The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
District Court Injunction Sets off Fireworks
Episode 467 of the Cyberlaw Podcast
It's surely fitting that a decision released on the 4th of July would set off fireworks on the Cyberlaw Podcast. The source of the drama was U.S. District Court Judge Terry Doughty's injunction prohibiting multiple federal agencies from leaning on social media platforms to suppress speech the agencies don't like. Megan Stifel, Paul Rosenzweig, and I could not disagree more about the decision, which seems quite justified to me, given the threatening and incessant White House message telling the platforms exactly whose speech they should suppress. Paul and Megan argue that it's not censorship, that the judge got standing law wrong, and that I ought to invite a few content moderation aficionados on for a full hour episode on the topic.
That all comes after a much less divisive review of recent stories on artificial intelligence. Sultan Meghji downplays OpenAI's claim that they've taken a step forward in preventing the emergence of a "misaligned" – i.e., evil -- superintelligence. We note what may be the first real-life "liar's dividend" from deep faked voice. Even more interesting is the prospect that large language models will end up poisoning themselves by consuming their own waste – that is, by being trained on recent internet discourse that includes large volumes of text created by earlier models. That might stall progress in AI, Sultan suggests. But not, I predict before government regulation tries to do the same; as witness, New York City's law requiring companies that use AI in hiring to disclose all the evidence needed to sue them for discrimination. Also vying to load large language models with rent-seeking demands are Big Content lawyers. Sultan and I try to separate the few legitimate intellectual property claims against AI from the many bogus ones. I channel a recent New York gubernatorial candidate in opining that the rent-seeking is too damn high.
Paul dissects China's most recent self-defeating effort to deter the West from decoupling from Chinese supply chains. It looks as though China was so eager to punish the West that it rolled out supply chain penalties before it had the leverage to make the punishment stick. Speaking of self-defeating Chinese government policies, the government's two-minute hate directed at China's fintech giants is apparently coming to an end.
Sultan walks us through the wreckage of the American cryptocurrency industry, pausing to note the executive exodus from Binance and the end of the view that cryptocurrency could be squared with U.S. regulatory authorities. That won't happen in this administration, and maybe not in any, an outcome that will delay financial modernization here for years. I renew my promise to get Gus Coldebella on the podcast to see if he can turn the tide of negativism.
In quick hits and updates:
- There's an effort afoot to amend the National Defense Authorization Act to prevent American government agencies, and only American government agencies, from buying data available to everyone else. We are skeptical that it will pass.
- The EU and the U.S. have reached a (third) transatlantic data transfer deal, and just in time for Meta, which was facing a new set of competition attacks on its data protection compliance.
- Canada, which already looks ineffectual for passing a link tax that led Facebook and Google to simply drop their links to Canadian media, now looks ineffectual and petty, announcing it has pulled its paltry advertising budget from Facebook.
- Oh, and last year's social media villain is this year's social media hero, at least on the left, as Meta launches Threads and threatens Twitter's hopes for recovery from a year of turmoil.
You can subscribe to The Cyberlaw Podcast using iTunes, Google Play, Spotify, Pocket Casts, or our RSS feed. As always, The Cyberlaw Podcast is open to feedback. Be sure to engage with @stewartbaker on Twitter. Send your questions, comments, and suggestions for topics or interviewees to CyberlawPodcast@gmail.com. Remember: If your suggested guest appears on the show, we will send you a highly coveted Cyberlaw Podcast mug! The views expressed in this podcast are those of the speakers and do not reflect the opinions of their institutions, clients, friends, families, or pets.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"prohibiting multiple federal agencies from leaning on social media platforms to suppress speech the agencies don't like"
No, that's not what they were doing. They were saving lives (or trying to).
Whose lives were they trying to save?
Saving lives? Lol. Saving lives from who?
Perhaps with your affinity for speech suppression and your admiration for the Chinese development of Uyghur you might be happier somewhere else?
"Good intentions" (which, for the record, I don't buy) is a pretty weak excuse. There were numerous instances of them pushing for censorship of the actual truth, after labeling it "malinformation".
captcrisis 13 hours ago
Flag Comment Mute User
“prohibiting multiple federal agencies from leaning on social media platforms to suppress speech the agencies don’t like”
"No, that’s not what they were doing. They were saving lives (or trying to)."
Capt - that explanation is not even close to reality. They claimed it was to save lives, yet
In Jan 2020, it was known that it was very likely from a lab leak
By march 2020, it was known that masks were not going to work
By oct 2020 during the development of the vacccine that it wasnt going to stop the spread of covid (due to the mechanism of how the vax worked).
By July / August of 2021, it was known that the vaxes effectiveness dropped dramatically after 6 months.
all this was known by Fauci and Co.
As others have noted, most of what was claimed as "disinformation" has turned out to be correct.
Even if we were to stipulate to captcrisis’s description of the purpose of the exercise - to save lives - captcrisis’s “No, that’s not what they were doing” is nonsensical.
Even if they were trying to save lives, the method they used was to lean on social media platforms to suppress speech the agencies didn’t like.
That’s exactly WHAT they did. The lifesaving was (stipulated) the WHY.
Sorry you piece of shit leftist, but you don't get to infringe upon any right you don't like by appealing to "public safety," whether it's online speech, scamdemic vaccines, gun rights or anything else.
So if Trump wins in 2024 and cleans house at all these agencies appointing/promoting people who agree with his views on the issues will you accept them contacting these social media sites to "moderate" posts they disagree with? Or will that be different somehow?
That will be different because the social media platforms will not comply.
It’s not entirely but mostly a mistake to describe this as coercion. It’s willing followers following their leader.
"They were saving lives (or trying to)."
A. K. A. extreme narcissism.
You have to be extremely in love with your own notions and contemptuous of others to believe that hiding and manipulating information to trick people is the right choice.
Yeah, nothing more deadly than the search for truth.
