July 4 Injunction Bars Various Federal Departments from Encouraging Social Media Platforms to Delete Content

The opinion (Missouri v. Biden) by Judge Terry Doughty (W.D. La.) is here, and the injunction is here. The opinion is 45,000 words long, and I doubt I'll have a chance to fully analyze it for a while (I'm largely tied up for the next couple of weeks); but in the meantime, here's the opening:

The explosion of social-media platforms has resulted in unique free speech issues— this is especially true in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. If the allegations made by Plaintiffs are true, the present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States' history. In their attempts to suppress alleged disinformation, the Federal Government, and particularly the Defendants named here, are alleged to have blatantly ignored the First Amendment's right to free speech.

Although the censorship alleged in this case almost exclusively targeted conservative speech, the issues raised herein go beyond party lines. The right to free speech is not a member of any political party and does not hold any political ideology. It is the purpose of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of the market, whether it be by government itself or private licensee. Red Lion Broadcasting Co., v. F.C.C. (1969).

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants, through public pressure campaigns, private meetings, and other forms of direct communication, regarding what Defendants described as "disinformation," "misinformation," and "malinformation," have colluded with and/or coerced social-media platforms to suppress disfavored speakers, viewpoints, and content on social-media platforms. Plaintiffs also allege that the suppression constitutes government action, and that it is a violation of Plaintiffs' freedom of speech under the First Amendment ….

The principal function of free speech under the United States' system of government is to invite dispute; it may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Texas v. Johnson, (1989). Freedom of speech and press is the indispensable condition of nearly every other form of freedom. Curtis Pub. Co. v. Butts (1967)….

The question does not concern whether speech is conservative, moderate, liberal, progressive, or somewhere in between. What matters is that Americans, despite their views, will not be censored or suppressed by the Government. Other than well-known exceptions to the Free Speech Clause, all political views and content are protected free speech…..

In this case, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants suppressed conservative-leaning free speech, such as: (1) suppressing the Hunter Biden laptop story prior to the 2020 Presidential election; (2) suppressing speech about the lab-leak theory of COVID-19's origin; (3) suppressing speech about the efficiency of masks and COVID-19 lockdowns; (4) suppressing speech about the efficiency of COVID-19 vaccines; (5) suppressing speech about election integrity in the 2020 presidential election; (6) suppressing speech about the security of voting by mail; (7) suppressing parody content about Defendants; (8) suppressing negative posts about the economy; and (9) suppressing negative posts about President Biden.

Plaintiffs Bhattacharya and Kulldorff are infectious disease epidemiologists and co-authors of The Great Barrington Declaration ("GBD"). The GBD was published on October 4, 2020. The GBD criticized lockdown policies and expressed concern about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of lockdowns. They allege that shortly after being published, the GBD was censored on social media by Google, Facebook, Twitter, and others. Bhattacharya and Kulldorff further allege on October 8, 2020 (four days after publishing the GBD), Dr. Frances Collins, Dr. Fauci, and Cliff Lane proposed together a "take down" of the GBD and followed up with an organized campaign to discredit it.

Dr. Kulldorff additionally alleges he was censored by Twitter on several occasions because of his tweets with content such as "thinking everyone must be vaccinated is scientifically flawed," that masks would not protect people from COVID-19, and other "anti-mask" tweets. Dr. Kulldorff (and Dr. Bhattacharya) further alleges that YouTube removed a March 18, 2021 roundtable discussion in Florida where he and others questioned the appropriateness of requiring young children to wear facemasks. Dr. Kulldorff also alleges that LinkedIn censored him when he reposted a post of a colleague from Iceland on vaccines, for stating that vaccine mandates were dangerous, for posting that natural immunity is stronger than vaccine immunity, and for posting that health care facilities should hire, not fire, nurses….

In addition to the allegations of the Individual Plaintiffs, the States of Missouri and Louisiana allege extensive censorship by Defendants. The States allege that they have a sovereign and proprietary interest in receiving the free flow of information in public discourse on social- media platforms and in using social-media to inform their citizens of public policy decisions. The States also claim that they have a sovereign interest in protecting their own constitutions, ensuring their citizen's fundamental rights are not subverted by the federal government, and that they have a quasi-sovereign interest in protecting the free-speech rights of their citizens. The States allege that the Defendants have caused harm to the states of Missouri and Louisiana by suppressing and/or censoring the free speech of Missouri, Louisiana, and their citizens….

Plaintiffs assert that since 2018, federal officials, including Defendants, have made public statements and demands to social-media platforms in an effort to induce them to censor disfavored speech and speakers. Beyond that, Plaintiffs argue that Defendants have threatened adverse consequences to social-media companies, such as reform of Section 230 immunity under the Communications Decency Act, antitrust scrutiny/enforcement, increased regulations, and other measures, if those companies refuse to increase censorship. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act shields social-media companies from liability for actions taken on their websites, and Plaintiffs argue that the threat of repealing Section 230 motivates the social-media companies to comply with Defendants' censorship requests. Plaintiffs also note that Mark Zuckerberg ("Zuckerberg"), the owner of Facebook, has publicly stated that the threat of antitrust enforcement is "an existential threat" to his platform….

Here's the injunction:

[The Department of Health & Human Services, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Justice Department, the FBI, the Census Bureau, and various other federal departments and officials] ARE HEREBY ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from taking the following actions as to social-media companies {include[ing] Facebook/Meta, Twitter, YouTube/Google, WhatsApp, Instagram, WeChat, TikTok, Sina Weibo, QQ, Telegram, Snapchat, Kuaishou, Qzone, Pinterest, Reddit, LinkedIn, Quora, Discord, Twitch, Tumblr, Mastodon, and like companies}:

1. meeting with social-media companies for the purpose of urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech posted on social-media platforms;
2. specifically flagging content or posts on social-media platforms and/or forwarding such to social-media companies urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner for removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech;
3. urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner social-media companies to change their guidelines for removing, deleting, suppressing, or reducing content containing protected free speech;
4. emailing, calling, sending letters, texting, or engaging in any communication of any kind with social-media companies urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner for removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech;
5. collaborating, coordinating, partnering, switchboarding, and/or jointly working with the Election Integrity Partnership, the Virality Project, the Stanford Internet Observatory, or any like project or group for the purpose of urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content posted with social-media companies containing protected free speech;
6. threatening, pressuring, or coercing social-media companies in any manner to remove, delete, suppress, or reduce posted content of postings containing protected free speech;
7. taking any action such as urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner social-media companies to remove, delete, suppress, or reduce posted content protected by the Free Speech Clause …;
8. following up with social-media companies to determine whether the social-media companies removed, deleted, suppressed, or reduced previous social-media postings containing protected free speech;
9. requesting content reports from social-media companies detailing actions taken to remove, delete, suppress, or reduce content containing protected free speech; and
10. notifying social-media companies to Be on The Lookout ("BOLO") for postings containing protected free speech.

This Preliminary Injunction precludes said named Defendants, their agents, officers, employees, contractors, and all acting in concert with them from the aforementioned conduct. This Preliminary Injunction also precludes said named Defendants, their agents, officers, employees, and contractors from acting in concert with others who are engaged in said conduct.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the following actions are NOT prohibited by this Preliminary Injunction:

1. informing social-media companies of postings involving criminal activity or criminal conspiracies;
2. contacting and/or notifying social-media companies of national security threats, extortion, or other threats posted on its platform;
3. contacting and/or notifying social-media companies about criminal efforts to suppress voting, to provide illegal campaign contributions, of cyber-attacks against election infrastructure, or foreign attempts to influence elections;
4. informing social-media companies of threats that threaten the public safety or security of the United States;
5. exercising permissible public government speech promoting government policies or views on matters of public concern;
6. informing social-media companies of postings intending to mislead voters about voting requirements and procedures;
7. informing or communicating with social-media companies in an effort to detect, prevent, or mitigate malicious cyber activity;
8. communicating with social-media companies about deleting, removing, suppressing, or reducing posts on social-media platforms that are not protected free speech ….

IT IS FURTHER ORDERD that the Motion for Preliminary Injunction … is DENIED as to the following Defendants: U.S. Food and Drug Administration; U. S. Department of Treasury; U.S. Election Assistance Commission; [and] U. S. Department of Commerce ….

Thanks to Louis Bonham for the pointer.

Comments

[Aubrey LaVentana]

How about a similar injunction against specific Members of Congress?

