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

Re:Judge rules White House pressured social networks to “sup... by judge2020 on Thursday July 06, 2023 @03:38PM (#36621639)

I'd argue that the US doesn't have enough of a reputation for disappearing people or putting their business under a heat lamp if they don't willfully comply with police requests that are overbearing. Apple, Google, etc get away with denying a lot of data requests[0]. And despite being put on the stand for 2016 election interference, Jack, Elon, and Mark are doing just fine.

0: https://www.apple.com/legal/transparency/us.html

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Judge rules White House pressured social networks to “sup... by mrangle on Thursday July 06, 2023 @04:15PM (#36622163)

Reputation isn't an argument. It would be false in its assumption even if it were.

The case law is established.

There isn't a single case of someone's speech being censored, due to government request, for which the person being censored does not have a Constitutionally airtight First Amendment violation complaint.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Judge rules White House pressured social networks to “sup... by TechBro8615 on Thursday July 06, 2023 @06:37PM (#36624212)

Is that why President Biden called for a federal investigation [0] into Musk's companies shortly after he bought Twitter and told the government censors to "pound sand?"

Keep in mind this was in response to a question from a Bloomberg "journalist" which basically laid out the premise that Musk might be a national security threat. Biden has been known to show up to press conferences with a "cheat sheet" listing which journalists to call for questions, and the verbatim text of the question that each will ask. [1]

[0] https://nypost.com/2022/11/09/biden-calls-for-federal-invest...

[1] https://www.allsides.com/news/2023-04-27-0330/politics-biden...

[ Parent | on HN ]