Judge rules White House pressured social networks to “suppress free speech”

Re:Judge rules White House pressured social networks to “sup... by curiousllama on Thursday July 06, 2023 @10:41AM (#36616670)

I mean, I don't agree with the top level comment here, but this isn't a reverse-free-speech issue. Courts are absolutely free to restrain what public officials can say.

E.g., a regulator cannot say "if you don't burn this book, we'll tax you out of existence" while a person could say "if you don't burn this book, I'll vote to have you taxed out of existence"

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Judge rules White House pressured social networks to “sup... by brasic on Thursday July 06, 2023 @11:24AM (#36617463)

A narrowly tailored prohibition on specific speech aimed at specific government officials may be permissable in some cases. This injunction is carelessly worded to apply to millions of people and to preclude essentially all communications related to "protected free speech". The breadth and vagueness is specifically what I'm objecting to.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Judge rules White House pressured social networks to “sup... by shkkmo on Thursday July 06, 2023 @01:30PM (#36619631)

Did you read the injunction? it isn't vague at all. The injunction only prohibits actions which should be illegal in the first place.

Can you name a specific action that you think this injunction prohibits or potentially prohibits that you think should be allowed?

[ Parent | on HN ]