Jump to content

The Next President is...


disgruntledemployee

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, ViperMan said:

With your construction of the issue, you're right - just because something is online does not make it a public space. No one is making such a simple argument, though. You're holding a strawman.

When the government compels a private company to act on their behalf, that changes things, and it's no longer an issue of it simply being online. When Facebook begins censoring messages on behalf of the government, they have now become a de facto arm of the government. *If* the messages being censored would *otherwise* be constitutionally protected, *that* is now unconstitutional. See the distinction?

Ok. I’ll ask you the same question I asked ratner: how exactly is the federal government compelling social media platforms to do its bidding? Can you point to any legislation or lawsuit that would compel Facebook to suppress anyone’s opinion? 

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Prozac said:

Ok. I’ll ask you the same question I asked ratner: how exactly is the federal government compelling social media platforms to do its bidding? Can you point to any legislation or lawsuit that would compel Facebook to suppress anyone’s opinion? 

https://nypost.com/2021/07/15/white-house-flagging-posts-for-facebook-to-censor-due-to-covid-19-misinformation/

Also, see the removal of the ability to post about the Hunter Biden laptop from Twitter and Facebook. Is legislation necessary in your view? Or are the threats levied against these companies (previously cited) enough? What about the fact that it is actually happening? Like, right now.

Again, there is established legal precedent that has found that the government threat of legal action against a book publisher constituted a violation of the first amendment.

Now, back to my question. Do you understand the distinction being made?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, ViperMan said:

https://nypost.com/2021/07/15/white-house-flagging-posts-for-facebook-to-censor-due-to-covid-19-misinformation/

Also, see the removal of the ability to post about the Hunter Biden laptop from Twitter and Facebook. Is legislation necessary in your view? Or are the threats levied against these companies (previously cited) enough? What about the fact that it is actually happening? Like, right now.

Again, there is established legal precedent that has found that the government threat of legal action against a book publisher constituted a violation of the first amendment.

Now, back to my question. Do you understand the distinction being made?

Nope. What legal action is being threatened. The White House is flagging posts that it considers to be disinformation and bringing that up with Facebook. It is still facebook’s decision as to what they will do with those posts. Is the government pushing its agenda? Absolutely, as they have done with various media outlets forever. Are they COMPELLING social media companies to censor their content through legislation or legal action? Nope. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Prozac said:

Nope. What legal action is being threatened. The White House is flagging posts that it considers to be disinformation and bringing that up with Facebook. It is still facebook’s decision as to what they will do with those posts. Is the government pushing its agenda? Absolutely, as they have done with various media outlets forever. Are they COMPELLING social media companies to censor their content through legislation or legal action? Nope. 

"Facebook needs to move more quickly to remove violative posts," Psaki said. 

https://www.businessinsider.com/white-house-facebook-takes-too-long-when-removing-misinformation-2021-7?op=1

How much more clear could it get? The administration is literally demanding that Facebook act as their censorship arm. 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Prozac said:

Nope. What legal action is being threatened. The White House is flagging posts that it considers to be disinformation and bringing that up with Facebook. It is still facebook’s decision as to what they will do with those posts. Is the government pushing its agenda? Absolutely, as they have done with various media outlets forever. Are they COMPELLING social media companies to censor their content through legislation or legal action? Nope. 

Refresh my memory— why was Trump impeached by the house in 2019?  Because I thought democrat arguments were that illegal WH influence was through implied rather than explicit statements.  

A fundamental problem in our country is political tribes that justify any behavior from “our” guy while condemning all behavior from “their” guy.  
 

This is why Hunter Biden isn’t in jail on felony gun charges.  And why the obvious C19 lab leak was hidden, etc. The hypocrisy makes compromise impossible.  Which is the goal; how do you guys think this ends?

Edited by tac airlifter
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, kaputt said:

"Facebook needs to move more quickly to remove violative posts," Psaki said. 

https://www.businessinsider.com/white-house-facebook-takes-too-long-when-removing-misinformation-2021-7?op=1

How much more clear could it get? The administration is literally demanding that Facebook act as their censorship arm. 

Holy shit guys, some of you really do need to go back to high school. So the WH Press Secretary says “Facebook needs to move quickly” and all of a sudden that’s the law? Do you really believe we rule by decree in this country? Nothing Psaki said compels FB or anyone else to do jack shit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, tac airlifter said:

Refresh my memory— why was Trump impeached by the house in 2019?  Because I thought democrat arguments were that illegal WH influence was through implied rather than explicit statements.  

