[HN Gopher] July 4th injunction bars feds from encouraging socia...
___________________________________________________________________
July 4th injunction bars feds from encouraging social media to
delete content
Author : hirundo
Score : 32 points
Date : 2023-07-04 20:30 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (reason.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (reason.com)
| multjoy wrote:
| That's a rollercoaster of a filing...
| unethical_ban wrote:
| >If the allegations made by Plaintiffs are true, the present case
| arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in
| United States' history.
|
| Whatever your opinion on the wisdom or tyranny of government
| trying to control "misinformation" on private social media
| platforms, the above line shows the absolute ignorance of the
| judge.
|
| Alien and Sedition Acts, Abrams v. United States come to mind.
| ethanbond wrote:
| Yeah the Red Lion v FCC citation seems a bit tenuous IMO, and
| what the entire thing relies on. The point about Red Lion was
| that there is limited spectrum and it's controlled by the
| government, so it must impose neutrality or else the
| _government_ has de facto control over speech. The problem was
| never that private broadcasters could choose to say what they
| wanted to say, it was that _the government_ could choose which
| broadcasters could say whatever the broadcasters could say.
|
| Not analogous to the internet at all?
| gsibble wrote:
| I don't think you can downplay how huge the scale of this was.
| It's a 155 page ruling destroying the federal government's
| actions.
| remarkEon wrote:
| Trying to steelman what he's maybe saying, it could be a
| question of scale. An unelected Federal executive "urging"
| (lol) private companies to manage content on their platforms in
| some defined manner has the potential for massive impact. I
| think that's the difference because there hasn't been a
| technology able to do that in the past. At least the Alien and
| Sedition Acts and the Espionage Act were acts of Congress,
| however misguided.
| ethanbond wrote:
| FBI couldn't walk into NYTimes and ask them not to publish
| something? Of course they could, and I'm sure they have many
| times and I'm sure many times NYTimes told them "go fuck
| yourself, see you in court if you want."
| Kon-Peki wrote:
| It's Judge Doughty in the Western District of Louisiana.
| Republicans go judge shopping specifically to get him, and he
| gives them what they want.
|
| On appeal, his rulings don't hold up too well...
| gsibble wrote:
| Got an example?
| Kon-Peki wrote:
| The Covid-19 vaccine requirement for healthcare workers.
| Doughty issued the nationwide injunction, the Supreme Court
| overruled.
| [deleted]
| 1MachineElf wrote:
| From part of the injunction: 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;
|
| etc.
|
| I worry about that 2nd one creating a loophole. A lot of
| nefarious activity can be loosely justified as "for national
| security reasons." Why wouldn't the 1st set of actions be
| sufficient? Are there national security threats that aren't
| already criminalized?
| gsibble wrote:
| Choice quotes from the ruling:
|
| https://innovationnation.blog/p/this-ruling-is-huge-155-page...
| ren_engineer wrote:
| link to actual document -
| https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.18...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-07-04 23:02 UTC)