Judge halts the ministry of truth

[WuWei]

Hog wash. You’d lose your mind.

[WuWei]

Troll.

[PurpnGold]

@zantax

@PurpnGold

@zantax

@PurpnGold

@DougBH

@zantax

Where was the FBI ever given leave to review the lawful speech of American citizens?

“It’s public information.”

The FBI said they were helping Twitter enforce its own rules.
When did it become the legitimate purpose of the FBI to enforce corporate policies instead of federal laws?

I already said FBI should find better use of their time. However, They have the right to access public information. They have the right to inquire about public information too.

No, they have the authority to enquire about illegal speech, not legal speech.

Irrelevant. It’s public information.

That does not mean the FBI was ever given authority to make requests to censor legal speech. They are tasked with enforcing the law, not colluding to interfere in elections by censoring legal speech.

Given authority by whom?

Requesting a review of a tweet or a Twitter user isn’t censoring legal speech. Twitter thinks so as well.

[PurpnGold]

@WuWei

Hog wash. You’d lose your mind.

I may not like it… but that doesn’t mean is a 1A violation.

[PurpnGold]

@WuWei

Troll.

Excuse me?

[WuWei]

@PurpnGold

@WuWei

Hog wash. You’d lose your mind.

I may not like it… but that doesn’t mean is a 1A violation.

Oh yes it does.

[WuWei]

@PurpnGold

@WuWei

Troll.

Excuse me?

T
R
O
L
L

[PurpnGold]

@WuWei

@PurpnGold

@WuWei

Troll.

Excuse me?

T
R
O
L
L

Use your posts to prove me wrong… don’t make this about me.

Thanks

[WuWei]

Honesty Watch™

[WuWei]

The government doesn’t “ask.”

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@zantax

And no it won’t be struck down, at least not for long unless Democrats pack the Supreme court.

Oh, I think it’ll definitely be struck down - particularly by this Court, if it even gets that far. This decision isn’t meant for the law, it’s an attempt to build a brand.

But more importantly, the argument the Judge is putting forward - that coersion has been shown by Democratic politicians threatening to repeal Section 230 - is just as applicable to every Republican who has threatened to repeal Section 230 unless social media companies stop “discriminating” against Conservatives.

[zantax]

@TheDoctorIsIn

@zantax

And no it won’t be struck down, at least not for long unless Democrats pack the Supreme court.

Oh, I think it’ll definitely be struck down - particularly by this Court, if it even gets that far. This decision isn’t meant for the law, it’s an attempt to build a brand.

But more importantly, the argument the Judge is putting forward - that coersion has been shown by Democratic politicians threatening to repeal Section 230 - is just as applicable to every Republican who has threatened to repeal Section 230 unless social media companies stop “discriminating” against Conservatives.

Any Republican who did the same thing is just as guilty. Pretty sure the law doesn’t do whataboutisms.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@zantax

Any Republican who did the same thing is just as guilty.

If I’m not mistaken, you have argued that, right here on this message board.

@zantax

Pretty sure the law doesn’t do whataboutisms.

Well, that’s not entirely correct. In the context of what I’m saying, “the law” has to think what about… - we’re a common law system. This is particularly true at the appellate level and above.

[mot1man]

@PurpnGold

It’s public information…

It’s “free speech” before that, whether anyone agrees with it or not.

[Ben_Natuf]

The government cannot use a third party to make an end run around the first amendment. This is well established in the law. If being in the room has a 'chilling effect" on speech asking is going way overboard.

[Impenitent]

raising taxes on printing ink isn’t effective anymore…

[Ben_Natuf]

@TheDoctorIsIn

But more importantly, the argument the Judge is putting forward - that coersion has been shown by Democratic politicians threatening to repeal Section 230 - is just as applicable to every Republican who has threatened to repeal Section 230 unless social media companies stop “discriminating” against Conservatives.

nope. threatening to change the law to expand speech is a law “in furtherance” of the 1st amendment and constitutionally sound. Threatening a law to punish platforms if they don’t restrict speech… not so much.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@Ben_Natuf

The government cannot use a third party to make an end run around the first amendment. This is well established in the law.

Well, I don’t know if I’d entirely agree with that. But the more important question is when/if the government has crossed that line, and tried to make that end run.

What’s test?

[PurpnGold]

@Ben_Natuf

The government cannot use a third party to make an end run around the first amendment. This is well established in the law. If being in the room has a 'chilling effect" on speech asking is going way overboard.

The government didn’t use Twitter to act on its behalf.

[Ben_Natuf]

you don’t need much of a test when just being there has a “chilling effect”