A fundamental problem in our country is political tribes that justify any behavior from “our” guy while condemning all behavior from “their” guy.  
 

This is why Hunter Biden isn’t in jail on felony gun charges.  The hypocrisy makes compromise impossible.  Which is the goal; how do you guys think this ends?

This is a more coherent argument. Look guys, if the argument is that Feinstein’s and Psaki’s statements could be construed as problematic and raise some questions about potential government overreach that should be answered” I’d say I AGREE! But that’s not the argument being pushed here. The argument is “the government is censoring social media”, to which I say: No, it is not. It’s another example of the right taking a legitimate issue and attempting to twist it into an existential threat that will end society as we know it in order to keep the base energized. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Prozac said:

Nope. What legal action is being threatened. The White House is flagging posts that it considers to be disinformation and bringing that up with Facebook. It is still facebook’s decision as to what they will do with those posts. Is the government pushing its agenda? Absolutely, as they have done with various media outlets forever. Are they COMPELLING social media companies to censor their content through legislation or legal action? Nope. 

I guess I'll just ask it simply, apart from what we think is actually happening in society right now: do you think that when the government pressures a company to do what it otherwise cannot, there is a potential violation of the constitution?

i.e. do you think Norwood v. Harrison was correct?

"It is “axiomatic,” the Supreme Court held in Norwood v. Harrison (1973), that the government “may not induce, encourage or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish.”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/save-the-constitution-from-big-tech-11610387105

May not induce, encourage, or promote...what do you think that means? Must there be legislation in your view for there to be a problem? Because if so, that's not in accordance with established legal precedent in our country. That is to say, I'm fine if it's your opinion that you think that case was decided incorrectly, or that the concept itself is wrong. That said, from a legal standpoint, from a constitutional standpoint, there needn't be any legal action or legislation in the works to constitute a violation of the constitution. Which is why the argument you're making is a straw man. It's not necessary for there to be legal action.

24 minutes ago, Prozac said:

Holy shit guys, some of you really do need to go back to high school. So the WH Press Secretary says “Facebook needs to move quickly” and all of a sudden that’s the law? Do you really believe we rule by decree in this country? Nothing Psaki said compels FB or anyone else to do jack shit. 

You're cherry-picking a single example. What about the others? i.e. members of Congress calling for legal action, etc? Nadler, etc? i.e. encouraging and promoting...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, ViperMan said:

I guess I'll just ask it simply, apart from what we think is actually happening in society right now: do you think that when the government pressures a company to do what it otherwise cannot, there is a potential violation of the constitution?

i.e. do you think Norwood v. Harrison was correct?

"It is “axiomatic,” the Supreme Court held in Norwood v. Harrison (1973), that the government “may not induce, encourage or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish.”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/save-the-constitution-from-big-tech-11610387105

May not induce, encourage, or promote...what do you think that means? Must there be legislation in your view for there to be a problem? Because if so, that's not in accordance with established legal precedent in our country. That is to say, I'm fine if it's your opinion that you think that case was decided incorrectly, or that the concept itself is wrong. That said, from a legal standpoint, from a constitutional standpoint, there needn't be any legal action or legislation in the works to constitute a violation of the constitution. Which is why the argument you're making is a straw man. It's not necessary for there to be legal action.

You're cherry-picking a single example. What about the others? i.e. members of Congress calling for legal action, etc? Nadler, etc? i.e. encouraging and promoting...

Exactly. Prozac is not reading the case law, just citing his opinion as fact, while treating our citation of the case law as personal opinion.

 

The question is whether the quotes by Nadler, Feinstein, and Psaki raise to the level of implied compulsion that Sullivan and Norwood prohibit. I believe dragging a CEO to D.C., berating them for hours, then warning them that there will be legislation to strip them of control over their property if they don't comply is pretty damn concerning.

 

But it was also ok when the Obama administration went after journalists, so I'm not at all surprised that a more nuanced situation is not a concern to whatever the progressives stand for these days. I just can't find an underlying ideology that is consistent with the various party positions beyond "power is bad, success is stolen."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, ViperMan said:

I guess I'll just ask it simply, apart from what we think is actually happening in society right now: do you think that when the government pressures a company to do what it otherwise cannot, there is a potential violation of the constitution?

i.e. do you think Norwood v. Harrison was correct?

