DHS Creating "Disinformation Governance Board"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Covid truths" like microchips and mind control 😆

The PP who thinks she's on the righteous side of truth and justice for continually yammering on about "yabut covid came from China" sounds like a master of the obvious but an absolute idiot.

You know damn well that very few people bought into the microchips or mind control (that is a new one to me).

We do know that, among other things, Covid likely came from a lab; having the vaccine does not prevent one from spreading the virus; masks are not effective in stopping the spread of Covid; Hydroxychloroquine is associated with lower Covid mortality in a recent French study; there are side effects associated with the vaccine - myocarditis and irregular menstrual bleeding being just two; and the laptop does belong to Hunter Biden.

Many of the statements above were censored on social media - and in media in general.

Start here: https://voterga.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Press-Release-GA-Supreme-Court-Rules-VoterGA-Petitioners-Have-Standing.pdf
Polling shows 70% of Republicans believe the "election was stolen" LIE.

It's a LIE. And it was directly responsible for the violence of J6. It was a violent, destructive lie that got people killed.

Stop with your LIES that "very few people believe that stuff."

Stop pretending that it's all free fair game to tell whatever lies you like no matter the consequences. You are part of the problem.

So, claiming that the election was stolen or illegitimate is speech that should be censored? Is that what you are saying?

There was very little actual censoring even going on. The right wing freaked out over fact checks while leaving the content uncensored. Outraged over the lies being called out.

However when there is damage, destruction, loss of life caused by a lie, those central to the lie should be held accountable. IMHO Trump, Stone and others should be prosecuted as accessory to murder over J6.

Dp- is fraud protected speech?

Fraudulent statements are speech that the government can take narrowly tailored measure to prohibit & prosecute. But an overly broad interpretation of fraud would run into 1A problems. For example a doctor posting online questioning the efficacy of the covid vaccine and paxlovid could not be prosecuted for “fraud” under an attenuated theory like that she would benefit from increased sick patients. But generally the state & federal fraud statutes require a high level of causaility and intention - so it’s going to be rare that there is a 1A issue.

this is a good summary of unprotected speech: https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/unprotected-speech-synopsis

Bottom line is there is no "absolute" freedom of speech as claimed upthread and there are in fact many types of speech which are illegal. Those goal posts are already moved.

Speech directly threatening to kill or harm someone is a felony in most US jurisdictions. So why wouldn't speech that does in fact result in someone getting killed be completely exempt and unimpeachable? Trump's Big Lie got people killed. Anti-vaxxer lies got people killed.

Again, we aren't talking about "you want to censor conservatives" bullshit. Since when does being a conservative require you to tell lies that get people killed?

Because your take on how speech “got people killed” is incredibly attenuated and is far, far from passing 1A scrutiny.

1 million dead Americans disagree with this post.

So, I am no longer allowed to disagree with the government health policies?

The same government that decided saturated fat was bad and a low fat, high sugar diet is fine?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9794145/

Hiow many millions has this killed?

Disagree all you like. Tons of people disagreed during the height of Covid.
But this case is going to the Supreme Court and the fifth circuit has made a mess of it.
There has been no evidence the Biden WH coerced anyone. The government has a first amendment right as well. The government is allowed an opinion both public AND private.
They can and should share information with companies in the interest of public safety and national security.

You clearly have not read the opinions and briefs in the case. The entanglement between the government and the social media platforms was intense. The government was basically managing moderation - both individual decisions on posts and moderation policy. I’m not sure how the case will turn out, but it was an extremely troubling amount of control the government was imposing over speech. Notably the government does not claim that the removed posts had no First Amendment protections. They claim they were just engaged in “persuasion.” Ask yourself how happy you would be if this degree of “persuasion” was exercised by the Trump Admin to control social media posts on an issue you care about?

I wouldn’t characterize the outreach from the government as “intense”.
The government has a duty to defend and protect. I’m much more concerned with one billionaire and a gaggle of tech twits making these decisions. Which is legally how it has to be, but it’s not great for the health of our democracy.

they were constantly in touch with FB and Twitter. the social media companies basically outsourced the decision on what was covid misinformation to the CDC (much of which we know now was not actually misinformation). I’m not fully sure of the merits because I haven’t studied the case law closely. what I CAN say is that if the Trump admin were so closely involved in getting posts removed from social media, the left would go absolutely ballistic. which makes me believe this is an important 1A issue. when this case is decided the government will still be able to express its views to social media companies, but there will be more guardrails.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Covid truths" like microchips and mind control 😆

The PP who thinks she's on the righteous side of truth and justice for continually yammering on about "yabut covid came from China" sounds like a master of the obvious but an absolute idiot.

You know damn well that very few people bought into the microchips or mind control (that is a new one to me).

We do know that, among other things, Covid likely came from a lab; having the vaccine does not prevent one from spreading the virus; masks are not effective in stopping the spread of Covid; Hydroxychloroquine is associated with lower Covid mortality in a recent French study; there are side effects associated with the vaccine - myocarditis and irregular menstrual bleeding being just two; and the laptop does belong to Hunter Biden.

Many of the statements above were censored on social media - and in media in general.

Start here: https://voterga.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Press-Release-GA-Supreme-Court-Rules-VoterGA-Petitioners-Have-Standing.pdf
Polling shows 70% of Republicans believe the "election was stolen" LIE.