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Or the government in general? Here's a good general-purpose version:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[Noscitur a sociis]

How is, say, a senator asking a company to think about removing content from its website an example of “Congress … mak[ing a] law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press”?

[Kafantaris]

“The injunction is strikingly broad and clearly intended to chill any kind of contact between government actors and social media platforms.”
You bet — it’s classic prior restraint. Moreover, just applying the exceptions — warning of national security threats, criminal activity or voter suppression — in itself requires the evaluation of speech based on content.

[Brett Bellmore]

Basically the whole Bill of Rights is prior restraint... of government!

[ChrisC]

Yeah, exactly. Funny how constitutional lawyers seem to forget that so easily.

[Sarcastr0]

Prior restraint is a term of art.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, we are aware that "prior restraint" is a term of art in First amendment cases. We're also aware that the Bill of Rights' own restrictions on government can't violate the 1st amendment. If it's unconstitutional censorship for a government agent to tell FB, "Censor these posts, or else", it's NOT unconstitutional censorship to forbid that same government agent from saying exactly that.

[Sarcastr0]

So you're arguing that the government can be forbidden from doing things that it is forbidden from doing.

This is a tautology.

The issues here are about whether the government is doing anything illegal.
1) the government has not rendered twitter an agent of the government, no matter how much some truly shameful judge writes he's seen it.
2) using public channels to communicate with the public, including corporations, is government speech. It would be new law to say the government acting via those channels is inherently coercive. Not something a District Court judge should be doing.
3) working for the government does not mean all your actions are taken as government actions 24/7.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The left sued Trump over twitter....

[Randal]

An injunction is probably not the best vehicle, but this seems like a much better approach to the problem than Texas's. The misbehavior is that of the government, not the social media companies.

[Tom for equal rights]

the injunction is to stop federal agencies from getting media platforms from suppressing info that the federal agencies dont like. Yet the search engines (google, etc) accomplish nearly the same thing.

Prime example is the academic fraud level junk science study of gas stove asthma study. google "gas stove asthma junk science " there will be 200+ positive links and only 3-4 hits pointing out why the study is junk science

[BravoCharlieDelta]

This won't stop them

[Stephen Lathrop]

Just repeal Section 230 unconditionally. Problem solved.

Private editing prior to publishing will take over. The government will be out of it.

Every conceivable point of view will probably find a publisher willing to host it. If some worthy views fail to find outlet, that will induce new publishers to spring up to take advantage of the deficiency. With internet publishing, the cost of entry to an open, non-giantistic marketplace will remain negligible.

[MollyGodiva]

If Section 230 went away, Republicans would be almost erased from the internet. The liability attached to hosting such insane BS would be way too much of a risk for any site.

[Brett Bellmore]

You really don't understand Section 230, do you?

Existing precedent was that hosted content is not the host's own content; The phone company is not responsible for what you say over the phone, for instance.

OTOH, if the phone company picks and chooses what you can say over the phone? THEN they're responsible for what you say!

IOW, absent Section 230, moderation CREATES liability!

The purpose of Section 230 was to PERMIT moderation without liability. Remember, it's section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the act's purpose was to ENABLE internet censorship, not to prevent it.

So, wipe out Section 230, the pre-existing precedent kicks in: There are only 2 ways to avoid liability for user provided content:

1) Don't have any.

or

2) Don't moderate proactively. Only remove stuff subject to court orders.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Dinosaur wants to destroy the internet. More at 9!

[David Nieporent]

Just repeal Section 230 unconditionally. Problem solved.

Just grow the fuck up, realize you don't know anything about the publishing industry (yes, I know you ran a failed newspaper in nowheresville) or the internet, and stop mentioning 230 when it has nothing to do with anything.

[Mitch]

Why does the opinion cite the Supreme Court Reporter rather than the United States Reports? I do that for newer cases that do not yet have a U.S. citation, but not for cases from the 1960s.

[mydisplayname]

I wondered the same thing -- thought it was just me.

[mydisplayname]

It is wonderful to see some support for the freedom of speech by all; however, controversy over the freedom of speech is bringing us ever-closer to a World War I-like scenario. Consider that
(a) Türkiye considers the burning of a Qur'an anywhere in the world to be an attack on Türkiye [and the UN agrees that such unacceptable "hate speech" transcends borders];
(b) Türkiye is a member of NATO;
(c) An attack against a member of NATO is an attack against all members of NATO, to which each member of NATO must respond (albeit each in his own way, ostensibly).
Do we fully honor our treaty if an American burns a Qur'an? If a Swede does so? Do we protect freedom of speech if doing so makes some Americans "vaccine hesitant," thereby endangering lives? Entangling alliances -- both domestic and international -- complicate freedom.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The solution to any problem along that line is to expel Turkey from NATO. Let those assholes petition Russia for help if they need it.

[Mr. Bumble]

Not a bad idea.

[StellaLink_the dog]

I read something about this somewhere recently and got the impression that it is not within the current NATO rules to expel a member state. That is, supposing that I still remember.

I know, “we don’t need no stinking rules,” but still.

Something that might concern you: you appear to be getting approval from someone who just pretends to be a racist asshole.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I have read that the rules say little to nothing about removing a member. (They don't say NATO can remove a member; they don't say NATO can't.)

Even if they did, dissolving NATO momentarily and forming a successor alliance would seem to be relatively simple and effective.

[Voize]

(c) An attack against a member of NATO is an attack against all members of NATO, to which each member of NATO must respond (albeit each in his own way, ostensibly).

Article 5 of the NATO treaty says that an armed attack against one "shall be considered an attack against them all". That's an armed attack, not a metaphorical one.

[blue-heron]

It is evidently not enough for the author to push for more crude epithets in the schools along with bigotry, homophobia and a complete lack of civility on his own website, he now wants to give those that spew outright lies, misinformation and discord a free pass on social media. What a wonderful world we live in.

[Toranth]

Considering how much "misinformation" you've been spewing across the comments section the past few days, you should be most grateful. If EV lived by the ideals you espouse, you'd never be allowed to post again.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

If you don't like your right-wing bigotry at this site leavened with the occasional liberal-libertarian content, Toranth, you should ask Prof. Volokh to censor the mainstreamers and culture war victors who offend you.

The proprietor has censored liberals and libertarians (for making fun of conservatives, or criticizing them, or using mean words to describe them) before; maybe he will do it again, for you, if you ask him nicely.

[StellaLink_the dog]

I know that you claim to have been censored by the Conspiracy in the past, and I believe you. I would just note that in my recent memory I have spent a lot of time trying to see how much it would take to get disciplined and was unsuccessful. I've repeatedly used the slack jaw slur as well as the XXSucker slur among others and haven't seen any negative response. Maybe it's time to cut a little slack rather than just cutting the cheese.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Prof. Volokh seems to be quite selective with respect to his censorship -- focusing on liberals and those who criticize or poke fun at conservatives.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Perhaps it's time for you to migrate somewhere else.

[Greg J]

he now wants to give those that spew outright lies, misinformation and discord a free pass on social media

You mean like the lie that Trump colluded with Russia to win the 2016 presidential election?

The disinformation claiming that Covid was obviously not man-made and clearly wasn't created at the WIV as part of work funded by Fauci?

The disinformation that the Covid shot prevented people from catching Covid?
The misinformation that the covid shot decreases the spread of covid?

The lie that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation?

Those are the kind of "outright lies, misinformation and discord" you want banned?

Oh, wait, you want all those on there

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Remember when you peed your panties when Bush said Saddam has chlorine tipped scuds aimed at Dallas??

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Or the lies about the USS Liberty?

[StellaLink_the dog]

"Or the lies about the USS Liberty?"

Everybody knows that was Soros's work.

[David Nieporent]

False. The Rothschilds had command of the space laser that week.

[Nige]

Literally every one of those is a lie-by-straw-man or a lie-by-distortion.

[Eric Von Salzen]

The proposed injunction illustrates how difficult it would be to prevent GOVT from interfering with free debate on contentious public issues. Suppose someone posts a warning on social media that a particular medical treatment for a contagious disease has severe fatal side effects. A GOVT health agency has conducted an in-depth study which concluded that the risks from the treatment were minor and mild. If the GOVT advises the social media platform about the study, and asks the platform to promote this information in the public interest, has it violated the injunction? Suppose for purposes of my question that the social media platform has no reason to doubt that it's a legitimate study and that the conclusion is well-supported. So the folks who run the social media platform decide that the information originally posted was misleading, and delete it. Have they violated the injunction?

