4 minutes ago, Mike31mt said:

You can just say this topic is too complex and you dont understand, it would save time.

What rights to free speech do you have on Twitter?

None.

You're welcome.

Donald Trump owns a social media site. 

2 minutes ago, Toastrel said:

What rights to free speech do you have on Twitter?

None.

You're welcome.

If the govt is colluding with them, and forcing them to suppress free speech, thats a violation. 

12 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

It's just an injunction at this point, not even his final ruling. And the evidence, as always, is non-existent.

I wouldn't say the evidence is non-existent.  Skimming through the early portions of the memo, the back and forth between Flaherty and facebook are questionable IMO. 

Didn’t those morons already hold hearings on it. Look at Connolly’s questioning from 16-20 minutes to get an idea of the truth.

 

1 hour ago, Phillyterp85 said:

And therein lies the gray area and potential problem.  The federal government is prohibited from abridging freedom of speech (except for a few specific situations which have been laid out in the courts).    The government isn't allowed to make a loophole to this by pressuring a private site to censor the speech they wish it to censor, and so that way they can say "oh, we weren't the ones censoring the speech.  It was the private company doing it".   

That's what this case is ultimately going to come to.  Did the site censor this speech on their own or were they pressured by the government to do so, and essentially acting as an arm of the government and censoring speech on the government's behalf. 

Previous cases have held that government officials have a right to speak and convince others of their opinions.  But if it goes to the point of coercion where a failure to accede to the request could be interpreted that some form of punishment or adverse regulatory policy will follow, that's when the line has been crossed and it's now a violation of the first amendment. 

Ok, but whose free speech rights were violated? The Russian Troll Farms? The 1st Amendment doesn't apply to them. This sounds like Trump's claim. My rights were violated because the Russian Troll Farm had the propaganda supporting me taken down. But it's not Trump's speech as well. 

5 hours ago, we_gotta_believe said:

It's too bad this sham ruling from this cultist judge will be overturned. You poor saps had been taking so many L's lately, I'd hate to see you spike the football at the 50 yard line again.

 

5 hours ago, Toastrel said:

Mike still thinks there is free speech on social media platforms with TOS that specifically tell you, you do not have free speech there.

 

4 hours ago, Toastrel said:

What free speech? You really are deranged. You have no right to free speech on any social media platform.

Even truth social has speech rules.

Deal with it buttercup.

 

2 hours ago, Toastrel said:

There is no free speech on social media.

 

2 hours ago, Toastrel said:

Nope, I have to disagree. I think the government was wrong, but free speech ON TWITTER is not right.

 

1 hour ago, we_gotta_believe said:

That's not even close to what happened. 

 

1 hour ago, we_gotta_believe said:

It's just an injunction at this point, not even his final ruling. And the evidence, as always, is non-existent.

 

1 hour ago, Toastrel said:

What rights to free speech do you have on Twitter?

None.

You're welcome.

 

1 hour ago, VanHammersly said:

Donald Trump owns a social media site. 

We get it fellas - you hate the constitution and in particular, free speech.  Let’s move on.

1 hour ago, jsdarkstar said:

Ok, but whose free speech rights were violated? The Russian Troll Farms? The 1st Amendment doesn't apply to them. This sounds like Trump's claim. My rights were violated because the Russian Troll Farm had the propaganda supporting me taken down. But it's not Trump's speech as well. 

This case has nothing to do with Russian Troll Farms.  

1 hour ago, mikemack8 said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We get it fellas - you hate the constitution and in particular, free speech.  Let’s move on.

I love those things, I just can't abide idiots. It is a simple concept. You going to Twitter and agreeing to their terms of service forfeits your right to free speech on that platform.

They can tell you to pound sand. Do I agree with the government asking, or threatening, or however you care to put it, Twitter into censoring for them, nope. Not at all.

The point you cannot seem to grasp is that services offer you no guarantees of free speech. You may need to go to a street corner, get up on a soapbox, and exercise your right all you like, and as long as you are peaceable and reasonably white, you can do so without fear of being arrested.

15 minutes ago, Toastrel said:

I love those things, I just can't abide idiots. It is a simple concept. You going to Twitter and agreeing to their terms of service forfeits your right to free speech on that platform.

They can tell you to pound sand. Do I agree with the government asking, or threatening, or however you care to put it, Twitter into censoring for them, nope. Not at all.

The point you cannot seem to grasp is that services offer you no guarantees of free speech. You may need to go to a street corner, get up on a soapbox, and exercise your right all you like, and as long as you are peaceable and reasonably white, you can do so without fear of being arrested.