It's a LIE. And it was directly responsible for the violence of J6. It was a violent, destructive lie that got people killed.

Stop with your LIES that "very few people believe that stuff."

Stop pretending that it's all free fair game to tell whatever lies you like no matter the consequences. You are part of the problem.

So, claiming that the election was stolen or illegitimate is speech that should be censored? Is that what you are saying?

There was very little actual censoring even going on. The right wing freaked out over fact checks while leaving the content uncensored. Outraged over the lies being called out.

However when there is damage, destruction, loss of life caused by a lie, those central to the lie should be held accountable. IMHO Trump, Stone and others should be prosecuted as accessory to murder over J6.

Dp- is fraud protected speech?

Fraudulent statements are speech that the government can take narrowly tailored measure to prohibit & prosecute. But an overly broad interpretation of fraud would run into 1A problems. For example a doctor posting online questioning the efficacy of the covid vaccine and paxlovid could not be prosecuted for “fraud” under an attenuated theory like that she would benefit from increased sick patients. But generally the state & federal fraud statutes require a high level of causaility and intention - so it’s going to be rare that there is a 1A issue.

this is a good summary of unprotected speech: https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/unprotected-speech-synopsis

Bottom line is there is no "absolute" freedom of speech as claimed upthread and there are in fact many types of speech which are illegal. Those goal posts are already moved.

Speech directly threatening to kill or harm someone is a felony in most US jurisdictions. So why wouldn't speech that does in fact result in someone getting killed be completely exempt and unimpeachable? Trump's Big Lie got people killed. Anti-vaxxer lies got people killed.

Again, we aren't talking about "you want to censor conservatives" bullshit. Since when does being a conservative require you to tell lies that get people killed?

Because your take on how speech “got people killed” is incredibly attenuated and is far, far from passing 1A scrutiny.

1 million dead Americans disagree with this post.

So, I am no longer allowed to disagree with the government health policies?

The same government that decided saturated fat was bad and a low fat, high sugar diet is fine?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9794145/

Hiow many millions has this killed?

Disagree all you like. Tons of people disagreed during the height of Covid.
But this case is going to the Supreme Court and the fifth circuit has made a mess of it.
There has been no evidence the Biden WH coerced anyone. The government has a first amendment right as well. The government is allowed an opinion both public AND private.
They can and should share information with companies in the interest of public safety and national security.

You clearly have not read the opinions and briefs in the case. The entanglement between the government and the social media platforms was intense. The government was basically managing moderation - both individual decisions on posts and moderation policy. I’m not sure how the case will turn out, but it was an extremely troubling amount of control the government was imposing over speech. Notably the government does not claim that the removed posts had no First Amendment protections. They claim they were just engaged in “persuasion.” Ask yourself how happy you would be if this degree of “persuasion” was exercised by the Trump Admin to control social media posts on an issue you care about?

I wouldn’t characterize the outreach from the government as “intense”.
The government has a duty to defend and protect. I’m much more concerned with one billionaire and a gaggle of tech twits making these decisions. Which is legally how it has to be, but it’s not great for the health of our democracy.

they were constantly in touch with FB and Twitter. the social media companies basically outsourced the decision on what was covid misinformation to the CDC (much of which we know now was not actually misinformation). I’m not fully sure of the merits because I haven’t studied the case law closely. what I CAN say is that if the Trump admin were so closely involved in getting posts removed from social media, the left would go absolutely ballistic. which makes me believe this is an important 1A issue. when this case is decided the government will still be able to express its views to social media companies, but there will be more guardrails.

Of course they were in constant communication. The internet doesn’t stop. It’s a constant source of commerce, communication, and often aggression.
I’m uncomfortable with how little control there is. There needs to be more regulation and I’m hopeful ( if skeptical) that the SC will rule in a way that pushes that process along. Certainly the executives at Twitter were made to feel uncomfortable. They should have felt uncomfortable. They aren’t qualified to be dealing with national security and it’s scary we have to rely on them. And they’ve proven very unreliable and incapable partners.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Covid truths" like microchips and mind control 😆

The PP who thinks she's on the righteous side of truth and justice for continually yammering on about "yabut covid came from China" sounds like a master of the obvious but an absolute idiot.

You know damn well that very few people bought into the microchips or mind control (that is a new one to me).

We do know that, among other things, Covid likely came from a lab; having the vaccine does not prevent one from spreading the virus; masks are not effective in stopping the spread of Covid; Hydroxychloroquine is associated with lower Covid mortality in a recent French study; there are side effects associated with the vaccine - myocarditis and irregular menstrual bleeding being just two; and the laptop does belong to Hunter Biden.

Many of the statements above were censored on social media - and in media in general.

Start here: https://voterga.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Press-Release-GA-Supreme-Court-Rules-VoterGA-Petitioners-Have-Standing.pdf
Polling shows 70% of Republicans believe the "election was stolen" LIE.

It's a LIE. And it was directly responsible for the violence of J6. It was a violent, destructive lie that got people killed.

Stop with your LIES that "very few people believe that stuff."

Stop pretending that it's all free fair game to tell whatever lies you like no matter the consequences. You are part of the problem.

So, claiming that the election was stolen or illegitimate is speech that should be censored? Is that what you are saying?

