XPost: alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, talk.politics.guns   
   XPost: alt.politics   
   From: noway@nowhere.com   
      
   On 7/16/2023 12:04 PM, Governor Swill wrote:   
   > On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 08:24:51 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth    
   wrote:   
   >   
   >> 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.189   
   20/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520.294.0.pdf   
   >   
   > Layman's terms.  Bull fucking shit.  Talk about legislating from the bench .   
   . .   
   >   
   >   
   > Here are a few other interesting things this judge says the government can't   
   do.   
      
   He said the government *can* do these things.   
      
   > " (4) informing social-media companies of threats that threaten the public   
   safety or   
   > security of the United States;   
   >   
   > " (5) exercising permissible public government speech promoting government   
   policies   
   > or views on matters of public concern;   
   >   
   > " (6) informing social-media companies of postings intending to mislead   
   voters about   
   > voting requirements and procedures; "   
   >   
   > You know what?   
   >   
   > I WANT social media made aware of potential threats to public safety and   
   national   
   > security.   
   >   
   > I WANT the government to have access to social media to make me aware of   
   such things.   
   >   
   > I WANT the government to notify users and providers when they are being lied   
   to about   
   > something as important as VOTING.   
   >   
   > In fact, in an ideal world, I'd WANT someone to fact check social media.  I   
   gave up on   
   > fakebook decades ago and a brief glimpse of twaddle told me it was even   
   worse.   
   >   
   > Swill   
   > --   
   > Republican snowflakes care more about public urination and gas stoves than   
   national security   
   > or the number one killer of children.   
   >   
   > GO RFK!   
   >   
   > Send money!   
   >   
   > https://www.kennedy24.com   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)