Just as a thought experiment, how many people who bought the government propaganda that if you got the vaccine you wouldn't get covid and you couldn't give it to others, then took fewer precautions, got covid and died, or gave it to someone else and they died?
A healthy public debate is the best way to get to the truth and make us all safer, or at least know the real risks.
A very tiny number, because the covid vaccines were very effective at stopping the virulent strains of Covid. It was less effective at stopping omicron, but it did reduce the severity significantly, and omicron was also much less deadly to begin with.
"They were saving lives (or trying to)"
By leaning on social media platforms to suppress speech government disapproved of, as opposed to merely putting out its own views.
And leaving aside the highly debatable claim about saving lives.
They meant well. Does that not solve everything?
The Chicago PD, Chicago Housing Authority, and HUD were trying to save lives when they instituted a program to conduct warrantless searches of the Robert Taylor Homes.
Judge Wayne Andersen said it was not a good enough reason.
https://archive.md/mgil3
An infamous road is paved with good intentions, and most people recognize that the ends do not automatically justify the means. My question was rhetorical.
This is why you guys have only bad intentions and only elect or trust people with bad intentions.
So during a national emergency, the government is not allowed to prevent or even highlight the spread of deliberate disinformation that could potentially put peoples' lives at risk? And by 'prevent' I mean 'send politely worded requests to social media companies that the companies were entirely free to ignore.'
Nige 2 hours ago
Flag Comment Mute User
So during a national emergency, the government is not allowed to prevent or even highlight the spread of deliberate disinformation that could potentially put peoples’ lives at risk? And by ‘prevent’ I mean ‘send politely worded requests to social media companies that the companies were entirely free to ignore.’
Nige - A) most of the claimed "disinformation " was factually correct.
B) you in fact know (or should know by now) that the claimed disinformation was in fact correct.
A - Are we eating insects right now? Well, I'm not, don't know about you. Were lockdowns lifted? Yes. Have mountains of vaccine-slain dead filled the streets? No. Has nobody died of the 'mild cold?' No, seven million have died worldwide. So, no, most of it was utter rubbish.
B - In fact *you* know it was incorrect.
Nige you could address the points I actually made - assuming of course that you were capable of an honest discussion.
I did.
Um, he directly addressed the "point" you made: that "most of the claimed 'disinformation' was factually correct." He pointed out that you're wrong. It was not.
Yes.
That was an easy question to answer.
Justify you approval and support for putting other peoples' lives at risk, please.
It is my right to do so.
You know what else puts people's lives at risk?
Not letting the cops rummage through your stuff whenever they feel like it.
Because when you do so, it means the street thug and the gangbanger also get to do so. That makes it easier for them to hide evidence of their crimes, and make it easier to commit crimes in the future, even robberies and drive-by shootings.
https://archive.md/mgil3
'It is my right to do so.'
You mean you want to do so without facing consequences.
'Not letting the cops rummage through your stuff whenever they feel like it.'
Agreed. So what?
‘It is my right to do so.’
Just to be clear here, this isn’t about your right to maliciously tell people stuff that will endanger them, that may be a punishable offence in particular circumstances or it may not, it’s about your sense of entitlement to platforms that MUST spread your disinformation and put people lives’ at risk. Social media, radio stations, televison channels, newspapers, if they do not run your malicious disinformation, they are infringing your rights and censoring you, if they run and then retract and correct it, they are infriging your rights and censoring you. That’s why Allied news channels should have run Nazi propaganda uncritically during the war.
It depends on what their advertised purpose is. A discussion forum whose advertised purpose is to promote the Shi'ite brand of Islam can quite properly remove posts throw out users who promote the Sunni brand.
What is definitely true that it is not the government's business if the proprietors of the discussion forum refuse to remove posts or ban users (with the exception of criminal speech).
Its my sense of entitlement as an American that the government can't tell a SM company I'm guilty of wrongthink.
But you know what's even more dangerous to people than misinformation?
The government deciding what's misinformation or not and throttling it.
Lets do a thought experiment here, say the Trump administration had as much influence as the Biden administration has shown over the major SM platforms, and got them to go along with he really won the election. So instead of a vigorous debate with an overwhelming amount of outlets confirming Trump lost, you had 70% or more saying Trump had won, because saying Trump lost was "disinformation".
I don't want the government as our misinformation nanny, its dangerous to " our democracy ".
The objections were not about wrongthink.
Let us see you definition of "wrongthink" so we can judge whether the objections to government Covid policy, whether valid, invalid or demented, fit within or without it.
Were the objections deemed illegal? Were people arrested merely for objecting? Were the objectors elaborately tortured and brainwashed by Richard Burton to an ultra-cool score by The Eurhytmics? If not, not wrongthink.
‘Its my sense of entitlement as an American that the government can’t tell a SM company I’m guilty of wrongthink.’
Good thing that never happened, except when Trump decided the use of ‘climate change’ in science agencies was wrongthink, of course.
‘The government deciding what’s misinformation or not and throttling it.’
That’s dangerous, malicious actors inside and outside using disinformation to undermine a society, or a society’s response to a public emergncies are dangerous, a political faction using disinformation to target a minority for persecution is dangerous. It’s a dangerous old world.
‘Lets do a thought experiment here, say the Trump administration had as much influence as the Biden administration’
We don’t have to, most of this was done inder a Trump administration, and while he was still in power he was spreading disinformaion about winning the election. It literally caused a riot. Our media might be in a sadly fallen state, but we were still allowed to assess the truth of his claims, both through the media and the courts, and after they had ben resoundingly rejected, only a fanatical following has kept them alive, and I would point out that there are social media sites and mass media outlets where Trump has the sort of influence Biden can't even dream of. That there are places where Trump doesn't have that kind of influence is not censorship.
‘I don’t want the government as our misinformation nanny, its dangerous to ” our democracy “.’