There was very little actual censoring even going on. The right wing freaked out over fact checks while leaving the content uncensored. Outraged over the lies being called out.

However when there is damage, destruction, loss of life caused by a lie, those central to the lie should be held accountable. IMHO Trump, Stone and others should be prosecuted as accessory to murder over J6.

Dp- is fraud protected speech?

Fraudulent statements are speech that the government can take narrowly tailored measure to prohibit & prosecute. But an overly broad interpretation of fraud would run into 1A problems. For example a doctor posting online questioning the efficacy of the covid vaccine and paxlovid could not be prosecuted for “fraud” under an attenuated theory like that she would benefit from increased sick patients. But generally the state & federal fraud statutes require a high level of causaility and intention - so it’s going to be rare that there is a 1A issue.

this is a good summary of unprotected speech: https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/unprotected-speech-synopsis

Bottom line is there is no "absolute" freedom of speech as claimed upthread and there are in fact many types of speech which are illegal. Those goal posts are already moved.

Speech directly threatening to kill or harm someone is a felony in most US jurisdictions. So why wouldn't speech that does in fact result in someone getting killed be completely exempt and unimpeachable? Trump's Big Lie got people killed. Anti-vaxxer lies got people killed.

Again, we aren't talking about "you want to censor conservatives" bullshit. Since when does being a conservative require you to tell lies that get people killed?

Because your take on how speech “got people killed” is incredibly attenuated and is far, far from passing 1A scrutiny.

1 million dead Americans disagree with this post.

So, I am no longer allowed to disagree with the government health policies?

The same government that decided saturated fat was bad and a low fat, high sugar diet is fine?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9794145/

Hiow many millions has this killed?

Disagree all you like. Tons of people disagreed during the height of Covid.
But this case is going to the Supreme Court and the fifth circuit has made a mess of it.
There has been no evidence the Biden WH coerced anyone. The government has a first amendment right as well. The government is allowed an opinion both public AND private.
They can and should share information with companies in the interest of public safety and national security.

You clearly have not read the opinions and briefs in the case. The entanglement between the government and the social media platforms was intense. The government was basically managing moderation - both individual decisions on posts and moderation policy. I’m not sure how the case will turn out, but it was an extremely troubling amount of control the government was imposing over speech. Notably the government does not claim that the removed posts had no First Amendment protections. They claim they were just engaged in “persuasion.” Ask yourself how happy you would be if this degree of “persuasion” was exercised by the Trump Admin to control social media posts on an issue you care about?

I wouldn’t characterize the outreach from the government as “intense”.
The government has a duty to defend and protect. I’m much more concerned with one billionaire and a gaggle of tech twits making these decisions. Which is legally how it has to be, but it’s not great for the health of our democracy.

they were constantly in touch with FB and Twitter. the social media companies basically outsourced the decision on what was covid misinformation to the CDC (much of which we know now was not actually misinformation). I’m not fully sure of the merits because I haven’t studied the case law closely. what I CAN say is that if the Trump admin were so closely involved in getting posts removed from social media, the left would go absolutely ballistic. which makes me believe this is an important 1A issue. when this case is decided the government will still be able to express its views to social media companies, but there will be more guardrails.

Of course they were in constant communication. The internet doesn’t stop. It’s a constant source of commerce, communication, and often aggression.
I’m uncomfortable with how little control there is. There needs to be more regulation and I’m hopeful ( if skeptical) that the SC will rule in a way that pushes that process along. Certainly the executives at Twitter were made to feel uncomfortable. They should have felt uncomfortable. They aren’t qualified to be dealing with national security and it’s scary we have to rely on them. And they’ve proven very unreliable and incapable partners.

so you’d be happy with Trump jawboning his way into getting posts deleted from Facebook and Twitter?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Covid truths" like microchips and mind control 😆

The PP who thinks she's on the righteous side of truth and justice for continually yammering on about "yabut covid came from China" sounds like a master of the obvious but an absolute idiot.

You know damn well that very few people bought into the microchips or mind control (that is a new one to me).

We do know that, among other things, Covid likely came from a lab; having the vaccine does not prevent one from spreading the virus; masks are not effective in stopping the spread of Covid; Hydroxychloroquine is associated with lower Covid mortality in a recent French study; there are side effects associated with the vaccine - myocarditis and irregular menstrual bleeding being just two; and the laptop does belong to Hunter Biden.

Many of the statements above were censored on social media - and in media in general.

Start here: https://voterga.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Press-Release-GA-Supreme-Court-Rules-VoterGA-Petitioners-Have-Standing.pdf
Polling shows 70% of Republicans believe the "election was stolen" LIE.

It's a LIE. And it was directly responsible for the violence of J6. It was a violent, destructive lie that got people killed.

Stop with your LIES that "very few people believe that stuff."

Stop pretending that it's all free fair game to tell whatever lies you like no matter the consequences. You are part of the problem.

So, claiming that the election was stolen or illegitimate is speech that should be censored? Is that what you are saying?

There was very little actual censoring even going on. The right wing freaked out over fact checks while leaving the content uncensored. Outraged over the lies being called out.

However when there is damage, destruction, loss of life caused by a lie, those central to the lie should be held accountable. IMHO Trump, Stone and others should be prosecuted as accessory to murder over J6.

Dp- is fraud protected speech?