Once again, if the government threatens Twitter in order to get them to censor speech, that is a violation of the first amendment.  PERIOD.

The government can make suggestions.  The government can make requests.  Once it crosses the line to coercion where the site feels they need to abide by the request otherwise they’ll face retribution, it then becomes a violation of first amendment rights.

6 hours ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Not sure which thread to post this: have they figured out whose bag of cocaine was at the White House?   There’s a 95% chance it was Hunter’s right?

Hunter Biden is the betting favorite. 

 

33 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

 Once it crosses the line to coercion where the site feels they need to abide by the request otherwise they’ll face retribution, it then becomes a violation of first amendment rights.

I agree, but I don't think anything has been produced by hack Taibbi or Musk from Twitter's past to suggest there was coercion.

Requests were made by various members of government and candidates running for office. Some were honored, some weren't. There was internal (independent) dialogue about many of the requests showing earnest deliberation.

I have not seen anything that shows govt overstepped its bounds here.

Zooted out of his mind 

 

17 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

I agree, but I don't think anything has been produced by hack Taibbi or Musk from Twitter's past to suggest there was coercion.

Requests were made by various members of government and candidates running for office. Some were honored, some weren't. There was internal (independent) dialogue about many of the requests showing earnest deliberation.

I have not seen anything that shows govt overstepped its bounds here.

Reading through some of the memo from the injunction, some of the messages provided are questionable IMO. 

So asking/requesting (Not ordering them, or using any coercion) Twitter to take down posts spreading disinformation about Covid, trying to save lives, is a violation of Free Speech?. 

So posting fascist, lies about Covid is free speech, Just like the 2020 election was stolen. So spreading lies that endanger peoples lives is Free Speech?

Free speech doesn't exist on a Social Media platform. 

I see this case getting overruled by the Appellate Court.

29 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Reading through some of the memo from the injunction, some of the messages provided are questionable IMO. 

Can you share them? 

 

2 hours ago, jsdarkstar said:

So asking/requesting (Not ordering them, or using any coercion) Twitter to take down posts spreading disinformation about Covid, trying to save lives, is a violation of Free Speech?. 

So posting fascist, lies about Covid is free speech, Just like the 2020 election was stolen. So spreading lies that endanger peoples lives is Free Speech?

Free speech doesn't exist on a Social Media platform. 

I see this case getting overruled by the Appellate Court.

So when you say "fascist"... are you referring to a thin, connective bodily tissue or that sophistic, platitudinous term that's all the rage among today's pseudointellectual cognoscenti?

46 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Can you share them? 

Sure, here are some examples of items that I find questionable and concerning:

On February 6, 2021, Flaherty requested Twitter to remove a parody account linked to Finnegan Biden, Hunter Biden's daughter and President Biden's granddaughter. The request stated, "Cannot stress the degree to which this needs to be resolved immediately,” and "Please remove this account immediately.” Twitter suspended the parody account within forty- five minutes of Flaherty’s request.

On February 7, 2021, Twitter sent Flaherty a "Twitter's Partner Support Portal” for ‘expedited review of flagging content for censorship. Twitter recommended that Flaherty designate a list of authorized White House staff to enroll in Twitter's Partner Support Portal and explained that when authorized reporters submit a "ticket” using the portal, the requests are "prioritized” automatically.  my comment: I'm not really a fan of allowing the government to be able to partner with a private company for the purpose of flagging content to be censored.

On March 15, 2021, Flaherty acknowledged receiving Facebook's detailed report and demanded a report from Facebook on a recent Washington Post article that accused Facebook of allowing the spread of information leading to vaccine hesitancy. Flaherty emailed the Washington Post article to Facebook the day before, with the subject line: "You are hiding the ball,” and stated "I've been asking you guys pretty directly, over a series of conversations, for a clear accounting of the biggest issues you are seeing on your platform when it comes to vaccine hesitancy and the degree to which borderline content as you define it is playing a role.” After Facebook denied "hiding the ball,” Flaherty followed up by making clear that the ‘White House was seeking more aggressive action on "borderline content.” Flaherty referred to a series of meetings with Facebook that were held in response to concerns over "borderline content” and accused Facebook of deceiving the White House about Facebook's "borderline policies." Flaherty also accused Facebook of being the "top driver of vaccine hesitancy.” Specifically, his email stated: Lam not trying to play ‘gotcha’ with you. We are gravely concerned that your service is one of the top drivers of vaccine hesitancy- period. I will also be the first to acknowledge that borderline content offers no easy solutions. But we want to know that you're trying, we want to know how we can help, and we wan to know that you're not playing a shell game with us when we ask you what is going on. This would all be a lot easier if you would just be straight with us. In response to Flaherty’s email, Facebook responded, stating: "We obviously have work to do to gain your trust... We are also working to get you useful information that’s on the level. That's my job and I take it seriously — I'll continue to do it to the best of my ability, and I'll expect you to hold me accountable.

