From the article:Federal judge orders President Biden to stop censoring his critics including me. The decision mentions me on page 17. Happy Independence Day Everyone!https://t.co/nEE40XSjpC
— Robert F. Kennedy Jr (@RobertKennedyJr) July 4, 2023
The judge's injunction came in a lawsuit led by the Republican attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana who alleged that the Biden administration fostered a "federal censorship enterprise" in its effort to stamp out what it viewed as rampant disinformation circulating on social media. The government, the lawsuit claimed, pressured social-media platforms to scrub away disfavored views about Covid-19 health policies, the origins of the pandemic, the Hunter Biden laptop story, election security and other divisive topics....
Some legal scholars have been skeptical that the government can be held responsible for content-moderation decisions ultimately made by private companies or that courts could intervene without chilling legitimate government speech about controversial matters of public interest....
The case is among dozens of so-called censorship-by-proxy lawsuits challenging account suspensions, content removals and other suppression of social-media posts on First Amendment grounds....
Posts
63 comments:
The left spent decades railing against 1950s "right wing" McCarthyism and "right wing" Nixon's evil deeds only to wrap it all together and multiply by 10 with Biden.
Everything reverses to the mean. The pendulum never stops swinging. The screw must turn. The only constant is that power corrupts.
Some legal scholars have been skeptical that the government can be held responsible for content-moderation decisions ultimately made by private companies or that courts could intervene without chilling legitimate government speech about controversial matters of public interest
Are there people who are still gullible to the 'anonymous sources' scam? If these legal scholars are so confident in their legal analysis why are they never willing to back their analysis with their name and professional reputation? We all know why, right?
"SOme legal scholars"
Some legal scholars have been skeptical that the government can be held responsible for content-moderation decisions ultimately made by private companies or that courts could intervene without chilling legitimate government speech
You can get "some legal scholars" to say anything you want. Which is how journalism works--they say whatever they want and then they call the relevant "Dr. Feelgood" so they can portray it as somebody else saying it. Of course government can be held accountable for acts ultimately taken by private companies. There's nothing new there. And I'd love to hear about the legitimate government speech chilled by denying them the right to engage in viewpoint discrimination.
Go Bobby, go!
I will go to an Iowa event for Kennedy just to address him as Bobby.
So you’re saying there was election interference?
“If the allegations made by plaintiffs are true, the present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history,” the judge said. “The plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits in establishing that the government has used its power to silence the opposition.”
Enforcing the injunction will be fun. Can that district court judge send marshals to clap irons on the named defendants when they persist in their suppressive activity?
I may sound snarky but I’m seriously interested. This looks like a big fight, and one long overdue.
There is no such thing as hate speech. Article I is #1 for a good reason.
Used to grind my teeth when President Obama would spew out taht "some people say" crap.
Same feeling when some "legal scholars" or economists or scientists... feh.
Name names or STFU.
Remember when Trump filed a lawsuit asserting that rhe government was behind his being banned from social media? Oh how we laughed and laughed and said it couldn't possibly be true. Good times...
Can a federal judge ask PBS, MSNBC, WaPOO(D) et al.. to stop censoring anything not-Biden?
How will we know that the govt censorship has stopped?
The left spent decades railing against 1950s "right wing" McCarthyism and "right wing" Nixon's evil deeds even though it was what They were doing under Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson.
fify!
Some legal scholars
Name them. They seem to be all for censorship. Name them.
This is a pleasing ruling. I wonder how in-depth the coverage will be in the NYTimes or the WaPo.
If a judge gets to decide that the media is being directed (or merely nudged) by gummint in how the media covers a story —or how it fails to cover a story— isn’t that itself using the power of the state to control the content?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Democrats and the Deep State don't adhere to rulings they don't like. The only entity in the last few years that has provided free speech is Elon Musk's Twitter.
YouTube will continue to censor RFK Jr. Etc... Etc... Twitter files proved Gov't censorship coordination with Big Tech.
They will again just deny the communication and meetings. With the 2024 elections coming up censorship, voting rules changes and fraud will get worse.
Summer 2024 will be a mostly peaceful riot.