Fraudulent statements are speech that the government can take narrowly tailored measure to prohibit & prosecute. But an overly broad interpretation of fraud would run into 1A problems. For example a doctor posting online questioning the efficacy of the covid vaccine and paxlovid could not be prosecuted for “fraud” under an attenuated theory like that she would benefit from increased sick patients. But generally the state & federal fraud statutes require a high level of causaility and intention - so it’s going to be rare that there is a 1A issue.

this is a good summary of unprotected speech: https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/unprotected-speech-synopsis

Bottom line is there is no "absolute" freedom of speech as claimed upthread and there are in fact many types of speech which are illegal. Those goal posts are already moved.

Speech directly threatening to kill or harm someone is a felony in most US jurisdictions. So why wouldn't speech that does in fact result in someone getting killed be completely exempt and unimpeachable? Trump's Big Lie got people killed. Anti-vaxxer lies got people killed.

Again, we aren't talking about "you want to censor conservatives" bullshit. Since when does being a conservative require you to tell lies that get people killed?

Because your take on how speech “got people killed” is incredibly attenuated and is far, far from passing 1A scrutiny.

1 million dead Americans disagree with this post.

So, I am no longer allowed to disagree with the government health policies?

The same government that decided saturated fat was bad and a low fat, high sugar diet is fine?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9794145/

Hiow many millions has this killed?

Disagree all you like. Tons of people disagreed during the height of Covid.
But this case is going to the Supreme Court and the fifth circuit has made a mess of it.
There has been no evidence the Biden WH coerced anyone. The government has a first amendment right as well. The government is allowed an opinion both public AND private.
They can and should share information with companies in the interest of public safety and national security.

You clearly have not read the opinions and briefs in the case. The entanglement between the government and the social media platforms was intense. The government was basically managing moderation - both individual decisions on posts and moderation policy. I’m not sure how the case will turn out, but it was an extremely troubling amount of control the government was imposing over speech. Notably the government does not claim that the removed posts had no First Amendment protections. They claim they were just engaged in “persuasion.” Ask yourself how happy you would be if this degree of “persuasion” was exercised by the Trump Admin to control social media posts on an issue you care about?

I wouldn’t characterize the outreach from the government as “intense”.
The government has a duty to defend and protect. I’m much more concerned with one billionaire and a gaggle of tech twits making these decisions. Which is legally how it has to be, but it’s not great for the health of our democracy.

they were constantly in touch with FB and Twitter. the social media companies basically outsourced the decision on what was covid misinformation to the CDC (much of which we know now was not actually misinformation). I’m not fully sure of the merits because I haven’t studied the case law closely. what I CAN say is that if the Trump admin were so closely involved in getting posts removed from social media, the left would go absolutely ballistic. which makes me believe this is an important 1A issue. when this case is decided the government will still be able to express its views to social media companies, but there will be more guardrails.

Of course they were in constant communication. The internet doesn’t stop. It’s a constant source of commerce, communication, and often aggression.
I’m uncomfortable with how little control there is. There needs to be more regulation and I’m hopeful ( if skeptical) that the SC will rule in a way that pushes that process along. Certainly the executives at Twitter were made to feel uncomfortable. They should have felt uncomfortable. They aren’t qualified to be dealing with national security and it’s scary we have to rely on them. And they’ve proven very unreliable and incapable partners.

so you’d be happy with Trump jawboning his way into getting posts deleted from Facebook and Twitter?

As unhappy with that as I am with 1 unelected billionaire deciding our national security polices. Which is what is happening now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Covid truths" like microchips and mind control 😆

The PP who thinks she's on the righteous side of truth and justice for continually yammering on about "yabut covid came from China" sounds like a master of the obvious but an absolute idiot.

You know damn well that very few people bought into the microchips or mind control (that is a new one to me).

We do know that, among other things, Covid likely came from a lab; having the vaccine does not prevent one from spreading the virus; masks are not effective in stopping the spread of Covid; Hydroxychloroquine is associated with lower Covid mortality in a recent French study; there are side effects associated with the vaccine - myocarditis and irregular menstrual bleeding being just two; and the laptop does belong to Hunter Biden.

Many of the statements above were censored on social media - and in media in general.

Start here: https://voterga.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Press-Release-GA-Supreme-Court-Rules-VoterGA-Petitioners-Have-Standing.pdf
Polling shows 70% of Republicans believe the "election was stolen" LIE.

It's a LIE. And it was directly responsible for the violence of J6. It was a violent, destructive lie that got people killed.

Stop with your LIES that "very few people believe that stuff."

Stop pretending that it's all free fair game to tell whatever lies you like no matter the consequences. You are part of the problem.

So, claiming that the election was stolen or illegitimate is speech that should be censored? Is that what you are saying?

There was very little actual censoring even going on. The right wing freaked out over fact checks while leaving the content uncensored. Outraged over the lies being called out.

However when there is damage, destruction, loss of life caused by a lie, those central to the lie should be held accountable. IMHO Trump, Stone and others should be prosecuted as accessory to murder over J6.

Dp- is fraud protected speech?

