Leaked Documents Outline DHS’s Plans to Police Disinformation

Re:Leaked Documents Outline DHS’s Plans to Police Disinforma... by peteradio on Monday October 31, 2022 @02:57PM (#33410885)

It's not ironic, you are twisting words. They're pinpointing a specific set of entities who should be very careful about making certain discussions not included in these entities are individual citizens. If a case has been decided that indicates a specific set of actions are civil rights violations, then I'm not sure what you are suggesting, its ok to violate precedent over and over again without consequence?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Leaked Documents Outline DHS’s Plans to Police Disinforma... by slg on Monday October 31, 2022 @03:05PM (#33411030)

>They're pinpointing a specific set of entities who should be very careful about making certain discussions not included in these entities are individual citizens.

Who do you think makes up these "specific set of entities" if not "individual citizens"?

>If a case has been decided that indicates a specific set of actions are civil rights violations, then I'm not sure what you are suggesting, its ok to violate precedent over and over again without consequence?

But OP didn't say the trigger for consequences would be the violation of civil rights. They said that the suggestion was enough to deserve a punishment. They want the speech punished, not action.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Leaked Documents Outline DHS’s Plans to Police Disinforma... by MacsHeadroom on Monday October 31, 2022 @03:10PM (#33411119)

Public servants, not individual citizens. The individual citizens are incidental and not important.

DHS is a public institution staffed by government agents acting as public servants, not as individual citizens.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Leaked Documents Outline DHS’s Plans to Police Disinforma... by slg on Monday October 31, 2022 @03:15PM (#33411189)

OP specifically referenced this applying to both government agents and private entities.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Leaked Documents Outline DHS’s Plans to Police Disinforma... by MacsHeadroom on Monday October 31, 2022 @03:23PM (#33411327)

OP only mentioned private entities conspiring with the government to violate the constitutional civil right to free speech. Context.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Leaked Documents Outline DHS’s Plans to Police Disinforma... by slg on Monday October 31, 2022 @03:27PM (#33411406)

Are you suggesting that I as an individual lose rights if my employer starts working with the government?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Leaked Documents Outline DHS’s Plans to Police Disinforma... by pessimizer on Monday October 31, 2022 @04:27PM (#33412497)

Of course you do. You probably lost rights before then if you signed an employment contract, and your employer lost rights when they started working with the government. You lost rights the first time you registered with paypal or facebook (forced arbitration clauses.) You lost rights when you signed your lease.

I don't understand what's supposed to be shocking here. There's this phrasing that seems to indicate that this is an absurd situation rather than a commonplace one.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Leaked Documents Outline DHS’s Plans to Police Disinforma... by MacsHeadroom on Monday October 31, 2022 @06:48PM (#33414402)

Yes, obviously. That's how it works.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Leaked Documents Outline DHS’s Plans to Police Disinforma... by slg on Monday October 31, 2022 @07:57PM (#33415123)

It just seems weird to suggest that I can be like a random IT worker at some tech company and can post something like "All hate speech should be illegal" and that will be fine. Then my company signs some contract with the government and suddenly tweeting that again would result in prison time.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Leaked Documents Outline DHS’s Plans to Police Disinforma... by denlekke on Monday October 31, 2022 @03:47PM (#33411800)

is "conspiring" somewhere between speech and action or is it firmly within one or the other ?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Leaked Documents Outline DHS’s Plans to Police Disinforma... by MacsHeadroom on Monday October 31, 2022 @06:56PM (#33414493)

GP didn't use the word conspiring, I did. But to answer your question, conspiracy is an expression of intent. It can be merely speech but usually involves some action to back up the speech. Because, again, conspiracy is a question of establishing intent.

For example, three people discussing plans for a bank robbery are conspiring. Likewise, the same three people sharing only a knowing glance before splitting up and regrouping with masks, guns, a car and a map with the local bank circled have also conspired to rob a bank. One group only spoke and the other didn't speak, yet both conspired.

[ Parent | on HN ]