm
  - anematode 4mo ago
    Thanks for the link, a good read
    - smalltorch 4mo ago
      Its a great little snapshot in time. Some parts that really standout to me and still relevant today. >And, of course, there is no doubt that if we lived in a police state, it would be easier to catch terrorists. If we lived in a country that allowed the police to search your home at any time for any reason; if we lived in a country that allowed the government to open your mail, eavesdrop on your phone conversations, or intercept your email communications; if we lived in a country that allowed the government to hold people in jail indefinitely based on what they write or think, or based on mere suspicion that they are up to no good, then the government would no doubt discover and arrest more terrorists. But that probably would not be a country in which we would want to live. And >Preserving our freedom is the reason that we are now engaged in this new war on terrorism. We will lose that war without firing a shot if we sacrifice the liberties of the American people. And, this one. Which leaves me feeling heavyhearted. >In the end, the high water mark for my three amendments was 13 votes – that was on the amendment to the computer trespass provision. Prior to that vote the majority leader of the Senate stood up and implored the Senate to vote down all of my amendments, not on their merits, but because a deal had been struck on this bill. This was not, in my view, the finest hour for the United States Senate. The debate on a bill that may have the most far reaching consequences on the civil liberties of the American people in a generation was a non-debate. The merits took a back seat to the deal.

jmyeet 4mo ago

So the EFF and ACLU seem to support this bill. I'm skeptical given one of the sponsors is Ted Cruz who famously said [1]: > After earlier stating he first ran for Congress in 2012 “with the stated intention of being the leading defender of Israel in the United States Senate,” Texas has laws that government contractors must promise not to boycott the state of Israel [2]. 35+ US states have similar laws [3]. This on its face seems like a government restriction on speech, squarely violating the First Amendment. The Supreme Court, who otherwise love to pay lip service to the First Amendment, go out of their way to avoid anti-BDS challenges [4]. Courts have generally split hairs here saying anti-BDS impacts commerce and is speec-neutral. That's a complete cop out. So do I think that Ted Cruz really cares about free speech? Not for a second. I suspect that if this passes, it'll only ever be applied in cases where governments officials attack conservative misinformation (eg stolen elections, anti-vaxxer anything). Any speech contradicting US foreign policy will be labelled as domestic terrorism so First Amendment freedoms don't seem to apply (I suspect). US tech platforms already have incredible conservative bias. Meta's policy chief, Jordana Cutler (who worked in Benjamin Netanyahu's office), boasts about taking down pro-Palestinian content [5]. Twitter is a Nazi shithole [6]. And worse [7]. The whole manosphere, which is an alt-right entry point, flourishes on every platform. So, no, I have no confidence in anything Ted Cruz supports. [1]: https://www.christianpost.com/news/ted-cruz-cites-genesis-123-for-support-of-israel.html https://www.christianpost.com/news/ted-cruz-cites-genesis-12... [2]: https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/anti-israel-policies-are-anti-texas-policies https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/anti-israel-policies-are-ant... [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-BDS_laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-BDS_laws [4]: https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/supreme-court-declines-to-review-challenge-to-law-restricting-israel-boycotts https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/supreme-court-declines-t... [5]: https://theintercept.com/2024/10/21/instagram-israel-palestine-censorship-sjp/ https://theintercept.com/2024/10/21/instagram-israel-palesti... [6]: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/x-twitter-elon-musk-nazi-extremist-white-nationalist-accounts-rcna145020 https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/x-twitter-elon-mus... [7]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/conormurray/2023/07/27/twitter-suspends-then-unsuspends-popular-right-wing-user-who-tweeted-image-of-child-sexual-abuse/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/conormurray/2023/07/27/twitter-...

ngai_aku 4mo ago

> At EFF, we’re continuing to fight back on behalf of those censored by government coercion. One recent example: we represent the creator of ICEBlock, an app that allows the public to report immigration enforcement activity in their communities.… > EFF applauds Senators Cruz and Wyden for taking this critical issue seriously Credit where it’s due, but I doubt that ICEBlock was the first thing Ted Cruz wanted to benefit from this bill

crypttales 4mo ago
[dead]

shevy-java 4mo ago

On the bright side: it means the current dictator clowns in charge, are afraid of people having their own opinion. On the not so bright side: this is literally KGB textbook 101. Yuri explained this in the 1980s already: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9apDnRRSOCk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9apDnRRSOCk Ultimtately, though, while the billionaires running the show are ruthless, their puppets in the current administration are really so incompetent that they will literally ruin everything, including their own corrupt ambitions.