Fraudulent statements are speech that the government can take narrowly tailored measure to prohibit & prosecute. But an overly broad interpretation of fraud would run into 1A problems. For example a doctor posting online questioning the efficacy of the covid vaccine and paxlovid could not be prosecuted for “fraud” under an attenuated theory like that she would benefit from increased sick patients. But generally the state & federal fraud statutes require a high level of causaility and intention - so it’s going to be rare that there is a 1A issue.

this is a good summary of unprotected speech: https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/unprotected-speech-synopsis

Bottom line is there is no "absolute" freedom of speech as claimed upthread and there are in fact many types of speech which are illegal. Those goal posts are already moved.

Speech directly threatening to kill or harm someone is a felony in most US jurisdictions. So why wouldn't speech that does in fact result in someone getting killed be completely exempt and unimpeachable? Trump's Big Lie got people killed. Anti-vaxxer lies got people killed.

Again, we aren't talking about "you want to censor conservatives" bullshit. Since when does being a conservative require you to tell lies that get people killed?

Because your take on how speech “got people killed” is incredibly attenuated and is far, far from passing 1A scrutiny.

1 million dead Americans disagree with this post.

So, I am no longer allowed to disagree with the government health policies?

The same government that decided saturated fat was bad and a low fat, high sugar diet is fine?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9794145/

Hiow many millions has this killed?

Disagree all you like. Tons of people disagreed during the height of Covid.
But this case is going to the Supreme Court and the fifth circuit has made a mess of it.
There has been no evidence the Biden WH coerced anyone. The government has a first amendment right as well. The government is allowed an opinion both public AND private.
They can and should share information with companies in the interest of public safety and national security.

You clearly have not read the opinions and briefs in the case. The entanglement between the government and the social media platforms was intense. The government was basically managing moderation - both individual decisions on posts and moderation policy. I’m not sure how the case will turn out, but it was an extremely troubling amount of control the government was imposing over speech. Notably the government does not claim that the removed posts had no First Amendment protections. They claim they were just engaged in “persuasion.” Ask yourself how happy you would be if this degree of “persuasion” was exercised by the Trump Admin to control social media posts on an issue you care about?

I wouldn’t characterize the outreach from the government as “intense”.
The government has a duty to defend and protect. I’m much more concerned with one billionaire and a gaggle of tech twits making these decisions. Which is legally how it has to be, but it’s not great for the health of our democracy.

they were constantly in touch with FB and Twitter. the social media companies basically outsourced the decision on what was covid misinformation to the CDC (much of which we know now was not actually misinformation). I’m not fully sure of the merits because I haven’t studied the case law closely. what I CAN say is that if the Trump admin were so closely involved in getting posts removed from social media, the left would go absolutely ballistic. which makes me believe this is an important 1A issue. when this case is decided the government will still be able to express its views to social media companies, but there will be more guardrails.

Of course they were in constant communication. The internet doesn’t stop. It’s a constant source of commerce, communication, and often aggression.
I’m uncomfortable with how little control there is. There needs to be more regulation and I’m hopeful ( if skeptical) that the SC will rule in a way that pushes that process along. Certainly the executives at Twitter were made to feel uncomfortable. They should have felt uncomfortable. They aren’t qualified to be dealing with national security and it’s scary we have to rely on them. And they’ve proven very unreliable and incapable partners.

so you’d be happy with Trump jawboning his way into getting posts deleted from Facebook and Twitter?

As unhappy with that as I am with 1 unelected billionaire deciding our national security polices. Which is what is happening now.

how are Twitter and Facebook “deciding our national security policies”?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Covid truths" like microchips and mind control 😆

The PP who thinks she's on the righteous side of truth and justice for continually yammering on about "yabut covid came from China" sounds like a master of the obvious but an absolute idiot.

You know damn well that very few people bought into the microchips or mind control (that is a new one to me).

We do know that, among other things, Covid likely came from a lab; having the vaccine does not prevent one from spreading the virus; masks are not effective in stopping the spread of Covid; Hydroxychloroquine is associated with lower Covid mortality in a recent French study; there are side effects associated with the vaccine - myocarditis and irregular menstrual bleeding being just two; and the laptop does belong to Hunter Biden.

Many of the statements above were censored on social media - and in media in general.

Start here: https://voterga.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Press-Release-GA-Supreme-Court-Rules-VoterGA-Petitioners-Have-Standing.pdf
Polling shows 70% of Republicans believe the "election was stolen" LIE.

It's a LIE. And it was directly responsible for the violence of J6. It was a violent, destructive lie that got people killed.

Stop with your LIES that "very few people believe that stuff."

Stop pretending that it's all free fair game to tell whatever lies you like no matter the consequences. You are part of the problem.

So, claiming that the election was stolen or illegitimate is speech that should be censored? Is that what you are saying?

There was very little actual censoring even going on. The right wing freaked out over fact checks while leaving the content uncensored. Outraged over the lies being called out.

However when there is damage, destruction, loss of life caused by a lie, those central to the lie should be held accountable. IMHO Trump, Stone and others should be prosecuted as accessory to murder over J6.

Dp- is fraud protected speech?

Fraudulent statements are speech that the government can take narrowly tailored measure to prohibit & prosecute. But an overly broad interpretation of fraud would run into 1A problems. For example a doctor posting online questioning the efficacy of the covid vaccine and paxlovid could not be prosecuted for “fraud” under an attenuated theory like that she would benefit from increased sick patients. But generally the state & federal fraud statutes require a high level of causaility and intention - so it’s going to be rare that there is a 1A issue.

this is a good summary of unprotected speech: https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/unprotected-speech-synopsis

Bottom line is there is no "absolute" freedom of speech as claimed upthread and there are in fact many types of speech which are illegal. Those goal posts are already moved.