I don’t want the people whose entire political platform has come to rely on the spread of dis- and misinformation to be dictating what can and can’t be done about misinformation.
What Trump refused to allow the agencies to do is use "secret science", unpublished un-peer reviewed, and unavailable for the public to see.
‘It depends on what their advertised purpose is’
‘For all your ‘propogation of disinformation designed to harm people’ needs!’
‘What is definitely true that it is not the government’s business if the proprietors of the discussion forum refuse to remove posts or ban users’
They certainly can’t and shouldn’t try to force them to remove anything that doesn’t arise to any sort of criminal threshold. They didn’t.
WTF did those lawyers learn in law school?
The first amendment says “Congress shall make no law…..abridging the freedom of speech, or the press”. That’s unequivocal.
Content moderation ain’t mentioned anywhere in the document. The government participating in content moderation is an obvious violation of that language.
God I hate politics.
They’ll just say they never made a law, they just bullied the private sector into doing something that would have been illegal for them to do.
‘They’ll just say they never made a law, they just bullied the private sector into doing something that would have been illegal for them to do.’
They did neither, of course. The same people who decry this are thinking of nominating a presdiential candidate who bans books and supresses college courses he disapproves of and engages in petty vendettas against private companies. Even though it was done under the guy they previously elected president.
Which books did he ban?
All those books in Florida schools he doesn't like.
Last time I checked, schools are not a forum where anyone is free to publish what they like.
Wow, schools are not publishers, what a lot of things you know!
That is why it is quite different than if a governor demanded that Facebook deny access to books.
It isn’t the same, since the removal of books from libraries is a thing that is actually happening.
Last time I checked, neither was Twitter.
The government participating in content moderation is an obvious violation of that language.
Really? If you're going to get literal about it, which law has Congress made here?
Well, hell, if the president just goes around violating civil rights without congress having done anything that makes it ok then. Thank you for that, I sure feel better.
You can’t justify what they’re doing so instead you just throw out weak legal bullshit instead.
Or maybe you really believe this. So if the president were to start bulldozing mosques on his own and replacing them with a new Church of the United States with a silent congress that would be fine. No violation of anything, right?
I'm not the one trying to take the First Amendment super-literally.
Since, outside his role as Commander in Chief, granting reprieves and pardons, and making nominations, all powers the President has are premised on his acting to uphold federal laws, it follows quite naturally that he can’t do anything that Congress is barred from enacting. If he is upholding a Congressional statute in a way that it would violate the 1st amendment for Congress to expressly direct him to do, either the statute is unconstitutional, or he is NOT faithfully upholding it.
So the fact that the 1st amendment expressly applied only to Congress does not mean that it fails to apply to the executive in upholding Congress’ laws.
The same reasoning applies to the judiciary, of course.
I’m comparing fighting for liberty and fighting against it.
Listen to you right now. The 2023-era mega surveillance information control surveillance state is fine. Worthy of defense. That’s a pathetic attitude for a liberal to have. Seriously. Embarrassing.
When I was young I admired the left for their guts. Today the left is more oppressive than the right. Quite a disappointment.
'The 2023-era mega surveillance information control surveillance state is fine.'
If you wanted to do anything about any of that, and about private companies misuse of private data both for commercial purposes and illegally sharing with governments, you would not start here. But you would start and stop here if you didn't actually give a shit.
Please stop using the insipid euphemism "content moderation." It would be moderation if a website removed a few choice adjectives to tone down a posted article or study. What happened was content SUPPRESSION, or, as it's been called for centuries -- censorship.
Well, since you wrote it in ALL CAPS it must be true
Martin is accustomed to having speech Nazis punishing people for unpopular speech. It saves him from the intense pain of having someone say something that he disagrees with.
There you go, Martin, I won’t type in all caps so as to avoid offending your delicate sensibilities when it comes to speech, but “speech Nazis” is a better descriptor than “content moderation”. Or perhaps the more general “speech fascists”. Which one do you see yourself as?
‘Martin is accustomed to having speech Nazis punishing people for unpopular speech.’
By the time you’re finished the FBI will have rounded up fake doctors, internet bot farmers and the credulous fools they preyed on and put them in all camps to stop them posting on twitter.
Abusive assholes in online forums have been calling anyone who moderated ther abuse, spams or scams 'speech nazis' since internet year dot.
So the Rev. Kirkland is an "abusive asshole"?
If he was moderated would you call the Volokhs speech Nazis?
If you want to ask a question in response to my question at least have the courtesy to answer mine.
It wasn't a courteous question.
I have uniformly recognized Prof. Volokh's entitlement to censor me (or anyone he chooses).
This is his playground, operated in compliance with his rules. Partisan hypocrites who impose viewpoint-driven censorship -- even those who habitually publish vile racial slurs and cultivate bigots as a target audience -- have rights, too.
Listen to yourself. Telepathic strawmanning and accusing posters of being Nazis.
You now sound like the MAGA zealots you claim to hate.
Listen to you. Defending the suppression of speech, day after day after day. Yet you delude yourself into thinking you care about civil rights.
And I’m not MAGA and you know it so fuck right ifc with that.
And honestly, if being in favor of civil rights makes someone MAGA, just think about what that says about you. By your own definition, you make the MAGA fools seem like civil libertarians by comparison.
We have a difference not of morals but of facts.
You believe stuff that is flat wrong. You think stuff happened that never did. You rely on debunked stories and overgeneralizing anecdotes to get there. That is a MAGA move.
You are calling people Nazis and fascists for pointing out your fallacies. Also a MAGA move.
You aren’t MAGA but you do seem into adopting their methods.
No I’m calling them Nazis and fascists for supporting the suppression of speech. Because, you know, that’s what Nazis and fascists do. If it suits your delicate fee-fees better (I know how much you are harmed by speech that you disagree with) I can use communist. They shit on speech too.