"It is “axiomatic,” the Supreme Court held in Norwood v. Harrison (1973), that the government “may not induce, encourage or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish.”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/save-the-constitution-from-big-tech-11610387105

May not induce, encourage, or promote...what do you think that means? Must there be legislation in your view for there to be a problem? Because if so, that's not in accordance with established legal precedent in our country. That is to say, I'm fine if it's your opinion that you think that case was decided incorrectly, or that the concept itself is wrong. That said, from a legal standpoint, from a constitutional standpoint, there needn't be any legal action or legislation in the works to constitute a violation of the constitution. Which is why the argument you're making is a straw man. It's not necessary for there to be legal action.

You're cherry-picking a single example. What about the others? i.e. members of Congress calling for legal action, etc? Nadler, etc? i.e. encouraging and promoting...

I’m failing to understand how that case applies to this argument. From some light surface research, it appears that case has to do with the 14th amendment and that the court explicitly said that the state of Mississippi did not violate the first amendment. As far as individual lawmakers voicing their opinions, I agree that they can be problematic, but I think it’s a stretch that a single statement by a single lawmaker represents the view of the entire federal government. Example: Marjorie Taylor Green makes statements all the time that are pretty far from mainstream. Most don’t attribute here views to the whole of government. I will ask you this: We’re you as concerned about government overreach wrt the first Amendment when the then POTUS very publicly and explicitly stated that he wanted to change the libel laws to make it easier to sue/silence journalists who were critical of him? I really don’t remember too many on the right who waved the flag at this very overt threat that emanated from the very highest level of the government. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Prozac said:

You are so wrong. Social media is basically private property. Twitch can ask you to leave at any time, for any reason. I’ll remind you that you agree to each content host’s policy every time you sign up to participate on one of these sites. If I own a restaurant and I feel you are disturbing my other customers I can absolutely kick you out and suppress tour speech in my business. I can’t stop you from grabbing a megaphone and shouting from the street corner. If you think Facebook is a public space because it’s “online” then you just failed civics 101 dude. 

Agree to disagree “dude”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Prozac said:

I’m failing to understand how that case applies to this argument. From some light surface research, it appears that case has to do with the 14th amendment and that the court explicitly said that the state of Mississippi did not violate the first amendment. As far as individual lawmakers voicing their opinions, I agree that they can be problematic, but I think it’s a stretch that a single statement by a single lawmaker represents the view of the entire federal government. Example: Marjorie Taylor Green makes statements all the time that are pretty far from mainstream. Most don’t attribute here views to the whole of government. I will ask you this: We’re you as concerned about government overreach wrt the first Amendment when the then POTUS very publicly and explicitly stated that he wanted to change the libel laws to make it easier to sue/silence journalists who were critical of him? I really don’t remember too many on the right who waved the flag at this very overt threat that emanated from the very highest level of the government. 

Well, I asked specifically "apart from what we think is happening in society right now" to help us get somewhere with this argument - that you stuck to how it applies here feels like a further attempt to side-step the actual issue at hand.

I don't think there's anything wrong with lawmakers voicing their opinions! Jeez, that's a fundamental aspect of our system. But your misrepresentation of the issue is a dodge - the problem isn't with "voicing opinions" - the problem is when the government induces, encourages, or promotes action or policy out of a private entity that would be otherwise illegal for them to do. That is happening when congressional committeemen (who can call on the likes of Jack Dorsey and Mark Z to testify at their behest) and presidential administrations publicly state their desire that the company had best comply with their dictates, lest they suddenly find themselves being legislated.

I wasn't really paying attention to that, honestly. But to answer your question, I think libel laws are probably ok as they are. But I frankly know nothing about them. BTW, I'm no Trump apologist.

Edited by ViperMan
wording
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, ViperMan said:

Well, I asked specifically "apart from what we think is happening in society right now" to help us get somewhere with this argument - that you stuck to how it applies here feels like a further attempt to side-step the actual issue at hand.

I don't think there's anything wrong with lawmakers voicing their opinions! Jeez, that's a fundamental aspect of our system. But your misrepresentation of the issue is a dodge - the problem isn't with "voicing opinions" - the problem is when the government induces, encourages, or promotes action or policy out of a private entity that would be otherwise illegal for them to do. That is happening when congressional committeemen (who can call on the likes of Jack Dorsey and Mark Z to testify at their behest) and presidential administrations publicly state their desire that the company had best comply with their dictates, lest they suddenly find themselves being legislated.

I wasn't really paying attention to that, honestly. But to answer your question, I think libel laws are probably ok as they are. But I frankly know nothing about them. BTW, I'm no Trump apologist.

“the problem isn't with "voicing opinions" - the problem is when the government induces, encourages, or promotes action or policy out of a private entity that would be otherwise illegal for them to do.”