Speech directly threatening to kill or harm someone is a felony in most US jurisdictions. So why wouldn't speech that does in fact result in someone getting killed be completely exempt and unimpeachable? Trump's Big Lie got people killed. Anti-vaxxer lies got people killed.

Again, we aren't talking about "you want to censor conservatives" bullshit. Since when does being a conservative require you to tell lies that get people killed?

Because your take on how speech “got people killed” is incredibly attenuated and is far, far from passing 1A scrutiny.

1 million dead Americans disagree with this post.

So, I am no longer allowed to disagree with the government health policies?

The same government that decided saturated fat was bad and a low fat, high sugar diet is fine?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9794145/

Hiow many millions has this killed?

Disagree all you like. Tons of people disagreed during the height of Covid.
But this case is going to the Supreme Court and the fifth circuit has made a mess of it.
There has been no evidence the Biden WH coerced anyone. The government has a first amendment right as well. The government is allowed an opinion both public AND private.
They can and should share information with companies in the interest of public safety and national security.

You clearly have not read the opinions and briefs in the case. The entanglement between the government and the social media platforms was intense. The government was basically managing moderation - both individual decisions on posts and moderation policy. I’m not sure how the case will turn out, but it was an extremely troubling amount of control the government was imposing over speech. Notably the government does not claim that the removed posts had no First Amendment protections. They claim they were just engaged in “persuasion.” Ask yourself how happy you would be if this degree of “persuasion” was exercised by the Trump Admin to control social media posts on an issue you care about?

I wouldn’t characterize the outreach from the government as “intense”.
The government has a duty to defend and protect. I’m much more concerned with one billionaire and a gaggle of tech twits making these decisions. Which is legally how it has to be, but it’s not great for the health of our democracy.

they were constantly in touch with FB and Twitter. the social media companies basically outsourced the decision on what was covid misinformation to the CDC (much of which we know now was not actually misinformation). I’m not fully sure of the merits because I haven’t studied the case law closely. what I CAN say is that if the Trump admin were so closely involved in getting posts removed from social media, the left would go absolutely ballistic. which makes me believe this is an important 1A issue. when this case is decided the government will still be able to express its views to social media companies, but there will be more guardrails.

Of course they were in constant communication. The internet doesn’t stop. It’s a constant source of commerce, communication, and often aggression.
I’m uncomfortable with how little control there is. There needs to be more regulation and I’m hopeful ( if skeptical) that the SC will rule in a way that pushes that process along. Certainly the executives at Twitter were made to feel uncomfortable. They should have felt uncomfortable. They aren’t qualified to be dealing with national security and it’s scary we have to rely on them. And they’ve proven very unreliable and incapable partners.

so you’d be happy with Trump jawboning his way into getting posts deleted from Facebook and Twitter?

For what purpose could he legitimately get posts deleted?

What lies did anyone tell about Trump that provably got people killed or destabilized America the way American Democracy was undermined on J6? I am unaware of any.

"He posted something embarrasing to me" does not rise to that level, sorry. If Trump were to want to do something like censoring The Onion for making fun of him, that would be a clear overreach. I'm not sure why this is such a difficult concept to understand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Covid truths" like microchips and mind control 😆

The PP who thinks she's on the righteous side of truth and justice for continually yammering on about "yabut covid came from China" sounds like a master of the obvious but an absolute idiot.

You know damn well that very few people bought into the microchips or mind control (that is a new one to me).

We do know that, among other things, Covid likely came from a lab; having the vaccine does not prevent one from spreading the virus; masks are not effective in stopping the spread of Covid; Hydroxychloroquine is associated with lower Covid mortality in a recent French study; there are side effects associated with the vaccine - myocarditis and irregular menstrual bleeding being just two; and the laptop does belong to Hunter Biden.

Many of the statements above were censored on social media - and in media in general.

Start here: https://voterga.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Press-Release-GA-Supreme-Court-Rules-VoterGA-Petitioners-Have-Standing.pdf
Polling shows 70% of Republicans believe the "election was stolen" LIE.

It's a LIE. And it was directly responsible for the violence of J6. It was a violent, destructive lie that got people killed.

Stop with your LIES that "very few people believe that stuff."

Stop pretending that it's all free fair game to tell whatever lies you like no matter the consequences. You are part of the problem.

So, claiming that the election was stolen or illegitimate is speech that should be censored? Is that what you are saying?

There was very little actual censoring even going on. The right wing freaked out over fact checks while leaving the content uncensored. Outraged over the lies being called out.

However when there is damage, destruction, loss of life caused by a lie, those central to the lie should be held accountable. IMHO Trump, Stone and others should be prosecuted as accessory to murder over J6.

Dp- is fraud protected speech?

Fraudulent statements are speech that the government can take narrowly tailored measure to prohibit & prosecute. But an overly broad interpretation of fraud would run into 1A problems. For example a doctor posting online questioning the efficacy of the covid vaccine and paxlovid could not be prosecuted for “fraud” under an attenuated theory like that she would benefit from increased sick patients. But generally the state & federal fraud statutes require a high level of causaility and intention - so it’s going to be rare that there is a 1A issue.

this is a good summary of unprotected speech: https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/unprotected-speech-synopsis

Bottom line is there is no "absolute" freedom of speech as claimed upthread and there are in fact many types of speech which are illegal. Those goal posts are already moved.