You’re using your usual something didn’t hapoen argument. It’s like your entire existence is in an alternate universe. In your universe, the FBI/NSA/Congress sent literally thousands of requests to deplatform people but it was just an exercise in nothing. Meanwhile in your world someone is adding artificial sounds to sonograms and governments everywhere are absolutely leaving gas cooktops alone. And all the while you’re bitching about misinformation.
And calling people who stand for civil rights MAGA.
Anyway, sorry for the violence of my speech. Hope you haven’t suffered serious injury because of it.
When the public sent requests to Twitter was that an exercise in nothing? Look at the ridiculous lengths you need to go to even strawman at this point.
My usual argument this that things that didn’t happen in fact did not happen.
If you don’t believe me, what about DMN? He’s noted you are wrong as well. Is he in an alternate reality as well? If so it’s an alternate reality that’s everyone except for you, anti vaxxers, and Trump supporters. Think on that.
I’m sorry, I messed up I think.
Could you please clear this up by pointing out where the behavior of the public is mentioned in the 1A?
Who the fuck is DMN? Does he also believe that sonograms were being altered? Does he believe that gas stoves are being left alone?
To walk you through this: You claim the government requests are forcing Twitter to follow them or else the government is doing them for nothing. This is an excluded middle, as can be seen by the public making requests as well.
DMN is Nierpont.
I don’t know what sonogram thing you are on about. I have not posted much about gas stoves. You are ranting.
No I’m not. I’m pointing out how doctrinaire you are. Both of those are positions you have taken before. When Abrams came out with the sonogram lunacy you defended it. When the stuff came out earlier this year about stoves, you chided all of us by smugly (and incorrectly) assuring us that nobody was going to come after gas stoves.
“The public” is not prohibited from restricting our speech. The government is.
I think DMN is wrong on this.
Let’s keep it simple. No excuse to say I’m ranting. You keep saying what the thousand “requests” weren’t, but you never say what they actually were. What was the purpose? None of you “nothing to see here” types have described a legitimate, legal purpose for all of the thousands of requests.
Off topic stuff from ages ago that I do t plan to relitigate proves not how doctrinaire I am but how quickly you jump to attacking the poster not the post.
The government made the requests for the same reason the public does. That is legal. It should be legal. You are wrong.
I don’t mind you being wrong. But don’t call people who correct you Nazis.
Can’t even admit you were full of shit in the gas stoves, can you? Lol.
This is a non answer. What was the purpose? Explicitly what were they trying to accomplish? “They were trying to accomplish what the public was” is garbage.
And do you really not comprehend that the BoR puts limits on the government that don’t apply to individuals in the public?
What was their specific purpose?
By the end of this thread you will not have answered this, because you can’t.
No. I wrote a thing on gas stoves but I’m not gonna let you go off topic like that.
Fucking engage the post not just posts that poster made months ago.
You asked the governments motives, now you switch to talking about government actions. Again. And I again correct you that making requests of Twitter is not unconstitutional.
Your anger and galloping remains MAGA like. We are now going in circles. I’m done here.
WHAT WAS THE GOVERNMENT TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH.
That’s a motive, not an action. Forget about anything either of us have ever posted and answer this question, please.
What was the government trying to accomplish with all that correspondence with Twitter?
You’re weaseling out because the only possible answer is something you don’t want to admit.
Oh, they were using the Misinformation Exception to the 1A! Of course! Hey, I forget, when did the Supreme Court create this exception?
And how many lives were saved by quashing discussion of the lab leak theory? Were they actually trying to save lives with that one or were they simply trying to shut down scientific disagreement? You can’t really be the Party of Science if you allow unapproved theories to be considered.
It’s hilarious (and pathetic) that you believe that the Bill of Rights constraints congress, but not the president. The founders, in their naïveté, somehow thought that the president wouldn’t be able to impose laws without Congress having passed them. You Bidenistas think of the president as having unlimited power. In certain circumstances anyway.
“Please, Mr President, save us by shitting all over our rights.” Lol.
By your interpretation the only civil rights we have exist at the whim of the president. I suspect that’s not what the people that wrote the BoR were thinking, considering they just got rid of a king at great personal risk, but there’s no convincing you. There are enemies who must be shut up, regardless of any other consideration.
You’ve just eviscerated the entire Bill of Rights, but hey it’s worth it if you can shut down scientific debate that you don’t like.
All this for something that simply did not happen.
' if being in favor of civil rights makes someone MAGA'
'if hating satanic pedophilia make someone Qanon'
There is a civil right to spread misinformation without state interference.
If the moderators of a Holocaust education discussion forum refuse to remove posts or users that defame the Judenvolk or deny the Holocaust, that is not the business of the state or the feds.
Well, the entire Republican platform proves that's correct, but not necessarily on social media, which are privately owned and self-regulated, where users have the right to report content that they feel is in breach of a site's standards.
I have to admit, that I like "Telepathic strawmanning" more than I should. We have graduated to truly weapons grade stupid.
We start with the cluelessness of a commenter who's modus operandi is to attribute motives to others out of one side of his mouth while shrieking about the "telepathy" out of the other side of his mouth. We then couple this with an accusation of creating a strawman by the guy most likely to misrepresent his opponents position and who doesn't seem to understand the term in general.
We have now graduated to combining multiple meaningless slurs together in combination ! Two great tastes that go together ! Congrats! I have seen both stupidities in the past, but this is a unique first in their combination. It's more than twice the inanity ! Bevis, what we can really take from this is that Sarcastro thinks you have obtained double plus ungood levels of wrongthink !
I fear the arrival of the Wrongthink Police. They’ll probably shoot my dog and confiscate the $88 I have in my wallet just for spite.
Have you heard - are the camps nige wants to send wrongthinkers to nice? The food ok?
The utter lack of engaging with any actual arguments in this post is impressive.
Ignoring my question above while accusing me of refusing to engage is stupid. And everyone sees it.
