[ceejayoz]

> In the last 3 years we had government officials directing, in very strong language, various tech companies on what was and was not allowed on their platforms.

And, as is their First Amendment right, those tech companies frequently responded with "no". This is very clear from the Twitter Files information, even if the journalists involved glossed over that point.

For example:

https://thehill.com/policy/technology/3849819-trump-asked-tw...

> Then-President Trump asked Twitter to take down a tweet from model and television personality Chrissy Teigen in 2019 because he saw it as “derogatory,” according to testimony from a Twitter whistleblower and former employee.

Trump has the First Amendment right to ask. Twitter has the First Amendment right - which they exercised - to decline that request.

If Trump had sent US Marshals to seize Twitter HQ when they said no, that is where we have issues.

[claytongulick]

Case history and law are very clear about how the first amendment can be violated by even subtle pressure from the government.

I recommend reading judge Doughty's decision [1]. It's a long read, but well worth your time.

[1] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.18...

[ceejayoz]

I've read the injunction. It's not very good.

It's since been stayed; https://www.politico.com/news/2023/07/14/social-media-injunc....

[claytongulick]

Yes, it's an administrative stay pending full review which is standard process in cases like this, the stay wasn't issued based on the merits.

[ceejayoz]

Nor was the injunction. No one's had their proper day in court on this yet.

[mjamil]

I disagree. Case history is absolutely not clear about the difference between government encouraging action by companies vs. forcing said action, and whether the former is explicitly permissible.

I read the decision. It's not so great imo by federal bench standards. Judges who write sweeping statements like, “If the allegations made by plaintiffs are true, the present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history,” should not be taken very seriously. I'd say the Japanese Americans interned during WWII may like a word, given that they were allowed to neither practice the Shinto religion nor use Japanese in public gatherings.

[claytongulick]

He based "the most massive" on the total number of people affected.

Certainly not on the same scale of severity of the abuse of Japanese Americans, but much more massive based on the number of people affected.

[vxNsr]

Lol using the one instance that trump asked for something stupid and was denied and pretending that happened a lot is again a very intentional mischaracterization of what happened. Not only is that apparently like one of the only times trump asked for something it’s totally dwarfed in comparison to the Biden admin’s many censorship requests which had no pushback despite being equally frivolous. Not to mention the laptop from hell.

Really this sort of thing should be seen as an in-kind political contribution, and the fact it’s not shows just how captured the entire judicial and regulatory branch is.

[ceejayoz]

If you think Trump's team only ever asked for one single tweet to come down, I don't know what to tell you.

Again, censorship requests aren't a First Amendment violation. Joe Biden can request you go fuck yourself. He cannot order you to go fuck yourself. The Twitter Files make it quite clear Twitter etc. understood this distinction.

For example, here's a Twitter Files post of them saying "go get a court order" to a data request. https://twitter.com/shellenberger/status/1604888013422485505...

[vxNsr]

omg, I just went through that thread in its entirety, it makes it very clear that Roth has a very cozy relationship with the FBI and his only issue was not wanting to change their stance wrt to mass surveillance, which was already compromised due to fisa warrants anyway.

[ceejayoz]

I guess I missed the “Congress shall have no cozy relationships” amendment.

[claytongulick]

> Again, censorship requests aren't a First Amendment violation

That's probably not true. Volumes of case law support that even subtle pressure from the government to influence speech is a first amendment violation.

[mjamil]

Clayton, you've made this claim a couple of times. Do you mind citing specific decisions?

[claytongulick]

This is pretty easy to find, but for an excellent judicial review and multiple case law citations I highly recommend reading Judge Doughty's recent decision.

[vxNsr]

Wow, why does it always feel like I get into this same merrygoround every 6 months with the same goalposts being retreated to the same positions, with each argument until we’re suddenly talking about how Reagan once brushed past a reporter so clearly his party is the authoritarian one. It’s so tiring. We went from politicians ordering (with implied threats) political action from private citizens to the FBI requesting something without a warrent… if you can’t see the difference idk why we’re even talking.

[mrguyorama]

Because you are absolutely full of shit and not acting in good faith. You claimed "companies acting in lockstep", and then the other guy provided multiple sourced examples of of twitter employees giving the feds a clear "Nope, not going to happen", which IS NOT LOCKSTEP

[vxNsr]

He gave a single example of refusing an FBI inquiry which isn't anywhere close to the same thing as accepting every single political request. In case this is news to you, the FBI is not supposed to be politically motivated. The fact that you think this is the same thing is incredibly concerning. Conflating an FBI inquiry with a political do this or else "request" shows exactly how you view the FBI in relation to your political party... kinda saying the quiet part out loud...