Speech directly threatening to kill or harm someone is a felony in most US jurisdictions. So why wouldn't speech that does in fact result in someone getting killed be completely exempt and unimpeachable? Trump's Big Lie got people killed. Anti-vaxxer lies got people killed.

Again, we aren't talking about "you want to censor conservatives" bullshit. Since when does being a conservative require you to tell lies that get people killed?

Because your take on how speech “got people killed” is incredibly attenuated and is far, far from passing 1A scrutiny.

1 million dead Americans disagree with this post.

So, I am no longer allowed to disagree with the government health policies?

The same government that decided saturated fat was bad and a low fat, high sugar diet is fine?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9794145/

Hiow many millions has this killed?

Disagree all you like. Tons of people disagreed during the height of Covid.
But this case is going to the Supreme Court and the fifth circuit has made a mess of it.
There has been no evidence the Biden WH coerced anyone. The government has a first amendment right as well. The government is allowed an opinion both public AND private.
They can and should share information with companies in the interest of public safety and national security.

You clearly have not read the opinions and briefs in the case. The entanglement between the government and the social media platforms was intense. The government was basically managing moderation - both individual decisions on posts and moderation policy. I’m not sure how the case will turn out, but it was an extremely troubling amount of control the government was imposing over speech. Notably the government does not claim that the removed posts had no First Amendment protections. They claim they were just engaged in “persuasion.” Ask yourself how happy you would be if this degree of “persuasion” was exercised by the Trump Admin to control social media posts on an issue you care about?

I wouldn’t characterize the outreach from the government as “intense”.
The government has a duty to defend and protect. I’m much more concerned with one billionaire and a gaggle of tech twits making these decisions. Which is legally how it has to be, but it’s not great for the health of our democracy.

they were constantly in touch with FB and Twitter. the social media companies basically outsourced the decision on what was covid misinformation to the CDC (much of which we know now was not actually misinformation). I’m not fully sure of the merits because I haven’t studied the case law closely. what I CAN say is that if the Trump admin were so closely involved in getting posts removed from social media, the left would go absolutely ballistic. which makes me believe this is an important 1A issue. when this case is decided the government will still be able to express its views to social media companies, but there will be more guardrails.

Of course they were in constant communication. The internet doesn’t stop. It’s a constant source of commerce, communication, and often aggression.
I’m uncomfortable with how little control there is. There needs to be more regulation and I’m hopeful ( if skeptical) that the SC will rule in a way that pushes that process along. Certainly the executives at Twitter were made to feel uncomfortable. They should have felt uncomfortable. They aren’t qualified to be dealing with national security and it’s scary we have to rely on them. And they’ve proven very unreliable and incapable partners.

so you’d be happy with Trump jawboning his way into getting posts deleted from Facebook and Twitter?

As unhappy with that as I am with 1 unelected billionaire deciding our national security polices. Which is what is happening now.

how are Twitter and Facebook “deciding our national security policies”?

This can’t be a serious question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's astounding how the far right has hamstrung and neutered our nation's ability to counter foreign psyops and disinfo just because they are butthurt over being fact checked online.

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/gop-muzzled-quiet-coalition-fought-foreign-propaganda-rcna103373

It's a fact that COVID did not leak from a Chinese lab, right?

That one falls in the "broken clock is right twice a day" category. Note that the exact same people who ran around saying COVID leaked from a Chinese lab (without evidence) also said:

- COVID is just a hoax engineered by the government to control people: FALSE

- The vaccines contain microchips: FALSE

- The vaccines alter your DNA: FALSE

- The vaccines cause severe side effects and are worse than COVID itself: FALSE, and proven instances of severe side effects were EXTREMELY rare (like one in a million, and you were 32 times more likely to end up with myocarditis if you were unvaccinated and got covid than if you were vaccinated

- The vaccines are not effective: FALSE

- We should not give the vaccines to children: FALSE - turned out that vaccinated kids were 80% less likely to end up in the ER than vaccinated kids

Don't dare get all self rightous over being accidentally right with ONE conspiracy theory out of the DOZENS that you were ABSOLUTELY WRONG ON.

DP.
Please. The government should not be in the business of restricting the speech of others UNLESS it is threatening or dangerous. Expressing ones opinion on vaccines and the efficacy of them is NOT a reason to restrict speech.
BTW - I have believed all along that the virus originated in a lab and I don't buy into the other crap you wrote - except that the vaccine is not necessary for healthy children. RSV is much, much more dangerous to children. Covid - not so much.
I also have believed from the start that masks don't really work at containing the virus - which turns out to be true.
And, then there is that "6 feet" rule which was also a bunch of bunk.
All kinds of information has been censored by the govt which has turned out to be true. They need to stay out of the business of restricting speech since it is - you know - against the law.

Why don’t you ask all the Asian Americans who got physically assaulted if that speech was dangerous or not.

You do understand that Trump was in charge at that time. If the government could censor the media, it would have been official government policy that COVID was of Chinese origin. Any contrary opinion would have been censored as disinformation.

But covid did originate in China.

