[phpisthebest]

>>Free speech cuts both ways.

You have completely miss understood the purpose of the Constitution and the 1st amendment, the Constitution is the States and the People limiting the power and role of the federal government.

The 1st amendment DOES NOT bestow or grant the US Government any freedom of speech, in fact it specifically limits the US Governments freedom / power in many ways by baring it from actions and activities that curb the speech of the people of these united states.

To proclaim this ruling is "violating the rights of the government" is a complete and utter inversion of the how the constitution works, and the direction of power.

We the people...

[michaelmrose]

We are all "the people" even when acting in our official capacity as government employees. It also doesn't bestow shit. It says our rights are self evident and forbids the government, which includes the judiciary, from stomping on them.

[AbrahamParangi]

Yeah, no this just ain't so. You may in your personal devotion believe that Jesus Christ is Lord. If you say that in your private life, no problem. That's your freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

Now let's say you clock in to your job as Attorney General and you make it known that you think Christianity is the best and other religions are sad and misguided. Then we have a problem.

You have rights as an individual and you have official duties acting as the government but the government does not also receive your rights by proxy.

[michaelmrose]

You have a right to speak freely, duties you agree to abide by as an employee, laws you must follow, and an obligation to respect the constitution and the rights of citizens. The fact that you can't in your official capacity promote Jeebus means your conduct must not infringe on the rights of others not that you have no rights at all.

[AbrahamParangi]

It is that infringement of the rights of others which is the very issue at hand here! The government undertook actions which caused people to be unable to express their opinions.

That the government was "just expressing their opinion that's totally nonbinding except of course I can exert selective regulatory scrutiny if I feel like it" is not a get-out-of-jail-free card.

[michaelmrose]

The government notifying Facebook that someone posted content contrary to Facebook's TOS doesn't violate the rights of the person violating said TOS. You never had a right to post content that violates the TOS you agreed to in the first place.

You do have a right to share that same content on your own website and the government would have no right to make you take it down.

In no cases were people unable to express their opinions. They were unable to create posts or comments contrary to the terms of service of the site they were using to share said opinions. Much like neither of US may herein violate the terms of Hacker News.

[AbrahamParangi]

I think you can see how a court might look at that as laundering unconstitutional actions through a private entity and hold the government to a higher standard than that.

[tdehnel]

You're really mixed up here. This is the text of the 1st Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

When a person who works for the government is acting in their official capacity, they are the government. In that case the 1st Amendment prohibits them from abridging a private citizen's freedom of speech.

When that same person is acting as a private citizen, they are protected from their speech being abridged by the government.

People at work in their government jobs, using government equipment and email addresses, with government signatures are 100% the government, not private citizens.

[michaelmrose]

They don't cease to be people nor to have rights. How did you think all those cases go where a government employee sues the government for infringing on your rights. Judge: Sorry you aren't a person again until you clock out neeeext!.

[tdehnel]

That is a logically different scenario from a government employee (acting in their official capacity) infringing the rights of a private citizen.