XPost: alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, talk.politics.guns   
   XPost: alt.politics   
   From: noway@nowhere.com   
      
   On 7/15/2023 10:07 PM, Lou Bricano wrote:   
   > On 7/15/2023 9:25 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:   
   >> On 7/15/2023 8:32 AM, Lou Bricano wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>> The overreaching fuck Doughty's order will be vacated.  It is   
   >>> unconstitutional. A judge cannot tell executive branch officials with   
   >>> whom they may and may not speak.   
   >>   
   >> The decision may well be reversed. But, if an executive branch   
   >> official "significantly encourages" (*) a private party to censor   
   >> speech, it seems to me the First Amendment has been violated and   
   >> judges shutting down the official from such encouragement is proper.   
   >   
   > Some agency contacting Facebook about a post with false statements and   
   > saying "this shit is false and here's why" is not censorship.  Facebook   
   > will make the decision about whether or not to take the post down.  I   
   > would hope that Facebook would *always* remove false information.  But   
   > it's up to them.   
      
   OK. But, you said, "A judge cannot tell executive branch officials with   
   whom they may and may not speak" which is a much different claim than   
   the government saying "this shit is false and here's why" is not   
   censorship. While the latter may be true, the former is not per Blum v.   
   Yaretsky (1982).   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)