You had no evidence of a lab leak when you started pushing that conspiracy theory. Refer back to the response above:

That one falls in the "broken clock is right twice a day" category. Note that the exact same people who ran around saying COVID leaked from a Chinese lab (without evidence) also said:

- COVID is just a hoax engineered by the government to control people: FALSE

- The vaccines contain microchips: FALSE

- The vaccines alter your DNA: FALSE

- The vaccines cause severe side effects and are worse than COVID itself: FALSE, and proven instances of severe side effects were EXTREMELY rare (like one in a million, and you were 32 times more likely to end up with myocarditis if you were unvaccinated and got covid than if you were vaccinated

- The vaccines are not effective: FALSE

- We should not give the vaccines to children: FALSE - turned out that vaccinated kids were 80% less likely to end up in the ER than vaccinated kids

Don't dare get all self rightous over being accidentally right with ONE conspiracy theory out of the DOZENS that you were ABSOLUTELY WRONG ON.

conspiracy theories are protected by the first amendment, babe.

Not when they harm people.

And why is it SO DAMN IMPORTANT for you people to constantly, willfully spread vicious, harmful and destructive lies? Why do you insist on being so vile and destructive?

The problem is that the government should not be censoring information or opinions.
The other issue is that much of what has been censored has been proven true. And, it was censored at the behest of our government.
And, it wasn't JUST about Covid.

Get off your dishonest high horse. FAR more of the COVID BS was proven FALSE than was proven true. And that continues to be the case with much of what comes from toxic pundits and politicians.

The bigger problem is that we have far too many dishonest and toxic people in our society who have nothing positive to offer, so instead they try to drag everyone else down and destroy them with their lies rather than trying to be more positive, constructive and productive.

I would argue with your first statement.
But, even if it were true...... the government has NO AUTHORITY to censor the speech. NONE.

There is something to your last statement.... I remember what happened to the Covington Catholic kids a few years back when the left tried to smear them with lies. It was horrendous.

Sorry but that is absolutely false. You absolutely WILL be censored and even arrested for many forms of "speech" - in many forms as already described by people upthread. If you sell a product as a remedy you absolutely can be told to remove false or unproven medical claims about it, as an example. Or, Stolen Valor laws regarding wearing a military uniform when you did not serve, or military medals you did not earn. Or impersonating a police officer. You absolutely will be told to stop, and it's entirely likely you may be arrested as well. The government does indeed have such authority.

the government does not have the authority to censor what it deems “lies” on the internet. period. please cite the case law you believe supports that. ps the stolen valor law was overturned.

The government has the authority to advise a business that there are malign foreign actors flooding their business with lies. And the business has the right to choose to censor those lies.

yes well, this is the factual question in the actual legal case - whether the government was “just” trying to influence the media (legitimate government speech) or acting as a censor.

Precisely, so anyone who’s still talking about having a first amendment right to do whatever they want on social media is wrong.

No, the people arguing here that political speech and “lies” have no First Amendment protection are wrong. In the pending social media case (Murthy v Missouri) I don’t believe there’s any question whether the speech is protected. It’s whether the government’s actions amounted to supression of the speech or just “government speech.”

[Anonymous]

This victory is hollow.
We need court reform. These aholes are biding their time, will after the election. They’ve coached the RWNJ’s on how to bring it again and get what they want.

[Anonymous]

The Supreme Court's ruling and opinion on the widespread federal government campaign to censor and banish accounts that shared factual information about ongoing government operations is an abomination that ignores both the facts and the law. I never thought I would see the Supreme Court rubber stamp the most egregious and illegal censorship campaign in American history, but here we are. What a joke.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Supreme Court's ruling and opinion on the widespread federal government campaign to censor and banish accounts that shared factual information about ongoing government operations is an abomination that ignores both the facts and the law. I never thought I would see the Supreme Court rubber stamp the most egregious and illegal censorship campaign in American history, but here we are. What a joke.

Did you, you know, actually read the opinion? Because for the most part, Justice Barrett lays out the facts, that in fact, the government was NOT suppressing free speech. Maybe read it before going on an indignation tour.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Supreme Court's ruling and opinion on the widespread federal government campaign to censor and banish accounts that shared factual information about ongoing government operations is an abomination that ignores both the facts and the law. I never thought I would see the Supreme Court rubber stamp the most egregious and illegal censorship campaign in American history, but here we are. What a joke.

and a second question...is it ok for foreign influencers to create and spread propaganda and lies in our country?

[Anonymous]

I don’t think foreign countries get free speech rights here. If a U.S. citizen is reposting Russian propaganda, they’re not actually speaking. They’re holding a megaphone for a foreign power.

[Anonymous]

The standing issue gives me hope this case will come back

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Supreme Court's ruling and opinion on the widespread federal government campaign to censor and banish accounts that shared factual information about ongoing government operations is an abomination that ignores both the facts and the law. I never thought I would see the Supreme Court rubber stamp the most egregious and illegal censorship campaign in American history, but here we are. What a joke.

Did you, you know, actually read the opinion? Because for the most part, Justice Barrett lays out the facts, that in fact, the government was NOT suppressing free speech. Maybe read it before going on an indignation tour.

Of course, it wasn't. It was asking a third party to suppress free speech. And when the government asks you to do something, you are entirely free to ignore the government. However, Section 230 is always lurking in the background.