Re:Judge rules White House pressured social networks to “sup...
by 1MachineElf on Thursday July 06, 2023 @11:45AM
(#36617795)
It's really strange that the PDF you've linked to omits pages 2-4. Half of the list of prohibited activities, as well as some context, are missing from it.
Given your example of a DHS staffer expressing opinions to a friend or family members who is employed at a social media company, there are many regulated industries like government and social media, where employees must disclose conflicts of interest. If rules reflecting this injunction were to be adopted, then disclosing relationships with social media employees would be quite reasonable. DHS staffers, who already go through extensive background checks, would not be significantly more burdened by this than any of the other disclosures that are already required.
Try the Reason article posted earlier: https://reason.com/volokh/2023/07/04/july-4-injunction-bars-...
Given your example of a DHS staffer expressing opinions to a friend or family members who is employed at a social media company, there are many regulated industries like government and social media, where employees must disclose conflicts of interest. If rules reflecting this injunction were to be adopted, then disclosing relationships with social media employees would be quite reasonable. DHS staffers, who already go through extensive background checks, would not be significantly more burdened by this than any of the other disclosures that are already required.
>CISA: 3000
Glad you mentioned them, as their history of partisan censorship is well documented: https://web.archive.org/web/20230318074435/https://report.fo...