As I write this nobody can see Twitter on Twitter unless they log in via an account. Elon tells me it is a temporary tactic to thwart the amalgamator algorithms but given the ease with which a left-acting White House and Congress monsters have deplatformed anything they find objectionable how do we know this is not just another weapon of an oppressive government willing to violate citizens rights?
The first amendment says "Congress shall make no law...".
Does that mean the executive branch has no such restriction?
I don't care for the "some legal scholars" comment either, but if you read the paragraph carefully it could be saying "held responsible" to mean there's no one who actually has a consequence from violating the constitution.
That is the real issue here. Ok, the government conducted massive censorship and potential election interference. They've been told to stop by a judge. SO WHAT?
There are entire groups of people who need to be named, fired, shamed, jailed, demoted, loss of pension, etc.
Where are the consequences? If it's just vague "We'll stop doing that" then there is no actual consequence and the "some legal scholars" are correct that holding practical responsibility is not going to happen.
I genuinely don't understand how we have an executive that doesn't act like an executive. This is across administrations anymore. If there is no fear of repercussion for bad behavior, then bad behavior is encouraged. See Hillary Clinton and her combined e-mail scandal and Benghazi during a 4 year stint as SoS. Now we see private e-mail being used by folks at CDC and elsewhere to explicitly prevent FOIA, because hey - what are the actual consequences?
Note that he's commenting on the WSJ story, where it was featured second, only to the China/Cloud/restrictions story (I pity Ms Yellen over there). NYT and WaPo submerged the story completely.
The John Birch Society has had the game pegged all along.
The First Amendment says:
"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."
What's the law??
Court asks corrupt mob to stop being corrupt mob.
Are the Twitter files admissible evidence?
This puts Biden & Company squarely on the horns of a dilemma. If they fight the injunction they tacitly admit they have been colluding with private citizens and public corporations to censor and silence their critics. I they do not fight the injunction, it will stand until the case is resolved in their favor, which may not happen for years.
Although I am pleased with this decision, I am worried about the ability of malign actors, domestic and foreign, to use digital means to sow chaos in the public square.
We need a plan to deal with that.
So, RFK Jr. is celebrating a win for free speech, but wants to put people in jail who don't agree with him on climate change.
Just how does he explain that, I wonder?
The Judge stated he ordered the injunction as it was a foregone conclusion the case would be won on the merits. BTW, nothing to do with sites moderating content on their own, see Althouse!
Once free speech is lost as a societal value, it's gone. The left no longer recognizes the value of free speech because it is inconsistent to the lies and bullshit they push. We also have big tech as the hub moderator of the free speech spokes. It's not longer point to point as it once was in print.
The deterioration of free speech as a value started on College Campuses. They will NEVER reverse course. And in the Orwellian style of language manipulation, terms like "misinformation" and "disinformation" were invented to justify censorship in the United States. Same it the new accusation of "conspiracy theory" and "xxx-denier".
It doesn't matter what "The Courts" say. The Supreme Court will be ignored by college admissions offices, and this free speech ruling will be ignored as well. There will be slight upticks in our downward decline, but the trajectory we are on is still a bear market when it comes to the First Amendment.
The only truly protected free speech are the coordinated lies pushed by the media.
Eh, fascists gotta fascist. The left has been this for decades.
Libs are fascist terrorists in word, deed, and belief. Treat them accordingly.
This is the Obama Legacy at work. Biden is simply carrying on his guru's use of goverment supression (James Rosen, IRS grassroots targeting) and illegal collusion (Journolist, Acorn/ActBlue, SPLC, NPR) and outright intimidation by gang warefare (New Black Panther's Party, paid Occupy thugs).
The prohibition of Affirmative Action in college admissions and now Government censorship of social media content will be defeated through work-arounds.
All with a wink and a nod, and a healthy dose of plausible deniability.
Now that RFKj is up and running maybe it's the last we'll see of "Beto" the ersatz Kennedy. Its good to have the real thing back and on the campaign hunt. I already feel better than I have in years. My millennial daughter doesn't quite get it but she'll come around.