What was the government trying to accomplish with all of these requests?
That was a reply to Artifex.
You get bad at reading when you are mad.
I asked it down here because you dodged it up there.
What we’re they trying to accomplish?
... and what actual arguments would those be ? That is the point for the really dim who need it spelled out. You are Sarcastro, you don't do arguments. The sad, tired mode is to insult, redefine, assert and misrepresent. Let's look again at the stupidity posted. It is short:
So beyond the weapons grade stupid statement of "Telepathic strawmanning" which is absolutely brilliant in its insipidness, we have a section about accusing posters of being Nazis. That's not an argument. It is an assertion and really just the usual stupid narrative writing where our resident bad faith bozo tries to pretend something that is not meant to drive his narrative. Maybe this is too generous. Maybe I am assuming brainpower not actually demonstrated. Maybe Sarcastro thinks that "Grammar Nazis" or "Speech Nazis" are actually members of the National Socialist party and this also is stupidity instead of misrepresentation.
So with all your usual honesty, you assert he sounds like a MAGA zealot. Another assertion without argument or point, and given the dishonest source probably best ignored.
If nothing else you remind me of the Monty Python Argument skit. You have the same level of insight.
Since there is no bold or italics in this text box, how do you add emphasis to specific words?
By making words bold or putting them in italics?
Fox News has never once had me on the air to discuss my views of Donald Trump. I have been censored!!!!!!!
Motion to stay denied. On to appeal to the 5th Circuit.
Biden is a disgusting piece of shit. He and his handlers are declaring war on conservatives. I hope he gets a tumor like his worthless son.
This was done under Trump.
It's the usual: Conservatives AND liberals complain about censorship.
Conservatives complain about being censored.
Liberals complain that conservatives aren't censored enough.
While insisting all the while nobody's being censored. "Nobody's doing anything of the sort, and besides, you deserve it, you bastards!"
Go lynch a judge about it.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/10/us/franklin-tennessee-soccer-coach-rape-charges/index.html
Are you out on bail already?
Since I have your attention for a moment,
You asked for this.
Yeah I saw it.
It’s the start of a number of investigations, and all accusations but one come from GOP China hawks.
I’m sure China is trying stuff, but the level of penetration is not at all established. Maybe it’ll become a thing, but way too early to come in calling it real.
And there we have why I'm getting tired of responding to your demands for links. It's not like you actually respond to evidence, so what's the point in providing it?
This has never been an exercise in you or I convincing the other, Brett.
I’m glad you brought links not just bare accusations.
I engaged with your evidence. Sorry I disagree with your take. And note that I only did for now. While better than some on here, you like to come in early on if the story pleases you. I do my best to resist that impulse.
Your disagreement is stupid, unless you consider the NYPD to be a bunch of GOP China hawks.
Read two comments up and try again.
Actually a good point. Why do you engage ? Having a discussion with someone who continuously operates in bad faith is not going to be intellectually profitable anyway. What do you gain from the conversation ?
I'm concerned for somebody who wanders in here without knowing Sarcastr0, and actually falls for his shtick.
Well, no: I do enjoy argument, too. Actual debate, with points raised and addressed. At one time Sarcastr0 actually did that sort of thing. These days he just pulls out flat denial and accusations of mind reading, and moves on. It's all but impossible to get him to engage with anything he disagrees with, anymore.
I keep hoping he can be baited into actually engaging again.
Nah, I still engage. You just are more out there than you used to be so more of my engagement with you is the untrue things you believe.
One thread up I am not happy with Sotomayer’s behavior. You defend Alito and Thomas to the fucking hilt. Though if you looked at me in those threads I pointed out that law schools are pretty similar and no one cares…
Don’t pretend I’m some lying villain. I make judgement calls a helluva lot more often than you.
I have not talked about Alito that I can recall. Thomas I sometimes think is wrong, but I admire his willingness to go with what he thinks regardless of other people disagreeing. As Thoreau said, “Any man more right than his neighbors constitutes a majority of one already.”
The hell Democrats put him through during his hearing caused that, I think; He just doesn't give a damn what other people think anymore. The downsides of that are, of course, considerable.
Yet again, all this was done under Trump. Hello? Is anyone home?
Well, not all of it. It started under Trump, sure. As far as we know, maybe it started under Obama, instead.
Realistically, Trump had very little control over the bureaucracy. Remember "the resistance"? It's not like they were leaping to do his bidding.
No, I don't remember "the resistance." It's yet another Brett boogeyman, like Antifa. Was there some bureaucrat who wasn't happy with the administration and didn't do much to assist it? Sure. As with every other president.
Selective amnesia?
I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration
You literally had bureaucrats using burner phones and private email accounts to discuss how to undermine the administration!
What an amazing 'manager' that guy is, with amazing private-sector 'management' skills. Inspiring and competent amd trustworthy. Almost as good as his incredible powers of communication and media-manipulation.
You know what? I'll agree that he was a disappointment in that regard, private sector management skills did NOT transfer over the way I'd thought they would. The guy was a manatee in a pool of sharks, he kept walking right into things an experienced politician would have avoided.
Like this documents thing. Sure, ex-Presidents have been getting away with that crap for decades, but why in the world would Trump have thought he would be permitted to, also? How could he have not expected legal action against himself? The guy is just old, and not learning anything, at this point. Wish he'd just sensibly retired.
I thought he was mostly trying to do things I approved of, which counts for a lot, but yeah, bit of a disappointment.
‘The guy was a manatee in a pool of sharks,’
He was exactly as shit at the job as his critics said he would be. Only wide-eyed naifs were surprised and disappointed.
‘I thought he was mostly trying to do things I approved of’
Weird that the disapproval of trying to overturn an election, denying an election result with no evidence, trying to set government agencies on his enemies, calling for civil war, doesn’t carry a fraction of the weight of, say, the phrase ‘big guy.’
