2y ago

State Dept. cancels election meetings with Facebook after “free speech” ruling

The Biden administration is appealing a federal judge's ruling that ordered the government to halt a wide range of communications with social media companies. President Biden and the other federal defendants in the case "hereby appeal" the ruling to the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, according to a notice filed in US District Court yesterday. The US will submit a longer filing with arguments to the 5th Circuit appeals court.
On Tuesday, Judge Terry Doughty of US District Court for the Western District of Louisiana granted a preliminary injunction that prohibits White House officials and numerous federal agencies from communicating "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."
Doughty found that defendants "significantly encouraged" and in some cases coerced "the social-media companies to such extent that the decision…

7 comments

I'm guessing they're worried about social media companies controlling the narrative. Deleting comments to make a politician sound better or worse, that sort of thing.
- or straight up misinformation and hate speech. Calls for insurrection. that sort of thing.
  because that would never happen... right....? I mean the US is civilized and never had violence used to try and prevent the lawful and constitutional turn over of power... right...?
  
  That's not a reason to start controlling speech. It's an effective knee jerk emotional reaction that may even elicit the immediate desired outcome but that newfound power will absolutely be used by the next guy. You want Donald Trump's team having that kind of control over speech?
  Everything you give to the guy you like will be wielded by the guy you don't like. Don't be stupid.
I'm honestly astonished they had the audacity to even ask for this. This is nothing short of controlling speech under a guise of "we're super promising to not abuse this newfound power that will definitely exist for the rest of eternity, even when it's out of our control"
This is a short sighted and naive solution at best. And people who can't think in broad terms that will necessarily have implications for generations to come should not be making policy that has that kind of reach.
we should continue to do what we’ve been doing and hope Jan 6 doesn’t happen or another plague doesn’t crop up.
That’s what I just read. Because we know “calling it out” doesn’t work unless the person calling the bullshit out has a relatively close relationship to the individual.
We also know that not taking these individuals down gives them a much larger audience to reach. A much larger platform.
Also, the entire reason we have consumer protections agencies like the FDA is because generally speaking consumers can’t know on their own if something os safe or effective. Your argument here is patently foolish and absolywill kill people.
Why? To protect “rights” they don’t even actually have? Remember: social media is not actually public. They’re a private, for profit company and they maintain the right to take down any content they deem inappropriate.
It’s perfectly within the FDA’s mandate to point out content the agency deems inappropriate, and ask them to take it down.
Just as it’s within their mandate to ask Walmart to stop selling vitamin pills if it deems them to be dangerous.

7 comments