This is where I get confused with your argument. Are you stating that it would be “otherwise illegal” for Facebook to block or suppress (or promote for that matter) content on its platform? 
 

My argument from another angle: Much of the speech we are talking about could be considered to be in a very grey area in the first place. In the classic example if I yell fire in a theater when none exists, as the first amendment gives me the right to do, I may still be prosecuted for involuntary manslaughter after deaths occur in the ensuing stampede. The same argument holds true if someone states that a vaccine causes infertility (when it does not), thus causing large numbers of people to forgo vaccination leading to preventable deaths. If the theater owner knowingly invited the fire yeller in, he will likely be held complicit in the deaths that occurred. The government views Facebook in the same light at the moment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Prozac said:

“the problem isn't with "voicing opinions" - the problem is when the government induces, encourages, or promotes action or policy out of a private entity that would be otherwise illegal for them to do.”

This is where I get confused with your argument. Are you stating that it would be “otherwise illegal” for Facebook to block or suppress (or promote for that matter) content on its platform? 
 

My argument from another angle: Much of the speech we are talking about could be considered to be in a very grey area in the first place. In the classic example if I yell fire in a theater when none exists, as the first amendment gives me the right to do, I may still be prosecuted for involuntary manslaughter after deaths occur in the ensuing stampede. The same argument holds true if someone states that a vaccine causes infertility (when it does not), thus causing large numbers of people to forgo vaccination leading to preventable deaths. If the theater owner knowingly invited the fire yeller in, he will likely be held complicit in the deaths that occurred. The government views Facebook in the same light at the moment. 

No, it would otherwise be illegal for the government to block it. Have you read either of the actual decisions? Much easier that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

No, it would otherwise be illegal for the government to block it. Have you read either of the actual decisions? Much easier that way.

I’ve read three different briefs on Norwood now. Still not making the connection. Not a lawyer either so maybe I lack the legal vocabulary to understand how the case applies here. 
Regardless, my point remains. The government has not blocked anything. The WH’s position is that social media should not be a conduit for untruths that endanger public health. I’m inclined to agree. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Prozac said:

“the problem isn't with "voicing opinions" - the problem is when the government induces, encourages, or promotes action or policy out of a private entity that would be otherwise illegal for them to do.”

This is where I get confused with your argument. Are you stating that it would be “otherwise illegal” for Facebook to block or suppress (or promote for that matter) content on its platform?

No. "Otherwise illegal" is talking about the government, not Facebook. i.e. it is illegal for the government to prohibit speech (generally). It is still illegal when they induce a company to do it on their behalf - that's where the 1st amendment violation comes in.

*If* Facebook or Twitter took it upon themselves to censor that speech, without government intervention, they are 100% free to do so. As you say, Facebook is not a public space - problem is, it doesn't have to be for a first amendment violation to take place when the government intervenes. For example, the government can't censor your speech on a public sidewalk, why would they be able to censor it in your private home?

14 minutes ago, Prozac said:

My argument from another angle: Much of the speech we are talking about could be considered to be in a very grey area in the first place. In the classic example if I yell fire in a theater when none exists, as the first amendment gives me the right to do, I may still be prosecuted for involuntary manslaughter after deaths occur in the ensuing stampede. The same argument holds true if someone states that a vaccine causes infertility (when it does not), thus causing large numbers of people to forgo vaccination leading to preventable deaths. If the theater owner knowingly invited the fire yeller in, he will likely be held complicit in the deaths that occurred. The government views Facebook in the same light at the moment. 

Ok, so now expressing skepticism over getting a vaccine is akin to yelling 'fire' in a movie theater? I think the difference is that one of those acts is capable of causing acute, immediate panic which leads to injury or death - I'd be interested to see that case made in court, re: COVID vaccines. I fully grant that herd immunity is of public health interest.

In any case, are you familiar with the Thalidomide tragedy? What if people had expressed 'doubt' about taking Thalidomide back in the 50s? How would they have fared in our current environment? Point being, the government or PTB don't always know what is best, and mistakes get made. There is no long-term data on COVID-19 or on the side-effects of the vaccine - none. And I think, generally, people can tell the difference between complete and utter BS, and actual healthy skepticism. For example, I got the vaccine - full believer in modern medical tech. Yet simultaneously, I find it much more credible to consider the lab-leak hypothesis for the origin of the virus than I do the zoonotic origin - yet I would be labelled 'conspiratorial' in many circles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide

7 minutes ago, Prozac said:

Regardless, my point remains. The government has not blocked anything. The WH’s position is that social media should not be a conduit for untruths that endanger public health.

