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

Re:Judge rules White House pressured social networks to “sup... by leereeves on Thursday July 06, 2023 @02:46PM (#36620857)

My complaint is about the government removing speech from social networks, even if they did so with just a wink and a hint.

And I don't understand the argument that the social networks' willingness to cooperate makes the government's actions more acceptable.

That's a bit like allowing the government to confiscate property without a trial, if the bank is cooperative.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Judge rules White House pressured social networks to “sup... by judge2020 on Thursday July 06, 2023 @03:12PM (#36621272)

It was not "remove this", it was "this probably violates your TOS", so that could be the difference between asking social media companies to take stuff down for only the Government's interest versus both the Government's and the platform's interests. The FBI isn't going to Klan website hosts and asking them to take down Klan content because those hosts don't forbid hosting that sort of speech.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Judge rules White House pressured social networks to “sup... by leereeves on Thursday July 06, 2023 @05:04PM (#36623015)

And what was the government expecting to happen as a result of saying "this probably violates your TOS"?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Judge rules White House pressured social networks to “sup... by mindslight on Thursday July 06, 2023 @03:07PM (#36621188)

A bank is acting as a trustee of property, corporate social media unfortunately do not.

If you want a legal right to individual freedom of speech on corporate commons, be explicit about it and work for that! Focusing on this small slice of corporate censorship just because it was encouraged by the government is a red herring.

[ Parent | on HN ]