Hi, Shrewd!        Login  
Shrewd'm.com 
A merry & shrewd investing community
Best Of Politics | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Post of the Week!
Search Politics
Shrewd'm.com Merry shrewd investors
Best Of Politics | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Post of the Week!
Search Politics


Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (24) |
Author: albaby1 🐝 HONORARY
SHREWD
  😊 😞

Number: of 48502 
Subject: Re: Ministry of Truth
Date: 07/05/2023 6:14 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
No. of Recommendations: 4
There is a distinction to be made between government intervention to prevent the trafficking of an already illegal physical substance (in this example kiddie porn) and government intervention to prevent the trafficking of contrary opinions (for example government claims about the effectiveness of masks).

Not a legally relevant one. Government probably can't censor discussions about kiddie porn that are not themselves unlawful. In fact, under Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, I'm pretty sure they can't:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Spe...

The nature of the "intervention" is the same. You have an online discussion about something that both the government and the hosting site would prefer not take place on the site. But the discussion is itself protected speech, so the government can't directly prohibit it. But since the hosting site has policies that it has voluntarily chosen to adopt (goes the argument), government can take action to help the hosting site do what it already wants to do - more effectively prohibit the conversation for hosting site's own purposes.

Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
Print the post
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (24) |


Announcements
US Policy FAQ
Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

Best Of Politics | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Followed Shrewds