[mulched]

Not a violation as I read the injunction, as long as there's no nudge-nudge from the govt for something bad to happen to the original anti-treatment post.

[David Nieporent]

There was never any "nudge nudge."

[VinniUSMC]

Government is "nudge nudge."

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Disney got more than nudged.

Carry on, bigoted clingers. But only so far as your betters permit.

[Greg J]

"If the GOVT advises the social media platform about the study, and asks the platform to promote this information in the public interest, has it violated the injunction?"

1: There's no actual reason to believe that the gov't study was in any way valid. See the CDC "Kentucky Study" which the CDC used to dishonestly claim that the Covid shot provided better protection from Covid than did prior infection

2: There is no legitimate reason for the gov't to be "contacting a social media company" in that situation. The gov't is free to issue their press release. Other than that, they should STFU.

So yes, the injunction SHOULD block that

[Kazinski]

I think it violates the injunction when it flags the "misinformation" and brings it to the SM companies attention.

The government certainly can be part of the public debate, they can't be part of suppressing the other side.

[Nige]

The upshot is, in times of crisis, the government must not be allowed to point out lies, at times when lies can do a lot of damage. So during a hurricane, misinformation that sends people into danger rather than away from danger cannot be flagged by government agencies in charge of organising the evacuation. Right now there are online sources spreading misinformation that the latest mass shooting perpetrator was trans. Government is not allowed to point out that this is misinformation.

[Greg J]

The upshot is that "in times of crisis", the government has REPEATEDLY claimed things were "lies" when they were in fact true.

Covid lab leak
Covid "vaccine" doesn't block spread of covid
Covid "vaccine" doesn't keep you from catching covid
Covid "vaccine" offers almost no benefit to those under 40 with no co-morbidities
Hunter Biden's laptop

So no, no one sane would actually want to give dishonest gov't officials with a bad track record the power to censor public discussion

[Greg J]

But the reality is that even if they were acting in good faith (they're not) and were competent (they're not), they still shouldn't have that power

"The answer to bad speech is more speech".

That's the position you take when your side isn't the lying side

[Dilan Esper]

This order is entirely nuts, I don't think there's really much more to say about it.

It's destined for quick stay and fairly swift reversal, and the mere fact of its issuance casts grave doubts on the judicial competence and temperament of its author.

And I say all of this as someone who generally thinks there are serious free speech problems with the way the government has attempted to "team up" with social media to "fight disinformation". But that doesn't matter- this order is still nuts.

[Greg J]

It's so "nuts" you can't give a single reason why it's "nuts"

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Kill 3000 Americans by flying two planes into skyscrapers and we spend $5 trillion and sacrifice 7000 of our best and brightest to prevent it from happening again. Kill 500,000 Americans by disseminating Covid disinformation via social media and we protect you with the First Amendment.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

https://brownstone.org/articles/cdc-altered-death-certificates/

CDC Altered Minnesota Death Certificates that List a Covid Vaccine as a Cause of Death

No refunds, Vaxxies!

[Greg J]

Which "Covid disinformation" is that?

That the Covid shot doesn't decrease the spread of Covid? No, that's been scientifically proven to be correct:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8481107/

That masking, lockdowns, and "social distancing" were all worthless, and that the lockdowns caused more harm than good?

No, that's also true.

That covid is a problem mainly for the old and the in bad health? Again, also true.

The Fauci vilated US law to fund the research that created Covid, so he bears moral responsibility for every single Covid death?

That's also true.

[Greg J]

But, the real kicker is that you don't provide even a single example of this "deadly disinformation."

Gee, it's almost like even you know you're flat out lying

[LawTalkingGuy]

Here’s one. The order purports to preclude “said named Defendants, their agents, officers, employees, contractors, and all acting in concert with them from the aforementioned conduct. This Preliminary Injunction also precludes said named Defendants, their agents, officers, employees, and contractors from acting in concert with others who are engaged in said conduct.”

So that’s thousands of people. Some of whom aren’t even members of the government he’s purporting to enjoin. Contractors? Really?

What’s he’s ordering them not to do? Well among other things it prevents them from “specifically flagging content or posts on social-media platforms and/or forwarding such to social-media companies urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner for removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech”

So he basically just banned thousands of federal employees and contractors from reporting a racist or antisemitic tweet. Which is a highly illegal and bonkers form of prior restraint.

That’s clearly nuts.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Contractors working on behalf of the government are agents of the government. It’s not that hard.

And you just can’t seem to get your mind around the fact that it’s not the place of federal employees to “report” speech they don’t like, regardless of how objectionable it may be.

[LawTalkingGuy]

So it’s your position that government employees and contractors lose their first amendment rights by virtue of working for the government or contracting with them? That even in their off time they can’t object to or flag racist content on their own personal Facebook page or Twitter feed?

[bevis the lumberjack]

Not at all. You’re confusing “criticize speech” and “report speech as an agent of the government recommending that it be suppressed”.

They can do the former until the cows come home. They can criticize it in the paper, on social media, with a bullhorn in public.

The latter is a problem.

[LawTalkingGuy]

So again. It is your position that on their day off a DOJ paralegal cannot report a racist tweet to Twitter because that suppresses protected speech? That’s your position and you’re sticking to it?

[bevis the lumberjack]

Yes. Are they not agents of the government on their days off?

“I reported it during my lunch hour so it’s ok”.

You’re trying to punch a hole in the first amendment big enough to drive a cruise ship through because there’s some speech you don’t like. There’s speech I don’t like either but I’m not twisting logic in a pretzel to get it suppressed.

The bill of rights is explicitly written to keep the government (every agent) from doing certain things to us. There’s no “if you’re at a lower level on the org chart you can conduct warrantless searches” exception. Quit looking for workarounds.

[LawTalkingGuy]

“Are they not agents of the government on their days off?”

Do you know what a day off is?

““I reported it during my lunch hour so it’s ok””

Yes. Reporting someone saying the N word on your FB page to FB is clearly okay. How could it not be.

You’re the only one punching a hole in the first amendment, but you don’t even realize it dude. You’re endorsing a system where government employees don’t have free speech rights to interact with social media companies how they wish in their off time on matters not involving their job. This clearly violates well established first amendment law protecting the speech rights of government employees.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Bullshit. What if Congress is in recess?Can Schumer call FB and demand that a post he doesn’t like get taken down? You really think that’s ok?

And we’re not even getting into how far the definition of racist has been expanded.

This is why your side is more dangerous than the crazy MAGA people. Y’all are a much more serious threat to our rights than those clowns are, because you’re willing to take away our rights over harmless crap. Words. Your piety and righteousness is a danger to us all.

[LawTalkingGuy]

So you are defending restrictions in a scenario different than the the one I posited. senator Schumer vs DOJ paralegal. Probably because you realized I’m right about government employee free speech rights and realized how ludicrous your position was. I’ll take your switching as implicit acknowledgment that I was right and you were wrong. Thanks.

[bevis the lumberjack]

No, moron. I was using the extreme to make the point. Schumer and the DOJ paralegal have exactly the same speech rights. Can Schumer do or not? His speech rights are same as the paralegal.

Furthermore you’re actually giving federal employees speech rights that supersede ours, since they can use them to shut ours off. Your Argus crap. There is NO circumstance under which government employees can lean on social media platforms to shut people up.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Bevis. You’re literally wrong on the law here. All of it.

If a DOJ paralegal is subject to racial harassment on Twitter it is her right under the first amendment, like literally every other user in America, to report that tweet to Twitter for violating the TOS. Or not. She gets to decide. It’s her speech right to do that. She has the same right as you to do that. This order, and your conception of “free speech” is an abridgment of that right. You want less speech rights for thousands of your fellow
Americans. You want them to not be allowed to express themselves in their private and personal
capacity. If we extended your principle to state and local, we’re talking about millions of Americans. Cops. Firefighters. Nurses. Teachers. Park rangers. List is long. You don’t want them having the same speech rights as you. You want government prohibition on their ability to interact with social media the same as everyone else. That’s not being a free speech advocate.

[David Nieporent]

Bullshit. What if Congress is in recess?Can Schumer call FB and demand that a post he doesn’t like get taken down? You really think that’s ok?

What does "ok" mean? Why do people online always resort to that word when they don't have clear thoughts?

It's constitutional, since Schumer has no power to force FB to do anything.

[David Nieporent]

You’re trying to punch a hole in the first amendment

The first amendment does not say one word about government employees (or agents) criticizing other people's speech. There's no first amendment issue here.

