On Thursday, government lawyers went to court to defend federal meddling in content moderation decisions on social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook.
On July 4, Judge Terry Doughty of the US District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, ordered the federal government to refrain from communicating with social media platforms for “the purpose of urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech.”
That order is on hold pending the government’s appeal, which administration lawyers and attorneys for the states suing over the issue argued before a three-judge Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals panel.
DOJ lawyer Daniel Tenny told the panel that the administration merely “informed” the platforms of content containing “misinformation,” and that the platforms regularly refused the government’s “requests” that such content be removed. “The notion that the social media companies felt they had to bend to the FBI’s will when half the time they didn’t,” he argued, “doesn’t fit any of these theories.”
Meanwhile, attorney John Sauer, speaking for the states, claimed that the platforms faced “unrelenting pressure from the most powerful office in the world.”
The panel, Reuters reports, “appeared skeptical” of the administration’s arguments.
Judge Don Willett characterized the government’s approach as “that’s a really nice social media platform you got there – it would be a shame if something happened to it.”
Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod called the government messaging “irate … like a supervisor complaining about a worker.”
While government social media meddling initially centered around COVID-19 and supposed “election interference,” it’s definitely developed a foreign policy angle: As CNN reported on July 10, the US House Judiciary Committee accuses the Federal Bureau of Investigation of working with Ukrainian intelligence agencies to “flag” social media accounts spreading “Russian disinformation,” aka claims disputing the administration’s line on the war between those two countries, so as to stifle public debate on US foreign policy where that war is concerned.
“The notion that the social media companies felt they had to bend to the FBI’s will when half the time they didn’t doesn’t fit any of these theories.” ~DOJ Lawyer
Oh, so the social media companies only bent to the government’s will and censored protected speech half the time. That’s OK then. 🙄
The solution to this problem is simple. Stay away from social media.
Translation: Ignorance is bliss.
No. That’s not a solution and wouldn’t be simple if it were.
The problem is the government utilizing proxies to enforce censorship prohibited to it by the Constitution. No matter how many social media users abandon the providers, proxy censorship itself would not be ended. It would continue to be employed in social media, impacting whatever users remain, and in whatever other venues/media/channels government might decide to target next, or additionally.
90% of Americans are active social media users. About 3/4 of Americans are regular users of Facebook. For many, perhaps most, social media provide their main channels of communication, information and entertainment and there are few, if any, readily-available alternatives. Weaning significant numbers of users would be a task not in the same galaxy as “simple.”
I thought he said that tongue in cheek.
Maybe. If so, my post is just reinforcement of the message.
LOL. Yes, I know what you mean, Thomas. Simple, especially because social media is the only way for us to get at any truth. …Sorry. I was distracted digging in my backyard. …No. Not a bomb shelter. It’s a hole for my head to find out what exactly an ostrich could be looking for? (Sarcasm)
We need to collectivize the Public Plaza.
This needs explanation. Development of a new way of communicating will be needed by a new form of government ready for imploding totalitarianism. Do you have idea on this?
Collectivize means democratize, make it open and participative, expropriate it from any tyranny, be it private (corporations) or pseudo-public (state at the service of the corporations and mega-rich). Collective = we, the commons, the people.
You might be interested in constituentassembly dot org ,,,I am saving it for everyone as a public service.
FIRE all the DC traitors involved!!
If an elected official purses a course not for the benefit of the citizens and people living in that country is that not a form of Treason. Perhaps firing them is not good enough.
“If an elected official purses a course not for the benefit of the
citizens and people living in that country is that not a form of
Treason[?]”
No. Treason is specifically and narrowly defined in the Constitution and it has nothing to do with the identity of beneficiaries of any course(s) officials might pursue.
I miss the days, and it seemed like it was every day and all day long, when CNN had a COVID-19 death counter prominently displayed …next to one of Trump’s stupid tweets, …projecting that all the deaths are his damn fault, while …interviewing Biden by himself in his basement wearing a mask. …No. I’m just saying I miss those days. That’s not “election interference.” (Sarcasm)
Well, yeah. Because it is documented that it actually happened.
How The FBI Helps Ukrainian Intelligence Hunt ‘Disinformation’ On Social Media
In an interview, a senior Ukrainian official defined “disinformation” as any news that contradicts his government’s message.
https://www.leefang.com/p/how-the-fbi-helps-ukrainian-intelligence
FBI helps Ukraine censor Twitter users and obtain their info, including journalists
The FBI aided a Ukrainian intelligence effort to ban Twitter users and collect their data, leaks reveal. Twitter declined to censor journalists targeted by Ukraine, including Aaron Maté.
https://mate.substack.com/p/fbi-helps-ukraine-censor-twitter
“Biden Administration Defends Social Media Censorship Operation
Tells “skeptical” judges Internet censorship efforts are just friendly discussions.” …How friendly are they? They are as friendly as “the love of Big Brother.” “Big Brother is infallible and all-powerful. Every success, every achievement, every victory, every scientific discovery, all knowledge, all wisdom, all happiness, all virtue, are held to issue directly from his leadership and inspiration.” Then my favorite quote: “If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face forever.” All the above was from George Orwell. Excellent article, Thomas.
And the Democratic party chicken littles run around and point at authoritarianism everywhere else. Both parties are killing First Amendment rights.
“The notion that the social media companies felt they had to bend to the FBI’s will when half the time they didn’t,”
I guess that makes it OK then.
We need a Federal Regulator, possibly the Federal Communications Commission, to assure that any and all rules or policies are readily available for inspection; that no rule can be imposed without public comment on well advertised proposals for rule making; that every opinion issued is supported by a full discussion of the views of those who comment on the proposal for rule making; and that there is a well documented process for appeal of any decision to the courts.
There is an obvious movement afoot to bypass the Constitution by allowing government decision makers to coerce private parties to implement decisions that would be considered unconstitutional if the government acted on its own. This kind of behavior helps shield the government from prosecution, allows it to operate in secrecy, and coerces private companies to conform to the will of the State. (Such behavior is, in my opinion, the very definition of fascism.)
That’s like electing a wolf to safeguard the sheep.
The First Amendment was written to prevent ANY government interference with Free Speech. It is a NATURAL RIGHT of all People in The United States. The Bill of Rights isn’t some decree or a law given to state subjects by some filthy ruling parasite. It is an acknowledgment of already existing rights and a warning to the government never to erode or cross these rights.
From a famous case: The 1st amendment does not give you the right to yell Fire! in a crowded theater.
You have made assumptions about what a regulator would do.
A regulator wouldn’t necessarily prohibit speech. A rule could be adopted from one used by a Social Media company. A boilerplate comment would be automatically added to an offending post. It could read “this claim has not been validated”
Yes and this is an erosion of the 1st Amendment. Any perpetrator who yells ‘fire’ when there is none, will suffer serious negative social consequences. No regulation is needed because society already have a built-n mechanism to deal with abuse of speech. I don’t disagree with your approach on social media but the fact remains that The 1st prohibit any regulation of speech by the gov. This means that so-called “hate speech” is null and void by default.
They admit the activity but is trying to tell the judge their wet paint leg is because it’s raining.
The judge is either in their pocket or ethical because this is a easy one with a obvious desision that will be against Biden.
Progressive is becoming the same as Fascism in many ways albeit modernized.
These days, arrogance is our government’s most visible attribute. These people are drunk on power. They long since ceased serving the interests of the American people. They serve the interests of their corporate sponsors. The only thing missing is uniforms for our political overlords sporting decals displaying the company logos of their corporate Madams.