“Some legal scholars have been skeptical that the government can be held responsible for content-moderation decisions ultimately made by private companies or that courts could intervene without chilling legitimate government speech about controversial matters of public interest.... “
As others have already said, the “some legal scholars say…” really means “this 23 year old journalism major who’s externing because she can’t find a paying job, needs to say this but has no authority whatsoever (it’s just my opinion or the narrative my publisher wants to put forward, so I’ll go with “some legal scholars”.
And other comments have also rightly questioned the concept of why courts intervening here would chill “legitimate government speech about controversial matters of public interest”. Talk about backwards. It’s never government speech we need to worry about “chilling.” And why would preventing the government’s speech control of others somehow “chill” the gov’t from speaking on legitimate matters of public interest? The whole thing is the government is trying to do exactly that us. Kill the speech it doesn’t like.
But there’s a third issue too in this one sentence. The “skeptical that the government can be held responsible for content-moderation decisions ultimately made by private companies.” Seriously, WTF? All the pressure from the government, threat of loss of favor and access, threat of loss of licenses, relative ease or difficulty in running your business based on whether they “like” you or not, whether you’re still “useful” or not to the regime. Yeah the companies themselves “ultimately” made the moderation decisions the same way criminal suspects “confess” to crimes after sleep deprivation, lack of food and the pressures of the stasi. And the same way the Godfather got the movie contract for Johnny Fontaine (your signature or your brains on this contract - but it’s ultimately your decision).
Maybe the most interesting issue is the mindset of these writers. What must it be like these days in this industry? Do they believe the propaganda? Do they question, but still think the government are “good guys”? Do they lose faith, but still sling the propaganda because they think they’ll advance or they just wanna feed their families? What makes people tick when following the Marxist regime, and what “ultimately” causes a breaking point, and resistance?
Wake Up…
Some legal scholars have been skeptical that the government can be held responsible for content-moderation decisions ultimately made by private companies or that courts could intervene without chilling legitimate government speech about controversial matters of public interest.
All of whom work for the NY Times. Others call them "reporters" although that is not precisely what they do.
jim5301 said...
"The First Amendment says:
"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."
What's the law??"
The abridgement of the freedom of speech. When the State actively petitions the fourth estate to NOT allow a differing opinion.
I can understand your confusion. You being a fascist and all.
And the Biden Administration in its usual law-abiding fashion will comply with this judge's ruling. LOL!
Wasn’t Trump also ordered to unblock a critic?
If memory serves.
The article is by Jacob Gershman, top legal reporter at the WSJ.
Ignoring the "some say" lead-in and having read the whole thing, I don't understand what this - "skeptical that the government can be held responsible for content-moderation decisions ultimately made by private companies" - means.
Does he mean that regardless of any pressure or threats put upon the private companies by government agents the ultimate decision to censor is by the companies and thus the government agents cannot be "held responsible."
Surely not. He's a legal reporter, he has to understand the legal implications of coercive behavior under color of law.
but you do have to acknowledge that he is a legal scholar
Tribe is The Devil misquoting scripture…
The First Amendment says:
"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."
What's the law??
jim5301, sudden textualist!
Start with this: the Founders clearly didn't envision that the Executive branch should be allowed to arrogate to itself the ability to "make laws" (functionally, isn't that what an EO is?), but clearly DID envision that GOVERNMENT would want to control speech.
So, the first problem with what the Biden administration did is that they endeavored to censor speech that could cast doubt on the wisdom, efficacy, and even legally of their actions.
The second problem with what the Biden administration did is that they comprise the Executive branch, not the Legislature, and they've grossly overstepped the limits of their authority.
But what can you expect from a bunch of old-school smiling totalitarians and dressed-up thugs?
This decision puts the Biden Administration in a tough spot, doesn't it? If they fight it in court, which I assume they will, it will be evidence all by itself that they were doing precisely what they claimed they weren't doing- working with the social media companies to censor the critics of their policies. I have read all the Twitter Files articles- the government was unambiguously coercing and cajoling Twitter to censor the critics of the COVID policies and the vaccines, and that this coercion and cajoling was also used to censor critics of how the 2020 election was conducted, and had spread out into censoring the critics of Climate Change policies.