[tylertusta]

This is a wed-trodden area of law. Government employees do, in fact, lose some free speech protections. See the Hatch Act for more information.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Yeah. But the Hatch Act is pretty limited. This is not.

[Sarcastr0]

Also it is a law.

This purports to be a Constitutional mandate.

[tylertusta]

You asked if government employees lose their free speech rights. I replied that they did, and gave an example. The Hatch Act relies on the same limitations to government employee speech that the judge relied on in Missouri v Biden.

The government can absolutely be barred from making certain kinds of speech when that speech is made in an official capacity.

[Sarcastr0]

I think you read "some of" into 'lose their free speech rights' to give you a more tractable thesis.

The government can absolutely be barred
Maybe. But this decision is a *must be barred* decision. It also doesn't seem to be limited by official capacity.

[tylertusta]

"Some of" may necessarily become "all of" depending on the nature of the government's (mis)conduct.

For example, a government department that publicly espouses that only a single religion is permitted, and advocates for the public to take action against other religions most certainly runs afoul of the 1st Amendment's establishment clause, and because it does, the government employee does not have a 1st amendment free speech right to make those statements.

In past SCOTUS cases, the government is held accountable for the unconstitutional actions of private parties when the government induces private parties to carry out the government's unconstitutional wishes. Here's the standard set out in Blum v Yaretsky (1982):

"... a State normally can be held responsible for a private decision only when it has exercised coercive power or has provided such significant encouragement, either overt or covert, that the choice must in law be deemed to be that of the State."

In the current case, the government used it's speech to significantly encourage private tech companies to censor protected speech. Even if you think that untrue speech should be removed, the government should not encourage private tech companies to remove objectively true content, such as when the NY Post revealed that it found some salacious details on Hunter Biden's laptop.

The remedy for this sort of illegal conduct on the part of the government is to bar their coercion of private companies, which is what the judge has done here.

[Sarcastr0]

I like that you're seeking a legal predicate, but I remain unconvinced

the government used it’s speech to significantly encourage private tech companies to censor protected speech.

1) You have gone from 'induces' to 'significantly encourage.' This creates a much more subjective legal standard than the case cited.
2) Even under that subjective standard, 'significantly encourage' does not appear established by the facts.
3) "when the NY Post revealed that it found some salacious details on Hunter Biden’s laptop" was twitter on it's own; there was no government request regarding that story.
4) "illegal conduct on the part of the government" is question begging.

[tylertusta]

> “You have gone from ‘induces’ to ‘significantly encourage.’ This creates a much more subjective legal standard than the case cited.”

Both are terms used by the Supreme Court. ‘Significantly encourage’ is the term used in Blum v Yaretsky (1982), and ‘induces’ is the term used in Norwood v Harrison (1973). They’re used interchangeably. Here’s the full quote from Norwood:

‘[i]t is also axiomatic that a state may not induce, encourage or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish’ (Norwood, 413 U.S. at 455, favorably quoting Lee v. Macon County Board of Education, 267 F. Supp. 458, 475-476 (MD Ala.1967)).

> “Even under that subjective standard, ‘significantly encourage’ does not appear established by the facts.”

Seems to me that the CDC publicly trying to shame tech companies into removing content it didn’t like qualifies as ‘significantly encourages.’ See “Surgeon General Assails Tech Companies Over Misinformation on Covid-19” at https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/15/us/politics/surgeon-general-vaccine-misinformation.html

Yes, it’s a subjective standard. If you don’t like that, take it up with the Supreme Court for making one over forty years ago.

> “when the NY Post revealed that it found some salacious details on Hunter Biden’s laptop” was twitter on it’s own; there was no government request regarding that story.

Did the government specifically request that the story be taken down? No. But the government doesn’t need to under the standard set forth by SCOTUS.

What the plaintiffs successfully showed is that the FBI knew about the Hunter Biden story and that it was bound to get out to the press. The FBI warned tech companies to be on the look out for “hacked materials” and badgered several tech companies to set up policies that would block the NY Post Story before it hit. When the NY Post story ran, the FBI was specifically asked if this was part of the “hacked materials” and “Russian disinformation-” information that the FBI knew at the time- yet did nothing.

As the Court noted, just like the government cannot request a private company to take down protected speech, the government cannot lie to get the same result.

> “illegal conduct on the part of the government” is question begging.

Well, you clearly don’t think that the government did anything wrong, so it makes sense that you’d say that.

The conduct here on the part of the government is unconstitutional and illegal as spelled out in the facts and analysis of the ruling, and at least one federal judge agrees with me. The remedy is to order them to stop doing the unconstitutional and illegal things.

[Sarcastr0]

I never said the government did nothing wrong, I said you were assuming things you didn't establish.

I took a quick look at Blum v Yaretsky. It's holding and analysis are actually in the opposite direction of what you're citing it for:
"although it is apparent that nursing homes in New York are extensively regulated, "[t]he mere fact that a business is subject to state regulation does not, by itself, convert its action into that of the State for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment."
Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co., 419 U.S. at 419 U. S. 350.
The complaining party must also show that "there is a sufficiently close nexus between the State and the challenged action of the regulated entity so that the action of the latter may be fairly treated as that of the State itself."
The purpose of this requirement is to assure that constitutional standards are invoked only when it can be said that the State is responsible for the specific conduct of which the plaintiff complains. The importance of this assurance is evident when, as in this case, the complaining party seeks to hold the State liable for the actions of private parties."

I think your standard for establishing constructive agency in twitter misapprehends the law.

[tylertusta]

> I never said the government did nothing wrong, I said you were assuming things you didn’t establish.

No, friend, I didn’t assume it. I stated it. If you want me to quote a 155-page ruling, then sadly I will run out of characters in this tiny comment box. My inference as to your conclusion was drawn from your statements.

> I took a quick look at Blum v Yaretsky. It’s holding and analysis are actually in the opposite direction of what you’re citing it for.

How so? The fact that the respondents lost in the end doesn’t mean that the Court didn’t establish a test for these kinds of cases. These cases are highly dependent on the facts. The district court in *Missouri v Biden* followed the test and found in favor of the plaintiffs based on the facts presented to it.

> I think your standard for establishing constructive agency in twitter misapprehends the law.

Well, we’re just going to have to agree to disagree on that, friend.

However, I hope that you have a better understanding on the limitations on government conduct (including speech!) for government employees when they are acting as governmental officials.

[Sarcastr0]

I didn’t assume it. I stated it.
That's not better. Because it's still you assuming it, just deciding you're too confident to bother backing up your thinking for others.

The ruling also states it. With great drama, if not great evidence. That is one of the ways it dumb and bad, regardless of whether it is in the end correct.

The fact that the respondents lost in the end doesn’t mean that the Court didn’t establish a test for these kinds of cases
The Court there talked about a test, but more how it was not met in the case, and that same reasoning exactly applies to here; how do you distinguish?

I hope that you have a better understanding on the limitations on government conduct (including speech!) for government employees when they are acting as governmental officials.
I am a government employee, I've had training on it. This would be a radical change in the law. Maybe you like it, maybe you think it follows precedents better than the current paradigm, but you are in ought-land, not is-land.

[tylertusta]

> That’s not better. Because it’s still you assuming it, just deciding you’re too confident to bother backing up your thinking for others.

If what I said previously doesn't meet your exacting standards of support for my position on the government's misconduct, then I cannot help you, especially since I've had two previous posts that addresses this.

> The Court there talked about a test, but more how it was not met in the case, and that same reasoning exactly applies to here; how do you distinguish?

In Blum, the Court's decision hinged on whether "there is a sufficiently close nexus between the State and the challenged action of the regulated entity so that the action of the latter may be fairly treated as that of the State itself." The Court goes on to explain: "The purpose of this requirement is to assure that constitutional standards are invoked only when it can be said that the State is responsible for the specific conduct of which the plaintiff complains. The importance of this assurance is evident when, as in this case, the complaining party seeks to hold the State liable for the actions of private parties."

The reason why the Court did not find that there was coersion in Blum was because the government did not choose whom to discharge, and there was no evidence that the government's changing of medicaid payments caused the discharges. The Court says: "We cannot say that the State, by requiring completion of a form, is responsible for the physician's decision."

Here we have evidence of communications between Federal employees and various IT companies in which the government explicitly (and implicitly, as in the case of the FBI's handling of the Hunter Biden affair) requested that social media companies remove protected 1st Amendment speech. It was then shown in discovery that the IT companies removed the protected speech at the behest of the government.

