XPost: alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, talk.politics.guns   
   XPost: alt.politics   
   From: noway@nowhere.com   
      
   On 7/16/2023 8:14 AM, Lou Bricano wrote:   
   > On 7/16/2023 7:42 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:   
   >> 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).   
   >   
   > "(a) The mere fact that a private business is subject to state   
   > regulation does not, by itself, convert its action into that of the   
   > State for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment. A State normally can be   
   > held responsible for a private decision only when it has exercised   
   > coercive power or has provided such significant encouragement that the   
   > choice must in law be deemed to be that of the State."  In telling   
   > Facebook and Twitter that shit their users have posted is false, the   
   > administration is not engaging in any coercion.   
   >   
   > This fascist judge Doughty has told the Biden administration it can't   
   > speak with social media companies *at all*.  That's unconstitutional.   
      
   He didn't say they couldn't speak "at all." He limited the interactions   
   to 10 specific items, the first of which is representative (but read all   
   10 for yourself):   
      
   1) "meeting with social-media companies for the purpose of urging,   
   encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner the removal,   
   deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free   
   speech posted on social-media platforms."   
      
   https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520   
   gov.uscourts.lawd.189520.294.0.pdf   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)