My comment: So now we have government officials making accusations at facebook that it's not doing enough.  And facebook officials respond by saying they have more work to do to gain the government's trust, and that they expect to be held accountable by the government. To me, this implies that facebook thought there could be repercussions if they don't meet the government's demands, as there is no situation in which they should feel they are being held "accountable" by the government when it comes to censoring speech on their website. 

 

Twitter discovery responses indicated that during the meeting, White House officials wanted to know why Alex Berenson (“Berenson”) had not been "kicked oft” Twitter.” Slavitt suggested Berenson was "the epicenter of disinfo that radiated outwards to the persuadable public.” Berenson was suspended thereafter on July 16, 2021, and was permanently de- platformed on August 28, 2021.

My comment: I just really don't like the vibe here. It's one thing to make suggestions, but then to be following up and demanding answers as to why a person they want kicked off twitter hadn't been kicked off yet?  Now it's starting to feel like this is getting beyond just "making a request"

 

On May 5, 2021, then-White House Press Secretary Jen Paki (“Psaki”) publicly began pushing Facebook and other social-media platforms to censor COVID-19 misinformation. Ata White House Press Conference, Psaki publicly reminded Facebook and other social-media platforms of the threat of "legal consequences” if they do not censor misinformation more aggressively. Psaki further stated: "The President's view is that the major platforms have a responsibility related to the health and safety of all Americans to stop amplifying untrustworthy content, disinformation, and misinformation, especially related to COVID-19 vaccinations and elections.” Psaki linked the threat of a "robust anti-trust program” with the White Houses censorship demand. "He also supports better privacy protections and a robust anti-trust program. So, his view is that there’s more that needs to be done to ensure that this type of misinformation; disinformation; damaging, sometime life-threatening information, is not going out to the American public.”

My comment: This contains some implied threats.

 

"The next day, Flaherty followed up with another email to Facebook and chastised Facebook for not catching various COVID-19 misinformation. Flaherty demanded more information about Facebook's efforts to demote borderline content, stating, "Not to sound like a broken record, but how much content is being demoted, and how effective are you at mitigating reach, and how quickly?” Flaherty also criticized Facebook's efforts to censor the "Disinformation Dozen”  "Seems like your ‘dedicated vaccine hesitancy” policy isn’t stopping the disinfo-dozen — they're being deemed as not dedicated — so i fees like that problem likely coming over to groups"* Things apparently became tense between the White House and Facebook after that, culminating in Flaherty’s July 15, 2021 email to Facebook, in which Flaherty stated: "Are you guys f-cking serious? | want an answer on what happened here and I want it today.

my comment: Completely over the line relationship at this point. Facebook is not the government. Facebook does not work for the government. They don't owe any government official an answer on censorship yet once again we have Flaherty acting as if they are answerable to him.  This again goes beyond the government simply making an innocent request.

 

‘The next day, on July 16, 2021, President Biden, after being asked what his message was  to social-media platforms when it came to COVID-19, stated, “[Tlhey’re killing people.”' Specifically, he stated "Look, the only pandemic we have is among the unvaccinated, and that they're killing people.” Psaki stated the actions of censorship Facebook had already conducted were "clearly not sufficient” Four days later, on July 20, 2021, at a White House Press Conference, White House Communications Director Kate Bedingfield (“Bedingfield”) stated that the White House would be announcing whether social-media platforms are legally liable for misinformation spread on their platforms and examining how misinformation fits into the liability protection granted by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (which shields social-media platforms from being responsible for posts by third parties on their sites)." Bedingfield further stated the administration was reviewing policies that could include amending the Communication Decency Act and that the social-media platforms "should be held accountable.” 

my comment: more threats....

That's just from the first 25 pages of the memo and IMO shows a relationship between the government and social media companies that went beyond the government just innocently making suggestions or requests.  There's implied threats and retribution. There's the government demanding answers as if these companies are answerable to them.  And you have members from the company saying they are accountable to the government. 

 

 

 

9 hours ago, Phillyterp85 said:

I wouldn't say the evidence is non-existent.  Skimming through the early portions of the memo, the back and forth between Flaherty and facebook are questionable IMO. 

The cultist judge framed it as "the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history.”

That's absolutely ridiculous, especially given which administration preceded this one. I'm not seeing any evidence of that nature. To be clear, the government interfering with the operations of private enterprises and asking them to remove content from their platforms is wrong, but once again, intent matters. Simply asking is not necessarily illegal. There would need to be threats of reprisal or some level of consequence interpreted by the companies to coerce them to act. That's not what happened here.