That's how the two cases are distinguished.

> I am a government employee, I’ve had training on it. This would be a radical change in the law. Maybe you like it, maybe you think it follows precedents better than the current paradigm, but you are in ought-land, not is-land.

With yesterday's ruling, I'm currently in "is-land." You clearly don't like it. You clearly don't think the ruling follows past precedents, but you're now in "ought-land" and no longer in "is-land."

If you don't like that, I suggest you fire up your typewriter and file an amicus brief or try to intervene. As a reminder, make sure you don't violate the Hatch Act as well- do it on your own time and use your own typewriter!

[Sarcastr0]

Here we have evidence of communications between Federal employees and various IT companies in which the government explicitly (and implicitly, as in the case of the FBI’s handling of the Hunter Biden affair) requested that social media companies remove protected 1st Amendment speech.
1. Anyone can make these requests.
2. The Hunter Biden thing isn't even a constructive request. Implicit requests is you making new legal ground. You may not have realized that; this is a sign you're outcome is overdetermined. Nothing wrong with having an outcome in mind, but having some flexibility and not requiring 100% everything to go along with your outcome is a good move. SCOTUS oral arguments are often lost by finding overbroad implications in a party's case.

It was then shown in discovery that the IT companies removed the protected speech at the behest of the government.
1. Not protected speech - this is a private outcome. Quit begging the question!
2. Anyone could make these requests. Government requests were not invariably followed, as your agency theory would seem to require.

[tylertusta]

> Anyone can make these requests.

Anyone *not in the government* can make those requests. By virtue of being government employees acting in an official capacity, they are handled differently than others. Government employees do not have the same 1st Amendment rights as everyone else when they are acting in an official capacity. As I said previously, this is well-trodden by the courts.

You seem to be aware of some of these limitations due to the training you've received. Due to this court ruling you'll probably have to attend some new training very shortly.

> The Hunter Biden thing isn’t even a constructive request. Implicit requests is you making new legal ground.

It's actually a decades old precedent. Consider the case of *Norwood v Harrison* from 1973. Mississippi did not order private schools to become racially segregated. They did not even single out racially segregated schools for receiving special support from the state. However, the Court still found that it was implicitly supporting a segregationist policy and ordered that the state stop providing support to segregated schools.

> SCOTUS oral arguments are often lost by finding overbroad implications in a party’s case.

I would agree if this was a novel legal theory, this would be a stretch. However, the Judge in Louisiana applied precedent in a straightforward matter. If you don't like *Norwood* or *Blum*, then you should take it up with the Supreme Court.

> Not protected speech – this is a private outcome. Quit begging the question!

Ah, I see the disconnect now. You're operating under the assumption that the speech is protect as a conclusion on my part, when I'm saying it a simple statement of fact based on the definition of speech that is protected under the 1st Amendment. That is to say, protected speech is speech that does not fall into the known exemptions:

- Fighting words
- True threats
- Defamation
- And so on.

'Protected speech' doesn't mean that private parties can't block it on their own (perhaps it's best to think of it as "protected-from-interference-from-the-government speech"), but it means that the government can't ask/demand/imply/coerce a private party to have it taken down or censored. Once government asks/demands/implies/coerces private parties to take it down, the private parties are swept up into litigation as if they're part of the government.

Unless you can show that the speech at issu falls outside of this, it qualifies as protected speech. And yes, I'm placing the burden on *you*, Sarcastr0, to demonstrate that any of this speech in this case falls into one or more of the defined exceptions. The burden of proof is on the government to show that speech falls into an exception, and since you're trying to prop up the government's too-cute-by-half censorship regime, you're going to have to prove that the speech isn't protected speech.

[Sarcastr0]

No one is arguing government employees have the exact same speech rights as civilians. Just that your vision for speech restrictions is not in keeping with the current law.
There is no indication governmental requests were handled differently than others, other than sometimes being noted as high viz, which was not government-specific, and hardly an indicator of being treated more kindly. The twitter files strained for weeks and found nothing.

Norwood v Harrison is about state action. Moreover, your characterization doesn’t seem right – I don’t see anything regarding the support being implicit – actual support was going to segregated schools, and that was forbidden.

the Judge in Louisiana applied precedent in a straightforward matter. We will have to agree to disagree on this point. This is a pretty extraordinary opinion in lots of ways. ——— Protected speech is *protected against government action*. If twitter were a government utility, we’d be having a very different discussion. The case here finds twitter is acting as a agent of government, and government speech to twitter must be regulated accordingly.

Except that there is no facts and not law that create such a federal nexus in twitter’s actions.

[tylertusta]

> No one is arguing government employees have the exact same speech rights as civilians.

Yet you have. You specifically said: "*Anyone* can make these requests."

Anyone.

My answer is that no, they can't make those requests under the circumstances that I've spelled out. It violates the 1st Amendment if a government official gets a 3rd party to censor someone.

> There is no indication governmental requests were handled differently than others, other than sometimes being noted as high viz, which was not government-specific, and hardly an indicator of being treated more kindly. The twitter files strained for weeks and found nothing.

There's plenty of evidence that they were not only handled differently and more kindly with their requests. Twitter files notwithstanding, the government had a lot of this revealed during discovery in the lawsuit. It was found that:

* White House defendants had a personal line of communication to specific Twitter contacts and demanded that protect speech be removed immediately. Twitter did so. What did the account do? It was a parody account of the Biden family. Parody is protected speech.
* Twitter created a portal through which government officials could get expedited review of their flagging of accounts for removal because the White House was sending so many requests through.
* Facebook held in-person meetings with the White House in which they agreed to change their moderation policies to combat 'vaccine hesitancy', which is also protected speech.

> Norwood v Harrison is about state action.

I don't see how the distinction between State and Federal works here. I welcome you to tell me how a State gov't can't do X but Federal gov't can do X despite the fact that the Supreme Court says that it's a violation to do X.

> I don’t see anything regarding the support being implicit – actual support was going to segregated schools, and that was forbidden.

The support was explicit, but the *message* was implicit- that the gov't supported segregation at private schools. That's what the Court said in Norwood: "When, as here, that necessary expense is borne by the State, the economic consequence is to give aid to the enterprise; if the school engages in discriminatory practices, the State, by tangible aid in the form of textbooks thereby gives support to such discrimination. Racial discrimination in state-operated schools is barred by the Constitution and "[i]t is also axiomatic that a state may not induce, encourage or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish."

Read that last sentence a couple of times so you don't miss it. The state doesn't need to explicitly endorse racial segregation for their program to be unconstitutional.

Keep in mind that the schools in question were racially segregated and would remain so for a few years yet.

> This is a pretty extraordinary opinion in lots of ways. Protected speech is *protected against government action*. If twitter were a government utility, we’d be having a very different discussion. The case here finds twitter is acting as a agent of government, and government speech to twitter must be regulated accordingly.

I don't disagree that protected speech means protected from government action. Where we do disagree is that the Court has clearly said that the government can't force 3rd parties to do what it cannot do by itself.

> Except that there is no facts and not law that create such a federal nexus in twitter’s actions.

I suggest you read the decision. It's clear that you haven't. It's 155 pages, so I'll know if you haven't read it.

There's reams of evidence. Come see me when you've read it.

[Greg J]

If I smell the smoke of illegal substances coming from a room, and ask the landlord to check if there's drugs there, that is not a violation of the 4th Amendment

If an FBI Agent suspects someone is using drugs, and asks the landlord to check if there's drugs there, that's a violation of the 4th Amendment. Said agent has made the landlord a "government agent" by making that request.

This is well established case law.

So no: No government official may EVER "ask" a social media company to do ANYTHING WRT other people's freedom of speech, that the government official can not legally ORDER to be done as part of said official's job.

Because doing so is a violation of our First Amendment rights

There's a "lie" propagating on social media? Feel free to put out a press release detailing what's true.

Want to do more than that? Tough sh!t, the First Amendment stops you

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Whereas you're the dumbfuck trying to argue that someone who works for the Government loses all ability to report content on their personal time, completely unrelated from their official capacity.

You claim to have made millions in the oil business, yet you're clearly dumber than a fucking janitor.

I call bullshit.

[tylertusta]

He didn’t argue about government employees losing their 1st amendment rights during their personal time.

This case wasn’t about that at all. This case was about actions that were done through official government contacts with tech companies, on government time, through government emails, and through the use of their official capacities as government employees.

