this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2023
74 points (98.7% liked)

Politics

1025 readers
1 users here now

@politics on kbin.social is a magazine to share and discuss current events news, opinion/analysis, videos, or other informative content related to politicians, politics, or policy-making at all levels of governance (federal, state, local), both domestic and international. Members of all political perspectives are welcome here, though we run a tight ship. Community guidelines and submission rules were co-created between the Mod Team and early members of @politics. Please read all community guidelines and submission rules carefully before engaging our magazine.

founded 2 years ago
 

Terry A. Doughty says he gets to decide who the FBI, DHS, HHS, and the Justice Department can talk to.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Title is a bit disingenuous, the ruling actually says they are prohibited

from even talking to social media companies with “the purpose of urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech.”

Government should not be cohering social media companies to silence speech, this seems fine to me.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So for instance a politician saying, "hey Facebook maybe should stop promoting ISIS" would be strictly forbidden.

Got it.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

ISIS probably isn't the best example, because promoting terrorism and advocating violence isn't protected free speech. Regardless, I don't think this would apply to a politician making a general statement like this, but government agencies working behind closed doors to suppress legal content.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It actually is protected free speech in the USA to promote violence. It is not protected free speech to promote or incite violence with the imminent threat of harm.

The American Nazi Party and the KKK won their SCOTUS fight over that, thanks in part to the ACLU.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

"Free speech" is doing a lot of work there. As always.

For example, I think deliberate misinformation should be treated the same as harassment, fraud, and incitement. That is, a kind of speech that is not protected free speech. Just like defamation, you should have to reach an actual malice standard. But unlike defamation, there is not a clear "victim" to act as the plaintiff, so the state would need to step in on behalf of the people to act as one.