petilon 4mo ago

I think "government pressure" needs to be defined. If vaccination misinformation is spreading like wildfire on social media, and measles and other deadly diseases are getting out of control, and the government urges social media to control the spread of misinformation, is that "government pressure" and should it be illegal? Now you can argue that the right way to counter misinformation is by countering it with legit information, and that's certainly a valid argument. But that idealistic approach quickly runs into a wall. As Bill Gates said on Oprah's show, "We were a bit naive: we thought the internet, with the availability of information, would make us all a lot more factual. The fact that people would seek out—kind of a niche of misinformation—we were a bit naive." So yes, people seek out misinformation, because of some inherent belief that there is a vast conspiracy going on that they aren't aware of, and the more conspiratorial some news sounds, the more likely they are to believe it. So you can't necessarily fight misinformation with legit information, unfortunately. As a result, a public health crisis is likely if social media companies do nothing to control the spread of misinformation.

JumpCrisscross 4mo ago
> and the government urges social media to control the spread of misinformation, is that "government pressure" and should it be illegal? Honestly, yeah. The government can counterprogram. But it shouldn’t be allowed to pressure anyone to take that content down (or limit its visibility). Half the reason this anti-vax nonsense gained staying power is as a backlash to such government interventions. The proper solution to misinformation is standard liability. If you say measles vaccines are useless and cause autism, neither of which is true, and someone’s kid dies of measles after listening to you, you cut them a cheque. (But don’t go to jail.)
- petilon 4mo ago
  There is an important difference between government persuasion and government coercion. The government should not be allowed to threaten platforms with punishment unless they remove lawful speech. But public-health officials should be allowed to tell platforms, "This claim is false, it is contributing to real-world harm, and we urge you to reduce its reach." Just like you and I have a right to free speech, so does the government. The government can urge, warn, criticize, request, and share public-health information.

mc32 4mo ago

I wonder if the EFF had something specific to say when various PACs and a former president tried getting Spotify to take Joe Rogan off the air for his Covid opinions?

Benlovescnn 4mo ago
You have a source for that?? It is not that i think all right wing hosts are liars,they love to play the victim, but all I see as a source is "Joe Rogan says...". Quoting yourself is not a source.
- Benlovescnn 4mo ago
  [flagged]
hn_acker 4mo ago
"Government coercion" are important keywords used by EFF here.
triceratops 4mo ago
This act wouldn't apply to PACs or former presidents.
SpicyLemonZest 4mo ago
This is a new allegation Joe Rogan made offhand in a podcast two days ago, and he said while making it that he can't tell us which PACs or which presidents were involved. What specifics could the EFF offer in the absence of any meaningful details about what happened?
- Benlovescnn 4mo ago
  [dead]
QuadmasterXLII 4mo ago
A PAC talking to Spotify is obviously protected speech. At least try to look like you have principles.

po1nt 4mo ago

Remember fact checking, snopes and stuff? Yeah, maybe a bit too late.

seattle_spring 4mo ago

A good reminder in the article about something a lot of folks here tend to forget: > Finally, contrary to what many in Congress have been saying, social media platforms and other internet intermediaries have their own First Amendment rights to decide how they moderate users’ speech. They are not “state actors” and do not have an obligation under the First Amendment to allow all user speech on their platforms. Private platforms do not have an obligation, legal, moral, or otherwise, to host or boost your harmful opinions and mis/disinformation campaigns.

fc417fc802 4mo ago
They ought to be regulated as common carriers above a certain size IMO justified by network effects. Which is too say I agree with you that they don't currently have a legal obligation but I think we should change that.
- seattle_spring 4mo ago
  Completely disagree, given algorithms artificially boost content. The comparison to being an "online town square" is inapt, and I think a lot of people pushing that particular narrative actually know it too.

_heimdall 4mo ago

I'm surprised to see Ted Cruz co-sponsoring this bill given Trump's proclivity to pressure TV networks into silencing and/or firing hosts.

Anamon 4mo ago
Cruz was also an outspoken critic of the FCC pressuring/threatening late night shows.