No one is arguing that government employees can’t communicate with tech companies in a personal capacity, on personal time, for personal reasons.

…no one except those trying to derail the conversation.

However, since you’ve clearly got a bee in your bonnet over a red herring, I’ll explain this exactly once: government employees have restricted 1st amendment rights to speak, to use the press, to assemble, to petition the government, and even to freely exercise religion. In some circumstances such as the military, they have no 1st amendment right to free speech at all. You can be charged with failing to follow orders if you speak at the position of attention under the UCMJ.

As I said before, this case doesn’t involve those restrictions. This involves restrictions on official government speech.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Maybe you should shut the fuck up and read the injunction, as well as the actual comment thread you're responding to.

It is not limited to acts taken in their official capacity at all, which was the topic of THIS thread that Bevis decided to respond to.

When called out on the distinction, Bevis has NOT adjusted his argument and in fact doubled-down that they are Federal employees, period., and therefore do in fact lose those rights.

If he is unwilling to distinguish between official acts, and those of a private individual, and you're here to ignorantly defend what you haven't bothered to even read, then both of you may go fuck yourselves.

[tylertusta]

> Maybe you should shut the fuck up and read the injunction, as well as the actual comment thread you’re responding to.

I think you need a dose of your own advice.

Shut up.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Aww. What’s the matter?

Don’t you want to read the injunction? Maybe you don’t want to read this either:

https://reason.com/volokh/2023/07/04/july-4-injunction-bars-various-federal-departments-from-encouraging-social-media-platforms-to-delete-content/?comments=true#comment-10139349

As a great golfer once said, “The price is wrong, bitch!”

Next time you might want to check that you’re right before challenging me.

[not guilty]

"It’s destined for quick stay and fairly swift reversal, and the mere fact of its issuance casts grave doubts on the judicial competence and temperament of its author."

You have more faith in the Fifth Circuit than I do.

[David Nieporent]

I mean, it depends on the panel they draw. There are some that I would expect would uphold a ruling reinstating slavery. (Oldham would say that nobody traced any historical facts about slavery back to 1776 and therefore the arguments against slavery are invalid.)

But any reasonable draw and this gets stayed, and if not I expect SCOTUS to stay it. This ruling makes Aileen Cannon's attempt to rewrite all of criminal law to protect Donald Trump look modest in comparison.

[tylertusta]

I for one think this is a fabulous first step in correcting a grave injustice done to Americans.

Let the speech flow freely.

[ah....Clem]

The order may be nuts* but any appeal goes to a panel of three fifth circuit judges and they can be even nuttier than this ruling. So your prediction of a "quick stay" may not be accurate.

*Yes, it's nuts. ~150 pages of batshit herp-a-derp. The kind of stuff that gets you an F in any 1L class. Quite sad that EV made an "I'm busy" excuse for not venturing his opinion.

[Social Justice is neither]

I see the pro-censorship leftist is reacting rationally here.

[Magister]

Wikipedia indicates that the judge has

issued a nationwide injunction against a federal mandate that health care workers be vaccinated against COVID-19. His opinion includes what some have called false and misleading claims about COVID-19 vaccines, including the suggestion that vaccines are not useful because booster shots are recommended after six months and claimed "the virus has achieved an immune escape from COVID-19 vaccines". Doughty's opinion cited the views of a doctor known for making false claims about the vaccine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_A._Doughty

From the link, "It is quite telling that each example or category of suppressed speech was conservative in nature." That hardly seems surprising, since the plaintiffs included authors of The Great Barrington Declaration, and Gateway Pundit, so they are naturally going to bring examples of conservative speech. It also seems a little early to assert "All were suppressed" but maybe there's an implicit "viewing the allegations most favorably to the plaintiffs".

One would hope that individuals not in government with expertise in epidemiology would be bringing the same concerns about misinformation to the attention of social media companies, so maybe it will work out the same. (That Twitter in particular might now ignore such private requests could more reflect Musk's determination to make it friendlier to extremists.)

[F.D. Wolf]

From the opinion:

Although this case is still relatively young, and at this stage the Court is only examining it in terms of Plaintiffs’ likelihood of success on the merits, the evidence produced thus far depicts
an almost dystopian scenario. During the COVID-19 pandemic, a period perhaps best characterized by widespread doubt and uncertainty, the United States Government seems to have
assumed a role similar to an Orwellian “Ministry of Truth.”

[Mr. Bumble]

"...the United States Government seems to have
assumed a role similar to an Orwellian “Ministry of Truth.” and continues to do so.

[David Nieporent]

Do you remember when the Ministry of Truth sent emails to private publications asking them if certain posts disseminated by those publications met the publications' own standards? And remember when the private publications were free to do whatever they wanted with those emails, and suffered no consequences if they ignored them, as they often did?

[David Bremer]

As you read the order, it's clear from the beginning that the judge is much more interested in making political points than making a coherent legal ruling. This is just one example.

The order--which is on a motion for preliminary injunction, meaning it is still early in the case--starts out with a quote about defending to death the right to speak, includes unnecessary hyperbolic adjectives and adverbs, and does not show the approach of a disinterested umpire.

If you want to rein in government pressure of media outlets, an order like this isn't the way to do it. You play it straight and let the facts speak for themselves. This judge doesn't appear to have any interest in doing that.

[Nige]

Comparing it to The Ministry Of Truth is a backhanded way of saying they were, in fact, interested in truthfulness, only to them it's a bad thing.

[not guilty]

I haven't finished reading the order yet, but the language, "If the allegations made by Plaintiffs are true, the present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States' history" caught my eye.

Has the judge perhaps overlooked the Sedition Act of 1798?

[Greg J]

How many people were censored by the Sedition Act of 1798?

how many were censored WRT Hunter Biden's laptop?

You know, where gov't actors knowingly lied to social media companies in order to get true harmful information about their preferred political candidate suppressed in the weeks before the election, an election he "won" by 45,000 votes (that's the margin of WI, GA, and AZ, which between them would have flipped the election to Trump).

So I'd say it's certainly the most consequential attack on free speech in American history

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

I read all about Hunter’s laptop before the 2020 election…if you believed it was Russian disinformation then that’s your problem. Btw, Hunter is really good at sex. 😉

[David Nieporent]

how many were censored WRT Hunter Biden’s laptop?

Zero.

You know, where gov’t actors knowingly lied to social media companies

Didn't happen

in order to get true harmful information about their preferred political candidate

There was no harmful information about the candidate. Also, Trump was the president at the time. Why would Trump have preferred Biden?

[Nige]

'how many were censored WRT Hunter Biden’s laptop?'

None.

[F.D. Wolf]

The predominant view in the Early Republic of the First Amendment's guarantees of freedom of speech and of the press was that they only went so far as to prevent prior restraint by the government. In other words, the government could punish you for what you said, so long as it didn't prevent you from saying it in the first place. This is the view espoused by Joseph Story in his Commentaries on the Constitution (1833).

Needless to say, that view no longer holds much sway, but, from
the beginning, prior restraint has always been viewed as the most invidious attack on freedom of speech. Never in this nation's history, and certainly not in peacetime, has there been such an extensive, concerted campaign from the government to prevent people from seeing certain information in the first place. So, yes, this was objectively worse. (Of course, it doesn't help that so much of the "misinformation" the government was "protecting" us from turned out to be accurate.)

[Randal]

Oh please. Go on Truth Social if you want misinformation. There's nothing wrong with Twitter deciding it only wants to allow left-wing propaganda on its platform just like there's nothing wrong with Fox News being the media arm of the Republican party. And there's nothing wrong with Twitter taking its cues from the government... see also again Fox News.

Y'all sound like you want to bring back the Fairness Doctrine and apply it to the Internet. I suppose forcing publishers to carry your message is always an appealing option for those with unpopular beliefs.

[F.D. Wolf]

You may not have noticed, but this is not an injunction against Twitter or Fox News, who remain free to publish or not publish whatever they wish, but this is an injunction against the government.

You may like the government telling you what to think, but many of us do not. You remain free to digest all your information solely from government press releases if that is what you wish. You are also naive to believe that when the government "suggests" an individual or company do something that consequences for not doing so are never implied (if not outright expressed) or inferred, which, as the courts say, has a "chilling effect" on freedom.

[Randal]

So you think Fox News parrots Trump's talking points out of fear?

[F.D. Wolf]

Fox News parrots Trump's talking points? LOL. Is that what you read at Slate? Fox News management hates Trump and would love to see him destroyed. Besides, if you hadn't heard, Trump is no longer in the government.