Name one ex-president who refused for over a year to return stuff that he was asked for, and then ultimately defied a grand jury subpoena and lied about what he had? Just one.
Yeah, you gotta be asked before you can refused to do what's asked.
As always, Brett makes stuff up. He found an article in which one person "joked about getting a 'burner phone'" and turned that into "bureaucrats using burner phones to discuss how to undermine the administration."
But lest you think that's minor, does it say that they were discussing "how to undermine the administration?" No it does not. It says "The employee added that the goal is to 'create a network across the agency' of people who will raise red flags if Trump’s appointees do anything unlawful."
Nothing in that Politico article talks about any sort of "resistance." No conspiracy. Just a bunch of unhappy people trying to find ways to complain to each other without getting fired for it.
As for Miles Taylor's op/ed, besides the fact that it turned out he was primarily a self-promoter trying to make himself seem important, here's what he actually said in that op/ed:
‘As far as we know,’
Oh yeah, make it up where you have to.
‘Realistically, Trump had very little control over the bureaucracy.’
Why the fuck would you re-elect a guy you have to make so many dumb apologies for? And the apologies are: he’s dumb and he’s incompetent and not responsible for anything that happens under him.
By the way, remember the bit of the Twitter files where they skipped over the entire database of direct Trump and Trump-related requests? Was he not responsible for those? Either he’s really, really bad at govenment, or he’s practicing the very things you’re so mad about in this case. Or, more likely, both. Plus his supporters tried to overturn the election result ,and he refuses to accept the outcome of a democratic election, and he's called for civil war, and been found guilty of sexual assault. That's before you get into reports of him constantly demanding government agencies be turned on his enemies while in office. Funny guy!
Colin Kaepernick finds your ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
A forty-second tik-tok video about beer is also Brett-curious.
If you have experienced substantial financial loss as a result of fraudulent investments, it is crucial to take prompt action. Prioritize conducting comprehensive research, validating the credentials of any recovery service you may be considering, and obtaining recommendations from reliable sources before proceeding with their assistance. I have come across positive feedback about winsburg.net , which may be worth exploring.
Ever encounter any crypto investment scam,don't panic,explain your experience to licensed fraud analysts at winsburg.net . They’d assist you with recent investment scams recovery possibility. Note that you'd ask before you know if your lost funds can be recovered.
Asking. Lol. When my bookie sends Rocco and Kuckles over carrying lead pipes they ain’t bullying. They’re simply asking. Surely there are no negative consequences if my answer isn’t what they want to hear.
When Harvey Weinstein gets the 18 year-old aspiring actress in his hotel room he ain’t bullying, he’s just asking. Certainly saying no won’t impact her career.
Point is there are some instances where the power disparity is such that there isn’t any such thing is asking. And our FBI/DHS are among the biggest bullies on the planet.
Iirc a lot of it was about the Biden laptop and the lab leak theory. Neither of which involved a single endangered life.
Also iirc a decent chunk of the Covid “misinformation” turned out to be accurate.
It has nothing to do with saving lives. It had to do with saving face and diminishing criticism of the government. You know, the stuff about the redress of grievances- yet another portion of the 1A that the left doesn’t support.
The government is not = the mafia. It (all levels) is an order of magnitude more powerful than the mafia and it abuses its power, like, weekly.
And occasionally a mafia guy actually suffers a consequence for their actions. Government guys usually get the brother-in-law treatment. Trump excluded of course.
The hilarious part exists because political types never think things all the way through.
All the “it was nothing” and “that wasn’t their intent” and “nothing came out if it” bullshit from the left is belied by their reaction to the decision. If they really believed their own bullshit the decision would be a non-event.
How many thousands of examples of unpunished abuse of power do you want?
How about, say, those DEA agents in California who raided the legal weed dispensary and were captured ON CAMERA stealing $250,000 or so in cash. And suffered no consequence. Who were they helping? What lives were they saving?
I could list shit like this all might if you’d like, although I’d need hand surgery tomorrow.
And you want to give fuckers like that and their enablers power over our speech rights.
Like I said, your argument rests fundamentally on the idea that the government=the mafia.
If you read any history, you would understand the Founders made exactly that argument, when they Drafted the Constitution.
Like I said, your argument rests fundamentally on the idea that the government=the mafia.
Try reading the Declaration of Independence.
Then Read the Constitution.
The founders KNEW what power did to govt agents. It made them worse that organized crime. Because the founders were students of history.
Not like the mindless trolls here.
“Yes we have to be extra vigilant against government abuse”
Specific examples, literally thousands of them, constitute a fallacious generalization? Those things are just opposites.
Again, a difference between me and you. To you abuse of power from on side is nothing, while from the other side it’s a mortal sin. To me abuse is abuse, no matter the jersey color.
Is there a Principle Store near you. You might go buy one.
But none of that means that government officials are so generally prone to bad acts that they can’t do something as innocuous as asking
Your ignorance is all encompassing.
Read the DoI and the Constitution
Federal govt is based on Enumerated power. For the 3rd grade level knowledge exhibited here, that means the Feds are barred from taking actions, unless those actions are enumerated powers per the Constitution.
Federal agencies have no power to ask or suggest, taking down post....unless they violate the law. That means all those agencies "asking" that have no power to enforce law, have no power to make contact, let alone ask anything.
As always, you lack simple understanding of the govt you live under.
'Specific examples, literally thousands of them, constitute a fallacious generalization?'
None of them change the actual facts about the thing you're so performatively furious about.
"No, the difference is you see situations in an easy black or white. The government=the mafia because you often read where one of the thousands upon thousands of government officials abuse their power every week."
No, the government >>> the mafia. The mafia could only wish, in their wildest dreams, to be as powerful and dangerous as the government.
'No, the government the mafia.'
I should fucking hope so, a country where the Mafia >>> the government would be, well, Russia, for example.