A narrower injunction would probably be better than the one issued, but I don't give a shit any longer- it had to be done. It isn't a burden for government officials to restrain using their offices to get their critics silenced, and if evidence comes to light that they have done so, then they have violated the speech rights of the citizens censored, even if the final decision was the company itself. You don't escape liability by getting someone else to do the violation for you.
"Enforcing the injunction will be fun. Can that district court judge send marshals to clap irons on the named defendants when they persist in their suppressive activity?"
It becomes a tort at the very least and should open the official to financial repurcussions. These people in the Biden Administration should be sued into penury.
"How will we know that the govt censorship has stopped?"
When you suspect it, you will have to file a federal lawsuit and get discovery. It was what Alex Berenson has done and is doing right now.
"Are the Twitter files admissible evidence?
This puts Biden & Company squarely on the horns of a dilemma. If they fight the injunction they tacitly admit they have been colluding with private citizens and public corporations to censor and silence their critics."
Yes- this is exactly right!
"He defines politics as power. “And, whether you like it or not, young lady,” he says, leaning over his desk to shake a finger at me, “us cruddy politicians can take away that First Amendrnent of yours if we want to.”
https://www.washingtonian.com/1974/06/01/joe-biden-kitty-kelley-1974-profile-death-and-the-all-american-boy/
Jim5301 - It shall never be legal for government to abridge freedom of speech.
C'mon folks.
Suppressing information is for your own good.
We do not want people to be confused by unapproved information and opinions. It's dangerous to the stability of our democracy.
or that courts could intervene without chilling legitimate government speech about controversial matters of public interest
The only "legitimate government speech" is in a press release / public statement.
If those previously caught liars want to publicly rage against people telling truths they dont' like, they have the freedom to do so.
But they have absolutely NO business privately discussion with ANYONE what social media posts "should be take down."
So there's no "legitimate government speech" to chill with this order
"Summer 2024 will be a mostly peaceful riot."
Every time a presidential election year approaches, I find myself wondering who will be used in place of George Floyd and Trevon Martin this time around.
Trump was prevented from censoring his critics which is right and proper. That standard applied to a Democrat is the greatest threat to our democracy since Chimpy McHalliBusHitler and TrumpHitler had a love child.
This is a gun backfiring in the right's face imo. This just sets up for a new layer of grift: private sector cut outs that the government will use to provide 'guidance' to Facebook and the others. It's what they should have done in the first place. And they can pull this 'trick', adding legal layers over the court cancelled layers, for a few cycles. Taxes will have to be raised, of course, as the grift gets more expensive.
So none of you can cite a statute or EO that purports to prevent government officials from REQUESTING social media to remove or suppress posts that the government sincerely believes contains false information injurious to public health. That’s because there isn’t one. So instead you want to rewrite the clear, unambiguous text of the First Amendment to the US Constitution. Hilarious
jim5301 said...
So none of you can cite a statute or EO that purports to prevent government officials from REQUESTING social media to remove or suppress posts
Dear moron, it is well established case law that if a gov't official ASK a private citizen to do a search or other action, then that person becomes a "government agent" WRT to that action.
Which means that if an FBI agent asks a landlord to check out a renter's property, without first getting a search warrant, anything found would be thrown out just as if the FBI agent himself had done the search
https://www.fletc.gov/audio/definition-government-agent-under-4th-amendment-mp3
Miller: All right. Well, what about my disgruntled wife or girlfriend, she comes inside my house looking for, maybe, I don’t know -- any type of evidence that I might have inside the house. Would that disgruntled wife or girlfriend – would she trigger the 4th Amendment?
Solari: Normally, no. As long as she is not acting at the behest of the government or on behalf of the government – if she is just acting out of her own private interest and in her own personal capacity, then she would not be considered a government agent.
So a private individual censoring someone at gov't request is ENTIRELY the same thing as the gov't directly censoring that individual.
Which you would know if you weren't an ignorant piece of shit
Greg - You're search warrant example is correct. I guess you are not a total moron.
However, we are dealing here with the first amendment, not the fourth amendment. Very different amendments, very different analysis, -Cite me a case that says that if the government asks the media to censor someone engaged in what the government believes to be speech harmful to the health of the citizenry, that is the same as the government passing a law requiring that the media censor same person.
jim5301 said...