[Randal]

I take that as a no.

Let me know when you have any evidence of coercion. Here's a clue: if Twitter or Facebook were being coerced, they'd say so in these sorts of cases! Obviously, like Fox, they're all too happy to go along. There's no coercion, no "chilling effect."

[F.D. Wolf]

Do you understand how courts and injunctions work? This judge has laid out 155 pages of evidence.

[Sarcastr0]

It’s a partisan screed. It doesn’t look a lot like an opinion,,and makes factual findings willy nilly.

I’m not going to read all of it but it’s not evidence it’s shit.

[Randal]

There is no evidence of coercion in the opinion. In fact, this judge seems to really misunderstand coercion. Here’s the beginning of a list of “coercive” actions that spans pages 97-99:

The following illustrative specific actions by Defendants are examples of coercion exercised by the White House Defendants:

(a) “Cannot stress the degree to which this needs to be resolved immediately. Please remove this account immediately.”

What? What the McFuck is coercive about that? They even say “please.”

The list goes on and on in that vein. This opinion is gonna be slapped back harder than Judge Cannon’s partisan bullshits.

[ah....Clem]

Cannon's appeals went to the 11th Circuit. These will go the the 5th Circuit. Don't be so sure about it being slapped back. We've seen the 5th endorse batshittery from the district courts before.

What crap like this does is erode public confidence in the court system. How can anyone take rulings like this seriously?

[David Nieporent]

You are also naive to believe that when the government “suggests” an individual or company do something that consequences for not doing so are never implied (if not outright expressed) or inferred, which, as the courts say, has a “chilling effect” on freedom.

You, and this judge, are apparently unaware of the body of caselaw that establishes when the government's actions amount to a first amendment violation.

Also, no consequences were implied or expressed here, or inferred, and we know that because the social media companies routinely chose not to act on reports from the government.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Hold up.

So if I read the injunction order correctly, a low level employee or even a contractor working for one of the named defendants is prohibited from flagging/reporting social media posts that are protected speech even if it has nothing to do with their job? So a paralegal at DOJ and on their day off could report a tweet filled with racial slurs and it would likely violate this injunction. That’s insane.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Yes, you noticed correctly that the order didn't even bother to specifically refer to actions taken while 'on the job' so to speak.

The affected people can't take these actions on their personal prerogative either.

[F.D. Wolf]

Indeed. Like most court orders, the reasons justifying it are in the accompanying opinion, this particular one being 155 pages long.

[LawTalkingGuy]

There’s no opinion length that can legally justify ordering thousands of government employees not to ask social media to take down racist/abusive posts about personal matters on their off. Which this order appears to prohibit.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Why are you so hostile to the first amendment?

[LawTalkingGuy]

I like the first amendment a lot. That’s why I’m very against a court engaging in prior restraint against thousands of Americans.

[bevis the lumberjack]

The first amendment is engaging in prior restraint. The judge is just reminding everyone.

If the federal employees want to report stuff to social media, they can find jobs that don’t obligate them to protect the rights of us citizens. We all got choices.

[LawTalkingGuy]

“If the federal employees want to report stuff to social media, they can find jobs that don’t obligate them to protect the rights of us citizens.”

So you’re saying that you can go on the FB page of a federal employee posting about her kid who passed away and say: “I am glad that N word is dead” and it would violate your rights to flag it for the private company as abusive and against the TOS? That’s your position? Why don’t you go say that out loud to a group of people and see their reaction.

And even this wasn’t a morally indefensible position, it’s also wrong on the law. Government employees don’t lose their speech rights in the personal lives just because you want them to.

[DaveM]

That sounds about right. “Protected” speech is, well, protected.

Protected speech, however, is not all speech. Low-level employees and contractors are free to do any of the following:

1. informing social-media companies of postings involving criminal activity or criminal conspiracies;

2. contacting and/or notifying social-media companies of national security threats, extortion, or other threats posted on its platform;
3. contacting and/or notifying social-media companies about criminal efforts to suppress voting, to provide illegal campaign contributions, of cyber-attacks against election infrastructure, or foreign attempts to influence elections;

4. informing social-media companies of threats that threaten the public safety or security of the United States;

5. exercising permissible public government speech promoting government policies or views on matters of public concern;

6. informing social-media companies of postings intending to mislead voters about voting requirements and procedures;

7. informing or communicating with social-media companies in an effort to detect, prevent, or mitigate malicious cyber activity;

8. communicating with social-media companies about deleting, removing, suppressing, or reducing posts on social-media platforms that are not protected free speech

[LawTalkingGuy]

So if say a DOJ paralegal posts a picture of their nephew’s bar mitzvah on their Twitter or FB or Instagram and some troll says the K word in the replies you can prohibit her from reporting that to the social media company? And you don’t see that there is a massive first amendment problem there?

[tylertusta]

They were sued in their official capacities. This ruling does not apply to them outside of their official duties.

[LawTalkingGuy]

LOL.

Page 3 has a reference to Ben Franklin’s famous “Letters of Silence Dogwood.”

[David Nieporent]

You caught the fact that the faux intellectual, citing something utterly irrelevant to anything, couldn't even correctly spell the thing he was referring to, right?

[hoppy025]

Biden is a disgusting fascist who needs to retire and poop in his diapers.

[Nige]

Don't you mean Trump? All the specific stuff they're complaining about happened under Trump. Twitter had a special database devoted to complaints and demands made by Trump and Republicans. Any complaints or requests Biden made at the time were done as a private citizen.

[questioner7]

Would Trump's call to Raffensperger urging him to "find" additional votes count as "significant encouragement" under this analysis?

[tylertusta]

Was Trump trying to encourage Raffensperger to censor the speech of others?

[Randal]

Under this analysis, saying "I'm seriously serious here!" counts as coercion.

So... significant encouragement? Trump whispering sweet nothings in Raffensperger's ear would qualify as "significant encouragement" under this analysis.

[Brett Bellmore]

Why do you think putting quotes around that word makes it ominous? Were the quotes a substitute for winking and nodding, or something like that?

He had a theory that some fraction of the votes, if examined, would turn out to be fraudulent or illegally counted, and that if allowed that he could find enough such votes to reverse the outcome.

That he was rather unlikely to succeed in finding that many invalid votes, or persuade a court to give a damn if he did find them, I'll gladly concede. But asking somebody for a chance to find something you think is there isn't the same as asking them to manufacture that something.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Save those crackpot arguments for the indictments, Birther Brett.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

This Trump-picked judge mentioned that this case may be the 'most important censorship case in American history,' or something similar -- and something similar to what Trump would say about anything.

This hayseed* might have gone far enough into the clingersphere that even Republican judges might perceive a need to impose some adult supervision on him.

* Louisiana may be the worst-educated state in America, and this virus-flouting, drawling chucklehead never ventured beyond a Louisiana classroom.

[ridakahif]

[Tom for equal rights]

Queen -
1 - The 2022 study was a meta study that was regurtation of the 2013 study
2 - the 2022 meta study specifically omitted a robust study of 500k children that found no link

If you had any grasp of basic science and did even a rudemary level of due diligence you would have already known that

[bevis the lumberjack]

The 2014 NIH study was the most exhaustive done, by an entity with no axe to grind, and found zero harm. Literally nothing.

To justify the current bullshit they’re omitting data and using studies by advocacy groups.

The Party of Science my ass.

[Tom for equal rights]

Queen

other problems with the junk science meta study

4) they used population attribution fraction - PAF - which is meaningless when there are multiple cofounding varibles.
5) there was negative correlations between 20 of the states
6) the concentration levels of nox where no where close to a level that would trigger asthma
7) the cdc and other asthma organizations dont even list gas stove fumes in the top ten, . the top three triggers (second hand smoke , pollen , pets account for 60-70% of the triggers. So how does gas stove fumes which is not even in the top ten get credited with 12.9%.

might as well be a fireworks show with all the red flags

[bevis the lumberjack]

Good to know that you can erase and delete speech without actually abridging it.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Good news guys, Democrats in government agencies colluding with media platforms to silence speech critical of Democrat politicians isn't abridging your freedom of speech!

[Kazinski]

The sad truth is almost every corporation depends on discretionary government regulation to operate their business and the fact that the government can shut them down or at least significantly affect their profits gives voluntary encouragement too much force.

The first amendment doctrine already disallows some government actions that "chill" free speech without showing a core government interest that can't be accomplished by less restrictive means.

