So you're suggesting that prior restraint on constitutionally protected speech is justified because Pam Bondi, mouthpiece for the president, asserts that publishing publicly observable information about federal officers is designed to put them at risk from waves hands, and not that the risk, if there actually was one, should be dealt with from whatever she's waving her hands about?

It's always funny when people are willing to toss the first amendment completely under the bus because of made-up risks but god help you if you suggest putting guardrails on the scope of the second amendment because of actual risks.

Some people crave authoritarianism, and the feeling of safety it provides them (at the expense of others), and will repeat any words that make them feel better about doing so, even if the words are lies obvious even to themselves.

> Some people crave authoritarianism ... (at the expense of others)

Yes, and even to the expense of themselves. The cult of personality is real.

> So you're suggesting that prior restraint on constitutionally protected speech is justified

I have no idea how you got there but if you brought a case with a team of lawyers to get the apps re-instated based on the 1st amendment, I'd be happy about it. It would be interesting precedent too.

However, my point is nothing about that. What should Apple do while following laws and being accused of hosting apps that endanger law enforcement?

> What should Apple do while following laws and being accused of hosting apps that endanger law enforcement?

Ask for a warrant. Same way they did to the FBI years ago.

One of you retarded leftist terrorists tried to assassinate some officers like a week ago. So yes, there are threats and violence. We are somehow just supposed to ignore all that.

If that opinion had legal weight, then it could have been laundered through a legal instrument like a court order. It is complete nonsense legally. People who have wanted to find ICE agents to attack have succeeded in finding their headquarters and attacking them there. The more obvious purpose of the app is to identify ICE agents in order to avoid being victimized by them. Regardless of the actual purpose of the app, simply identifying a person's location does not legally constitute a threat, and is protected by the first amendment.

There's a irony here. Google recently was stuck in front of congress and had to apologize for censoring people at the behest of the previous presidential administration despite not being legally required to. Now we have the current administration pressuring companies to censor their users, and those companies readily complying. Nothing has changed except for the political orientation.

> It is complete nonsense legally

Agreed. However, the weight of the DOJ and DOD (aka: DOW) are enough to make even Apple flinch, unsurprisingly.

> There's a[n] irony here

There are so many ironies and strange twists. If I remember the previous apologies, it was because conspiracy theories were being suppressed along with bad vaccine information. It was predominantly Republican lines of questioning during these hearings even though it was "under Biden."

The current administration wants to now censure in the opposite direction, weaponizing the very thing Republicans fought against in order to push current agendas. Nothing has really changed, it has just progressed.