2 hours ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Sure, here are some examples of items that I find questionable and concerning:

On February 6, 2021, Flaherty requested Twitter to remove a parody account linked to Finnegan Biden, Hunter Biden's daughter and President Biden's granddaughter. The request stated, "Cannot stress the degree to which this needs to be resolved immediately,” and "Please remove this account immediately.” Twitter suspended the parody account within forty- five minutes of Flaherty’s request.

On February 7, 2021, Twitter sent Flaherty a "Twitter's Partner Support Portal” for ‘expedited review of flagging content for censorship. Twitter recommended that Flaherty designate a list of authorized White House staff to enroll in Twitter's Partner Support Portal and explained that when authorized reporters submit a "ticket” using the portal, the requests are "prioritized” automatically.  my comment: I'm not really a fan of allowing the government to be able to partner with a private company for the purpose of flagging content to be censored.

On March 15, 2021, Flaherty acknowledged receiving Facebook's detailed report and demanded a report from Facebook on a recent Washington Post article that accused Facebook of allowing the spread of information leading to vaccine hesitancy. Flaherty emailed the Washington Post article to Facebook the day before, with the subject line: "You are hiding the ball,” and stated "I've been asking you guys pretty directly, over a series of conversations, for a clear accounting of the biggest issues you are seeing on your platform when it comes to vaccine hesitancy and the degree to which borderline content as you define it is playing a role.” After Facebook denied "hiding the ball,” Flaherty followed up by making clear that the ‘White House was seeking more aggressive action on "borderline content.” Flaherty referred to a series of meetings with Facebook that were held in response to concerns over "borderline content” and accused Facebook of deceiving the White House about Facebook's "borderline policies." Flaherty also accused Facebook of being the "top driver of vaccine hesitancy.” Specifically, his email stated: Lam not trying to play ‘gotcha’ with you. We are gravely concerned that your service is one of the top drivers of vaccine hesitancy- period. I will also be the first to acknowledge that borderline content offers no easy solutions. But we want to know that you're trying, we want to know how we can help, and we wan to know that you're not playing a shell game with us when we ask you what is going on. This would all be a lot easier if you would just be straight with us. In response to Flaherty’s email, Facebook responded, stating: "We obviously have work to do to gain your trust... We are also working to get you useful information that’s on the level. That's my job and I take it seriously — I'll continue to do it to the best of my ability, and I'll expect you to hold me accountable.

My comment: So now we have government officials making accusations at facebook that it's not doing enough.  And facebook officials respond by saying they have more work to do to gain the government's trust, and that they expect to be held accountable by the government. To me, this implies that facebook thought there could be repercussions if they don't meet the government's demands, as there is no situation in which they should feel they are being held "accountable" by the government when it comes to censoring speech on their website. 

 

Twitter discovery responses indicated that during the meeting, White House officials wanted to know why Alex Berenson (“Berenson”) had not been "kicked oft” Twitter.” Slavitt suggested Berenson was "the epicenter of disinfo that radiated outwards to the persuadable public.” Berenson was suspended thereafter on July 16, 2021, and was permanently de- platformed on August 28, 2021.

My comment: I just really don't like the vibe here. It's one thing to make suggestions, but then to be following up and demanding answers as to why a person they want kicked off twitter hadn't been kicked off yet?  Now it's starting to feel like this is getting beyond just "making a request"

 

On May 5, 2021, then-White House Press Secretary Jen Paki (“Psaki”) publicly began pushing Facebook and other social-media platforms to censor COVID-19 misinformation. Ata White House Press Conference, Psaki publicly reminded Facebook and other social-media platforms of the threat of "legal consequences” if they do not censor misinformation more aggressively. Psaki further stated: "The President's view is that the major platforms have a responsibility related to the health and safety of all Americans to stop amplifying untrustworthy content, disinformation, and misinformation, especially related to COVID-19 vaccinations and elections.” Psaki linked the threat of a "robust anti-trust program” with the White Houses censorship demand. "He also supports better privacy protections and a robust anti-trust program. So, his view is that there’s more that needs to be done to ensure that this type of misinformation; disinformation; damaging, sometime life-threatening information, is not going out to the American public.”

My comment: This contains some implied threats.