They probably think it is a core government interest to suppress dissenting views, others may disagree.

[Tom for equal rights]

Bevis
The biggest problem is the level of basic science facts (and math skills is so low with progressives, that the lack the basic ability to recognize crap science.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Bevis, if you are talking about NIH's 2014 cross-sectional study, my understanding of it was that there was no correlation with respiratory health issues when ventilation was used, and when the stove was only used for cooking, and not for home heat. Other studies they did around that time clearly showed that absent those two conditions, there were adverse respiratory health dangers.

[Sarcastr0]

What was the inclusion criteria that your pet study was excluded?

Amazing the people that pull the 'if you had any grasp' condescending assholishness are usually themselves pretty ignorant and outcome-oriented.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Hey good job policing the tone, without you coming in just in the nick of time the conversation could've gotten out of hand!

When you submit your report to CISA, make sure you include the big e-props you got!

[StellaLink_the dog]

this could be a corollary of Cohen's law:
Whoever resorts to the argument "if you had any grasp of [...] " has no grasp of [...]. Unfortunately, this appears to be recursive.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Tom and I are referring to the same massive study. I posted a link to it when all of this came up months ago, but you and other climate panickers didn’t bother to look, or retain. So I’m not going to waste my time finding it again for no purpose. You just don’t want exposure to any information that contradicts your already formed political opinion.

Instead of looking at actual neutral government data, y’all were calling us stupid because there was no way the government(s) were coming after gas stoves. What a bunch of over-reactors we were.

Someone was stupid and closed-minded back then (and now) but it ain’t me.

Party of (ignoring) Science. It’s a fucking joke.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Bob and weave, baby. Bob and weave. Don’t address the point. He can’t get a blow in if you just refuse a serious response, right.

[bevis the lumberjack]

No, Tom, the biggest problem is that they (as in this case) are working hard to ignore or diminish data that contradicts their narrative. Queen is doing everything he can do to ignore the existence and results of the NIH mega study because it destroys the justification for what his party is doing.

They’re smart and know what they’re doing. The point is to obfuscate.

The Party of Science actually doesn’t engage in it.

[Mr. Bumble]

Like the ability to obfuscate.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

"Amazing the people that pull the ‘if you had any grasp’ condescending assholishness are usually themselves pretty ignorant and outcome-oriented."

That's tone policing.

[bevis the lumberjack]

I linked to it months ago and you ignored it, because you don’t want to know. Not gonna waste the time again. Fool me once and all….

You don’t think the shit you’re playing is blatantly obvious to everyone?

[bevis the lumberjack]

You’re not even trying to discuss in good faith. You’re embarrassing yourself but are too politically broken to notice.

No more wasting time.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

And induction stoves > gas stoves.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Alpheus, it’s been awhile so I don’t specifically remember.

But it’s been my understanding and my observation that the conditions you list (ventilation and cooking only) are almost universally present with current era cooktops.

And the caveats you mention, if they made a difference, are easily addressed with minor regulation. All anybody wants to do is ban because it’s a great virtue signal.

You can tell how serious this really is by the treatment of the 5 star chef in California. He threatened to close his restaurant it they took his gas stoves away. So they exempted him. Just like everything else in progressive world - the powerful and the biggest violators get the break while the normals get the shaft.

[Tom for equal rights]

Queen almathea 59 mins ago
Flag Comment Mute User
"At least I had the “rudemary level of due diligence” to know there wasn’t a “the study.”"

Apparently you havent done a rudimentary level of due diligence since you have as of yet not grasped that the 2013 and the 2022 study are quite weak.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Tone policing is a tactic that criticizes the angry or emotional manner in which a person has expressed a point of view, rather than addressing the substance of the point itself. Tone policing is an oppression tactic that systemically keeps oppressed people and the issues they raise silenced

– Brave Summarizer

[Drewski]

"Tone policing is an oppression tactic that systemically keeps oppressed people and the issues they raise silenced"

I see someone has discovered Reddit.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You obviously don't read links that are counter to your programming. Why waste time?

[StellaLink_the dog]

Oh boy, this is fun. “2014 nih gas stove study”

It appears that there is a “A [2014 NIH] cross-sectional study of the association between ventilation of gas stoves and chronic respiratory illness in U.S. children enrolled in NHANESIII” and a report online: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4175218/

What does he who is a well-known, even handed, definitely not right wing crank or crackpot say about this study:

Queen is doing everything he can do to ignore the existence and results of the NIH mega study because it destroys the justification for what his party is doing.

What does the study actually say? Some quotes: BACKGROUND

Gas stoves emit pollutants that are respiratory irritants. U.S. children under age 6 who live in homes where gas stoves are used for cooking or heating have an increased risk of asthma, wheeze and reduced lung function. Yet few studies have examined whether using ventilation when operating gas stoves is associated with a decrease in the prevalence of respiratory illnesses in this population.

Ok. What else?

RESULTS:

The adjusted odds of asthma (Odds Ratio [OR] = 0.64; 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 0.43, 0.97), wheeze (OR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.42, 0.86), and bronchitis (OR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.37, 0.95) were lower among children whose parents reported using ventilation compared to children whose parents reported not using ventilation when operating gas stoves.

Curiouser and curiouser

and CONCLUSIONS:

In homes that used gas stoves, children whose parents reported using ventilation when operating their stove had higher lung function and lower odds of asthma, wheeze, and bronchitis compared to homes that never used ventilation or did not have ventilation available after adjusting for other risk factors. Additional research on the efficacy of ventilation as an intervention for ameliorating respiratory symptoms in children with asthma is warranted.

Oh boy, that sure clears things up and paints the party of Queens, whatever party that is, as the band of anti-science cranks that they are. Proof positive: the party of “climate panicker[s]”

Good lord, some of this stuff can be funny:
"compared to homes that never used ventilation or did not have ventilation available after adjusting for other risk factors. "
But, they did have ventilation available before adjusting for other risk factors?

[Sarcastr0]

You're not going to like it if you nationalize every corporation.

[GreenLanternCorps]

It’s not the job of US government agencies to enforce social media companies terms of service. Particularly if the agency is only reporting violations by those who happen to oppose agency policy.

[DaveM]

"Nice little Section 230 protection you got there. Be a shame if something happened to it. I 'urge' you to remove the following accounts: ..."

[StellaLink_the dog]

Jesus Christ on a Ritz cracker. You cite a study which does not support your position and when challenged complain because you can't remember it and then change your argument. Used to be "studies don't show problems with gas stoves." Now it's "problems with gas stoves can be easily remedied." Glad to know you're not a weaselly right wing putz.

Personally, I don't have a dog in this fight and suspect that you are probably correct that what problems may be brought about by gas stove usage can be easily ameliorated. But, please elevate your rhetorical skills to be above those of a victim of a failed underwater breathing experiment.

[Kazinski]

I think there is a huge difference between DeSantis criticizing Disney global releases in the media and the CDC sending private messages to Twitter and Facebook privately asking that posts from private citizens be suppressed.

Now if everytime the CDC, DOJ, DoD, Whitehouse, etc, asks that a post be deleted or suppressed and its published on a public website, then the field has been leveled. Then its a lot more analogous to DeSantis publicly criticizing a movie.

[David Nieporent]

The US government agencies were not 'enforcing' anything, and while what they were doing might not be their job, it's most certainly not the job of a judge to try to enjoin them from doing it.

[David Nieporent]

I think there is a huge difference between DeSantis criticizing Disney global releases in the media and the CDC sending private messages to Twitter and Facebook privately asking that posts from private citizens be suppressed.

Of course you do. You agree with one and disagree with the other.

Legally, there's no difference.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Thanks for the perspective of an antisocial, bigoted misfit holed up in his off-the-grid cabin in the can't-keep-up backwaters, railing about all of this damned progress and how you can't even use racial slurs anymore without getting flak.

[Sarcastr0]

Not a thing that happened. The right-wing reading between the lines is way too speculative.

And of course Twitter said no to government requests plenty of times, making this not even viable as a theory.

[Nige]

Big if true. Therefore not big at all.

[Tom for equal rights]

based on discovery, the judge thought the allegations were true

[Sarcastr0]

The parts of the opinion I read makes it hard to credit that it was discovery, and not the judges priors.

[Kazinski]

There is a difference if the federal government is directing the platform to take down the message.

I'm not aware of DeSantis directing Florida theatres or cable providers to not show Disney films.

[Greg J]

You all are currently busy "nationalizing" every social media company except for Twitter, and no, we don't like it