Greg - You're search warrant example is correct. I guess you are not a total moron.
Which makes me very different from you
However, we are dealing here with the first amendment, not the fourth amendment. Very different amendments
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.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Unless you're trying to claim that "government agents" can not violate "the rights of the people", but they CAN do things that "Congress shall make no law respecting", no, they're entirely the same on this front
very different analysis, -Cite me a case that says that if the government asks the media to censor someone engaged in what the government believes to be speech harmful to the health of the citizenry,
Provide us a time before now when the Federal Gov't actually DID that, and got away with it.
Otherwise the precedent carries over very clearly:
If a government official can not do something, then they also can't ask / hire someone else to do it for them.
FBI agents can't go to a landlord and say "I'd really appreciate it if you'd search your renter's rooms, and report any drugs you find. Oh, and it sure would be a shame if the IRS audited you and all your businesses, wouldn't it?"
CDC officials can't go to a social media company and say "we want to you censor everyone who's making the [entirely true and correct] statement that teh covid shot doesn't protect people from catching covid, and it doesn't prevent people from spreading covid. Oh, and it sure would be said if something happened to Section 230"
To not understand that is to display great ignorance, great stupidity, or great evil.
That's the non-exclusion "or"
Greg Greg Greg -- The First Amendment requires an Act of Congress for there to be a violation. The Fourth Amendment does not.
You can't cite an Act of Congress. You can't cite a case. But you most be right because ... you are Greg, and Greg is always right. Right?
You should realize how absurd your position is. Say that a president, let's call him Trump, during a press conference "demands" that the NYT take down an article because it contains lies about his sex life. In you mind we then have a First Amendment violation? Trump has every right to say that. And the NYT has every right to do whatever it wants to do.
The good news Greg, for you, is that by now nobody is reading this post but the two of us. Feel free to sound as stupid as you wish, it will not negatively impact your reputation.
Let me give another example because I don't want you to get hung up on the fact that the president's sex live is not really government business.
Suppose that the NYT writes a story claiming that separated kids on the border are being fed a diet consisting only of stale pink peeps, and the story quotes experts who say that is not a healthy diet for kids. Trump demands a retraction, and says that the peeps are not stale, are in fact blue, and further says that a strict peep diet is very healthy for children, esp. if accompanied by lots of diet Coke. 1st Amendment violation?
jim5301 said...
Greg Greg Greg -- The First Amendment requires an Act of Congress for there to be a violation. The Fourth Amendment does not.
Blogger ate my first response, so I'll just reply this way:
So, unless they're doing it because Congress passed a law, any government official can force a company to act pro-Christian, or anti-Muslim, and there would be "no First Amendment violation"?
That's a really stupid claim, even for you. And one that you obviously didn't believe when you screamed about SCOTUS blocking the public school from firing the coach for praying on teh 50 years line after the game.
There, you were certain that he was "acting as a government agent" "forcing religion on the players", and that that was "clearly" a First Amendment violation.
You do realize, don't' you, that your hatred for free expression clearly shows that even you understand that your positions are such total shit that they're no way you can win honest debate.
jim5301 said...
Suppose that the NYT writes a story claiming that separated kids on the border are being fed a diet consisting only of stale pink peeps, and the story quotes experts who say that is not a healthy diet for kids. Trump demands a retraction, and says that the peeps are not stale, are in fact blue, and further says that a strict peep diet is very healthy for children, esp. if accompanied by lots of diet Coke. 1st Amendment violation?
1: Clearly the story needs to be suppressed on the grounds that it's "misinformation", right? Or is "misinformation" ok when it's from the Left?
2: Trump has every right to publicly say they're lying, point out way, and demand a retraction.
What Biden does NOT have the right to do is send Federal officials to privately discuss with social media officials what information they should suppress.
The Judge's order does not block any Federal depot from issuing a press release saying "this is false, and here's why"
What it blocks them from doing is colluding with private industry to censor information that the don't like.
Have you missed out on that distinction because you're a complete and utter moron?
Or are you just a lying scum bag?
Post a Comment