You’re so full of shit. Nothing for a private company to fear in a request from the FBI, or the NSA, or sitting Congresspersons.
You should study the 60s and 70s when your party was actually on the side of liberty and standing up to authority, sometimes at great personal risk. What a shame that y’all have become enablers of the security state. Trump, I’m his glorious ridiculousness, has caused y’all to sell your souls to the devil.
Attempting to suppress the spread of ideas is presumptively wrong.
You’re confusing standing up to authority some of the time because sometimes authority is wrong with standing up to authority all the time because of an assumption it’s always looking to do wrong.
You live your life.
Me? When the cops pull me over and ask to look in the back, I always refuse....always.
When they ask if i have a gun, I admitt, I can't remember, but no, they cant look, and I refuse to look. That cost me a 1/2 day, but is cost the cop a week.
Rep. Comer’s missing Biden whistleblower, one Gal Luft, has surfaced. He jumped bail. This is going to be fun
'Also iirc a decent chunk of the Covid “misinformation” turned out to be accurate.'
What, the chunks about the lockdowns never being lifted and the poison vaccines culling the global population leading to a One World Government with a completely cashless society and everyone eating bugs? It's great that everyone chooses to forget how freaky the disinfo actually was and that *people actually believed it*. Still do.
Restricted from "asking" media to take down free speech.
I seem to remember a guy writing something like this and having a lot of people agreeing and signing their names at the bottom: “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
‘is belied by their reaction to the decision’
Or rather is supported by the evidence of what actually happened, rather than belied by some arbitrary second-order mind-reading. Under Trump, too, so in this case people are *defending Trump*.
The founders restricted elected officials from writing letters to newspapers disputing factual inaccuracies.
Yeah, any study of real government abuses shows your disproportionate rage over this to be entirely cynical posturing. If there was a real outrage here you'd be saying 'I disapprove' and then moving on to get furious at Biden sitting in a beach chair.
Correct. (The NSA? How did they get into this?) Which is why those private companies routinely ignored said requests.
That’s cool and contrarian and all, but nobody needs a warrant to request that a social media company checks whether a posting meets their own guidelines and standards. It’s literally in the company’s interest in maintaining their own credibility and trustworthiness and ensuring their users continue using their site to receive such reports. That’s why they get so much criticism when they fail to do so, and why social media companies that don’t do it sufficently have sunk into irrelevance. Like, who cares what happens on Truth Social? Or Facebook?
If you want an actual example of that: Trump banned government science agencies from using the term 'climate change.'
Here was a big piece of disinformation.
https://ethicsalarms.com/2020/06/08/oh-no-its-monday-ethics-review-6-8-2020-a-yoos-rationalization-orgy/
That is because those were subordinate government agencies. As such, it squarely falls under Garcetti v. Ceballos,547 U.S. 410 (2006)
It would be far different if the state or the feds requested private web sites to take down comments using the term "climate change".
I don't see any disinformation there. They made an exception, with restrictions. You can agree or disagree with them making the exception, but it's not disinformation.
I thought this was both tactically and substantively stupid, but it didn't involve people making up fake scientific claims; it was basically just an flailing attempt at virtue signaling.
Sure, it’s just a form of suppression of ideas you approve of.
Actually banned by Trump: references to climate change in scientific agencies.
Not actually banned by anyone in government: anything on social media.
The government can clearly regulate its own speech.
The fact is that you hate freedom.
You must think that Judge Wayne Andersen has the blood of schoolkids on his hands.
Don’t worry about Nige, he can’t read English and hates reason.
The BLM protests are safe; they’re vital to the national public health (by putting more black people into the streets and in greater proximity to police…) Covid has had a disproportionate impact on the American black community. Ergo, gathering great swathes of them in public spaces during the pandemic is…
Those other protests, however, ones which concern stay-at-home orders, are, by definition, unsafe. Moreover, they’re per se rooted in white nationalism. Hence, the risk of increased spread from THOSE protests is worse. (And that’s neither question begging, stipulative bullshit, nor a cheap, obvious delegitimization strategy.)
NOPE, neither disinformation nor hypocritical nonsense.
One of the amazing parts of the lockdowns were that American libtards kept traveling around the world throughout them… ‘Social justice’ and being ‘informed by the science’ meant nothing when it came to global justice or impinging upon those Americans’ social or business affairs.
Make the world a more just, equitable, rational place, Nige: kill your whole family.
None of that is the states' or the feds' business.
'NOPE, neither disinformation nor hypocritical nonsense'
Nah just something that drives every one of you weridos up the wall, so much so you'll have called it every random name under sun before you're done.
Here you are supporting the suppression of an idea, which you said above was a presumptively wrong thing to do.
Except where it is, presumably.
No response on the merits. Just a bald assertion that flatly contradicts the evidence. That's the best you can do, Nige.
Kill your family, then kill yourself. Make the world a better place by leaving it.
Hi Queenie! Have you been raping children again today?
'No response on the merits.'
You have response-blindness. And a merit-deficit. And are a bad person.
‘Nah just something that drives every one of you weridos [sic] up the wall, so much so you’ll have called it every random name under sun before you’re done’.
This is what your wrote, verbatim. It doesn’t touch the merits at all.
You’re a liar, an imbecile, and a disease. Kill your family, then kill yourself, for global justice. The world will be a better, and smarter, place without you.
It pretty much cut to the heart of the matter, freak.
"Big Brother" obviously.
Sure, government can denounce it. What they can't do is pressure private sector entities to obstruct contrary views.
It's been amazingly illuminating watching the way the left has flipped their views on free speech and censorship, upon deciding that they were more likely to be the censors than their foes. Not that the right didn't do the opposite flip, too. Damned little actual principle on display here.
Is it an arrest if a cop casually asks you to not drive away? The courts pretend not, but I think everybody else agrees it is.