 

"The next day, Flaherty followed up with another email to Facebook and chastised Facebook for not catching various COVID-19 misinformation. Flaherty demanded more information about Facebook's efforts to demote borderline content, stating, "Not to sound like a broken record, but how much content is being demoted, and how effective are you at mitigating reach, and how quickly?” Flaherty also criticized Facebook's efforts to censor the "Disinformation Dozen”  "Seems like your ‘dedicated vaccine hesitancy” policy isn’t stopping the disinfo-dozen — they're being deemed as not dedicated — so i fees like that problem likely coming over to groups"* Things apparently became tense between the White House and Facebook after that, culminating in Flaherty’s July 15, 2021 email to Facebook, in which Flaherty stated: "Are you guys f-cking serious? | want an answer on what happened here and I want it today.

my comment: Completely over the line relationship at this point. Facebook is not the government. Facebook does not work for the government. They don't owe any government official an answer on censorship yet once again we have Flaherty acting as if they are answerable to him.  This again goes beyond the government simply making an innocent request.

 

‘The next day, on July 16, 2021, President Biden, after being asked what his message was  to social-media platforms when it came to COVID-19, stated, “[Tlhey’re killing people.”' Specifically, he stated "Look, the only pandemic we have is among the unvaccinated, and that they're killing people.” Psaki stated the actions of censorship Facebook had already conducted were "clearly not sufficient” Four days later, on July 20, 2021, at a White House Press Conference, White House Communications Director Kate Bedingfield (“Bedingfield”) stated that the White House would be announcing whether social-media platforms are legally liable for misinformation spread on their platforms and examining how misinformation fits into the liability protection granted by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (which shields social-media platforms from being responsible for posts by third parties on their sites)." Bedingfield further stated the administration was reviewing policies that could include amending the Communication Decency Act and that the social-media platforms "should be held accountable.” 

my comment: more threats....

That's just from the first 25 pages of the memo and IMO shows a relationship between the government and social media companies that went beyond the government just innocently making suggestions or requests.  There's implied threats and retribution. There's the government demanding answers as if these companies are answerable to them.  And you have members from the company saying they are accountable to the government. 

 

 

 

Flaherty demanding answers is bad, but not sure that qualifies as a threat. I agree that it shouldn't be happening, but doubt it meets the legal standard for coercion. Psaki's public reminder about legal consequences could easily be perceived as a threat though. That one is problematic. Still don't think it's anywhere near the level of "the worst attack of the first amendment" but I guess we'll have to see how things play out from here. Consider me skeptical that the ruling holds up, should he even make it final.

6 hours ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Flaherty demanding answers is bad, but not sure that qualifies as a threat. I agree that it shouldn't be happening, but doubt it meets the legal standard for coercion. Psaki's public reminder about legal consequences could easily be perceived as a threat though. That one is problematic. Still don't think it's anywhere near the level of "the worst attack of the first amendment" but I guess we'll have to see how things play out from here. Consider me skeptical that the ruling holds up, should he even make it final.

That line is overzealous for sure.   I don't think we can separate Flaherty's demands from Psaki and Bedingfield making public threats. It's all from the same administration and is all intertwined.  I think there's enough there to make a case that the administration was going well beyond just making innocent requests.  

This Flaherty guy sounds like a real a-hole.

No doubt in the midst of the pandemic when the vaccine push was on that the WH got overzealous. That's not an excuse, just context; the urgency was real and we're now looking at it with hindsight.

FWIW these partner portals predates Biden, and I have little doubt that past administrations were likewise pressuring Twitter/etc to "fix" their message. So while it's good this is getting an airing, it's still hypocritical that it only now is becoming an issue.

12 hours ago, Arthur Jackson said:

So when you say "fascist"... are you referring to a thin, connective bodily tissue or that sophistic, platitudinous term that's all the rage among today's pseudointellectual cognoscenti?

When I say Fascist, I'm talking about the 3rd Reich fascists. Where the unity of the national community is prioritized above the rights of individuals. It leads to an intense defining of which groups belong and which ones do not. It's characterized by exclusionary nationalism, fixation with national decline real or perceived, and threats to the existence of the national community, and an embrace of Para militarism. In fascists states, violence is accepted, even celebrated. Fascist governments are one-party states led by an authoritarian leader who claims to embody the national will. Fascists define the national will as advancing the interests of the national community. 

12 hours ago, Phillyterp85 said:

That's just from the first 25 pages of the memo and IMO shows a relationship between the government and social media companies that went beyond the government just innocently making suggestions or requests.  There's implied threats and retribution. There's the government demanding answers as if these companies are answerable to them.  And you have members from the company saying they are accountable to the government. 

My question is this: If Twitter and Facebook become vectors of false information that leads to the harm and death of individuals, to what extent are they liable for damages? In light of the situation where real people were dying, I think the warnings from the government to clean up their sites are just.