Well, as a matter of legal fact, it doesn't have to block anything directly. Merely inducing, promoting, or encouraging, is enough to constitute government intervention and a violation of individuals' rights.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, ViperMan said:

No. "Otherwise illegal" is talking about the government, not Facebook. i.e. it is illegal for the government to prohibit speech (generally). It is still illegal when they induce a company to do it on their behalf - that's where the 1st amendment violation comes in.

*If* Facebook or Twitter took it upon themselves to censor that speech, without government intervention, they are 100% free to do so. As you say, Facebook is not a public space - problem is, it doesn't have to be for a first amendment violation to take place when the government intervenes. For example, the government can't censor your speech on a public sidewalk, why would they be able to censor it in your private home?

Ok, so now expressing skepticism over getting a vaccine is akin to yelling 'fire' in a movie theater? I think the difference is that one of those acts is capable of causing acute, immediate panic which leads to injury or death - I'd be interested to see that case made in court, re: COVID vaccines. I fully grant that herd immunity is of public health interest.

In any case, are you familiar with the Thalidomide tragedy? What if people had expressed 'doubt' about taking Thalidomide back in the 50s? How would they have fared in our current environment? Point being, the government or PTB don't always know what is best, and mistakes get made. There is no long-term data on COVID-19 or on the side-effects of the vaccine - none. And I think, generally, people can tell the difference between complete and utter BS, and actual healthy skepticism. For example, I got the vaccine - full believer in modern medical tech. Yet simultaneously, I find it much more credible to consider the lab-leak hypothesis for the origin of the virus than I do the zoonotic origin - yet I would be labelled 'conspiratorial' in many circles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide

Well, as a matter of legal fact, it doesn't have to block anything directly. Merely inducing, promoting, or encouraging, is enough to constitute government intervention and a violation of individuals' rights.

Agree that subduing or blocking speech is unconstitutional wrt skepticism (But still not convinced that this is what’s going on). For example, stating that there could be unforeseen consequences is protected. Definitively stating that vaccination causes infertility is not. This is what I was relating to yelling fire in a theater and it’s the kind of thing that’s absolutely going on on these platforms. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Prozac said:

For example, stating that there could be unforeseen consequences is protected. Definitively stating that vaccination causes infertility is not.

Actually, many factually inaccurate statements are in fact protected under the first amendment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Prozac said:

 The WH’s position is that social media should not be a conduit for untruths that endanger public health. I’m inclined to agree. 

Public health "experts" have been all over the map. They, nor the white house have any firm domination of the "truth". That trust capital was burned a long time ago.

Hell your boy fauci ADMITTED on national TV to LYING to us! And now the executive branch has the god damn BALLS to tell me what's fucking true and whats false? Go fuck yourself (not you, "them" in general)

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, 1:1:1 said:

Actually, many factually inaccurate statements are in fact protected under the first amendment.

Correct. However, the repercussions of those statements (I.e. trampling deaths) can still be prosecuted under other statutes and laws. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

Public health "experts" have been all over the map. They, nor the white house have any firm domination of the "truth". That trust capital was burned a long time ago.

Hell your boy fauci ADMITTED on national TV to LYING to us! And now the executive branch has the god damn BALLS to tell me what's fucking true and whats false? Go fuck yourself (not you, "them" in general)

Do you think he lied with malicious  intent or perhaps as a calculated strategy to protect access to PPE to those that needed it most? Do you believe that a coordinated response can change and evolve over time as the nature of the threat becomes more clear? If Fauci was replaced with someone else do you believe they would be telling you something different? What if we were still under the previous administration? Who would you believe at this point?  I am not trying to argue that our response has been, or is perfect. Regardless, the CDC, the NIH, and the US Surgeon General continue to be the world standard when it comes to understanding and fighting infectious disease. Would you rather go with the Russian narrative? The Chinese one? Random dude on YouTube with no credentials? 
 

BTW thanks for qualifying your GFY statement although I wouldn’t have been offended either way. I hear much worse from the frau on a daily basis! 🍻 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Prozac said:

Correct. However, the repercussions of those statements (I.e. trampling deaths) can still be prosecuted under other statutes and laws. 

Not unless it was incitement.

 

A directive to cause harm ("go out and punish the cops for killing minorities!") Is not protected. A lie that others use to justify harm ("police are murdering minorities for sport!") is protected.

 

You should brush up on the precedent, you're off base on a lot of this stuff.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...