Let's not pretend there's no power relationship here. Really, let's not pretend that.
The inherent coercion theory of government speech is not supported by law. Or by logic if you look at twitter’s behavior.
So what if it’s not supported by law. You and your side give zero shits about the law. The current administration gives zero shits about the law.
"I’m all for recognizing imbalances in power relationships, but do you want to say a cop’s request is always wrong?"
No, I want to say that it usually IS an arrest. If he's got cause for arresting you, nothing wrong about it.
No. You have your baddies entirely mixed up.
Big Brother represents the totalitarian ideal of total power - control of your actions, of your speech, of your thoughts. He seeks utter domination. His methods are force, coercion, torture. O'Brien tortures Winston Smith into getting his mind right. It's not persuasion or manipulation, it's force. Trying to prevent you being able to say Ungood things is classic Big Brother.
Satan represents deceit, manipulation, temptation. His methods are not coercion, but honeyed words to seduce you from the path of right. He knows he cannot achieve domination - he tried duking it out with God and he lost. God was too powerful for him. So Satan had to choose other means. He is a tempter, not a censor.
Ok that’s it. You couldn’t have expressed that in a less objective manner.
As much as I detest Trump, I almost hope he is elected again so he can give it to your side good and hard, because y’all are just begging for it to happen. I hope the guy goes ahead and just destroys the constitution, because hardly anyone respects it anymore anyway. Certainly not you and Sarcastro and your fellow progressives. I’m pretty much fucked anyway because of you people. It’ll be satisfying to watch your own medicine forced down your throat.
Or maybe they thought that
1. Asking isn't a violation of the 1st, and therefore the injunction was utterly lawless; and
2. Even if there were any merit to the complaints, the injunction was incredibly badly drafted. (I'm talking about its scope, not its grammar.)
Um, there were no negative consequences in the large majority of the times that their answer wasn't what the government wanted to hear.
And made it very plain that neither dissent or insurrection were treason.
Not a single Confederate was convicted of treason.
And in what cases is it the states' or the fed's business?
Fauci: "When you get vaccinated, you not only protect your own health and that of the family but also you contribute to the community health by preventing the spread of the virus throughout the community,” Fauci said. “In other words, you become a dead end to the virus. And when there are a lot of dead ends around, the virus is not going to go anywhere. And that’s when you get a point that you have a markedly diminished rate of infection in the community.”
https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/553773-fauci-vaccinated-people-become-dead-ends-for-the-coronavirus/
Yeah, that's pretty much the worst you can say about it.
But that’s not what you said above. That’s a generic reassurance that taking the vaccine will protect you and others, which is and was true. That it didn’t turn out to be 100% true in every case doesn’t mean it didn’t perform that function overall. If you look outside that isolated quote, people were saying it *reduced your chances* of catching and spreading, they were even talkng about how if you did catch it post-vaccine, it would be a milder dose, which was also true. You’re excating a far stricter and decontextualised standard for that one quote than you are for the wild and reckless claims of covid-truthers. And to answer your question, anyone who was paying wnought attention to Fauci to hear him say that was paying enough attention to get the fact that other variants were arising, unless they were bad-faith disinformation artists quote-mining for gotchas.
Yeah, but you lot showed how little that meant to you when you sided with the government against the biggest movement against state abuse of power since the anti-war demos post 9-11.
Criminal activity, risks to national security, disinformation campaigns designed to harm the welfare of the people.
‘I almost hope he is elected again so he can give it to your side good and hard’
What you’re in such a passion about happened under Trump. If you’re like Brett and insist that Trump simply isn’t responsible for what happened when he was in charge, there was still that whole database of Trump and Trump-related requests. You have somehow managed to red-pill yourself in the stupidest way imaginable.
You have skipped gaily past the second half of Fauci's claim :
also you contribute to the community health by preventing the spread of the virus throughout the community,” Fauci said. “In other words, you become a dead end to the virus. And when there are a lot of dead ends around, the virus is not going to go anywhere.
But there's no evidence - and never was - that the Covid vaccines stop you from catching Covid or passing it on to others. The only benefit appears to have been that it allowed you to build up some antibodies so that you were likely to suffer less severe symptoms from the more severe versions of Covid. So if you were vaccinated you may have been helping yourself to avoid the severest of symptoms, but you certainly were not making yourself a dead end*. That was just wrong and it wasn't supported by any evidence, then or now..
Which brings us to :
You’re excating a far stricter and decontextualised standard for that one quote than you are for the wild and reckless claims of covid-truthers.
Which is a common or garden tu quoque. You are granting Fauci extra slack for one of his major league porkies. The Great Barrington folk were essentially correct, and entirely in accord with well established views on epidemiology. They never told a porky at all, never mind one on a par with this one of Fauci. But they got blocked, cancelled, censored all the same.
* strictly, of course, by reducing the severity of your own symptoms by being vaccinated you were marginally increasing the chance of other people catching Covid from you, since if you had got Covid bad enough to die, you really would be a dead end, literally 🙂
‘But there’s no evidence – and never was – that the Covid vaccines stop you from catching Covid or passing it on to others.’
There’s plenty of evidence that vaccines lower your chances of catching or passing on covid.
‘his major league porkies’
Yeah, if that counts as a major league ‘porkie’ my point stands.
‘The Great Barrington folk were essentially correct’
Correct about what? The UK tried their suggested tactic of letting it run through the populace and had to put the brakes on when the bodies started piling up.
‘But they got blocked, cancelled, censored all the same.’
Nah, they got rejected by every other expert and adopted by the cranks, this became CENSORSHIP!
‘since if you had got Covid bad enough to die, you really would be a dead end, literally’
That’s an amazing statement in all sorts of ways, but also note that vaccination was supposed to be part of a multiple strategy that include lockdowns, masking, social distancing and self-isloation. Which, of course, were all part of the New World Order conspiracy to oppress everyone.