Post New

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/07/04/judge-lim...

Interesting.
Were anti-vaxxers shouting Fire! in a crowded theater?
Fed judge (Trumpy appointee) thinks not.

From the decision. It wasn't just the vaccines:
The Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits in establishing that the Government has used its power to silence the opposition. Opposition to COVID-19 vaccines; opposition to COVID-19 masking and lockdowns; opposition to the lab-leak theory of COVID-19; opposition to the validity of the 2020 election; opposition to President Biden's policies; statements that the Hunter Biden laptop story was true; and opposition to policies of the government officials in power. All were suppressed. It is quite telling that each example or category of suppressed speech was conservative in nature. This targeted suppression of conservative ideas is a perfect example of viewpoint discrimination of political speech. American citizens have the right to engage in free debate about the significant issues affecting the country.

Although this case is still relatively young, and at this stage the Court is only examining it in terms of Plaintiffs' likelihood of success on the merits, the evidence produced thus far depicts an almost dystopian scenario. During the COVID-19 pandemic, a period perhaps best characterized by widespread doubt and uncertainty, the United States Government seems to have assumed a role similar to an Orwellian 'Ministry of Truth.'721

So do you think the government should have this power?
Do you think a collection of random bureaucrats should have the power to throw out the First Amendment?

And finally: Would you rather an America where citizens decide for themselves or would you rather an America where someone else decided it for you?

Were anti-vaxxers shouting Fire! in a crowded theater?
Fed judge (Trumpy appointee) thinks not.

But they were, in a sense. Wish there were a way to calculate the number of covid deaths due to people who refused a vaccine because of the anti-vaxxers spreading disinformation on social media platforms. And a way to calculate those who were hit really hard by covid, with long-term consequences, instead of a brief and mild infection, because of the anti-vaxxers spreading disinformation on social media platforms.

And what this judge has done is facilitate the unbalanced....in a dangerous direction.....spewing of disinformation. When health and lives are at stake....it's no longer a first amendment issue.

Dope1: So do you think the government should have this power?
Do you think a collection of random bureaucrats should have the power to throw out the First Amendment?

In America, the government is free to speak with private entities and those private entities are free to ignore what the government says to them.

This should be overturned on appeal.

Hopefully you noticed (by actually reading over the judge's opinion) that many of these complaints began during the Trump years.

In response to this opinion, a constitutional lawyer tweeted this morning: "I am filing an emergency petition in Louisiana federal court to nationally enjoin all faculty meetings as a coercive First Amendment violation."

LOL.

Do you think a collection of random bureaucrats should have the power to throw out the First Amendment?

They already do. As albaby has explained at various times, the 1st Amendment isn't carte-blanche. There are limits (though, apparently, yelling "fire" in a crowded theater isn't actually one of them!). Those were decided by bureaucrats, and in any cases that made it that far, affirmed by SCOTUS.

The second part is trickier. Yes, I would rather decide for myself. But, GIGO applies. If people have garbage information, they will make garbage (mostly likely) decisions. Which is why misinformation is potentially so incredibly dangerous. How to control/limit misinformation is the really tricky bit, and I don't have a good answer.

This should be overturned on appeal.

Lol, and then cried once it hits the Supreme Court.

But we have the answer as to the kind of country that *you* want.

And btw- free speech shouldn't be a partisan issue.

Wish there were a way to calculate the number of covid deaths due to people who refused a vaccine because of the anti-vaxxers spreading disinformation on social media platforms.

Not specific to disinformation on social media platforms, but I have seen some analyses that estimate -if I'm remembering correctly- that about 3/4 of the people who died (in the US) didn't need to die. They died due to a conglomeration of factors, mostly stemming from misinformation about masks, ivermectin (and other rubbish therapies), and the vaccine. True, some people did all the right things and still died. But it is a tiny fraction of the total casualties from this epidemic. I wish Loren Cobb was here to give us a proper statistical analysis.

However, I did read recently that the number of people who died after the vaccine was readily available, who then refused the vaccine, is over 300K. Some percentage likely would have died anyway, but we're still talking the population of a mid-sized city.

I did read recently that the number of people who died after the vaccine was readily available, who then refused the vaccine, is over 300K. Some percentage likely would have died anyway, but we're still talking the population of a mid-sized city.

Thank you for those numbers!

So do you think the government should have this power?
Do you think a collection of random bureaucrats should have the power to throw out the First Amendment?

Those are two different questions. The answer to the latter one is clearly "no." But the answer to the first question might still be "yes," because "this power" doesn't necessarily throw out - or even conflict with - the First Amendment.

The key here is to remember that governments are not just regulators of speech. They are also "speakers" who frequently advocate viewpoints and positions within the metaphorical marketplace of ideas - even in areas where they don't actually have any regulations. To use a hopefully non-controversial example, your state government might do a bunch of PSA's trying to encourage kids to be active and exercise and play outdoors as part of an effort to combat childhood obesity. It's not illegal for kids to be overweight, or for parents to let their kids stay inside and watch TV - the state is simply trying to promote a particular viewpoint ("kids should exercise"). And they're allowed to. They might also try to persuade third parties to both agree with them and to change their own behavior to promulgate that viewpoint - staying in the same vein, they might persuade the NFL that childhood obesity is a problem and try to get the NFL to encourage childhood activity.

It's pretty clear in the case law that government is allowed to try to persuade people. They're allowed to try to get third parties to change their behavior to favor the government's preferred policies.

That's easy with positions that are not really contested. But things get complicated when the government has a very firm opinion on, but that some people disagree with. And very complicated when they're trying to persuade private parties to deplatform people on the other side of that split.

So if there's a problem with teens huffing paint, the government will go out and try to persuade teens to stop huffing paint (again, hopefully not a controversial position). They will also reach out to community organizations (say, churches and youth groups) to ask them to persuade kids that huffing paint is bad (again, not very controversial). In today's world, though, they might also reach out to Facebook and Twitter and ask them to enforce any existing policies they might have that would prohibit groups or boards that teens use to share tips and tricks on how to huff paint.

That last step is more controversial. The government is allowed to think that huffing paint is bad and is allowed to try to persuade people to take action based on that belief, just like any other speaker. But are they allowed to try to persuade private parties who own communications platforms to act on a belief that huffing paint is bad?

Which is why misinformation is potentially so incredibly dangerous. = 1pg

===================

The absolute power to declare what is disinformation and censure accordingly is arguably more dangerous.

That's easy with positions that are not really contested. But things get complicated when the government has a very firm opinion on, but that some people disagree with. And very complicated when they're trying to persuade private parties to deplatform people on the other side of that split. - albaby


Complicated? There is a simple answer, don't do it, don't even attempt it. The implied power of government to crush your business is coercive on its face. Express your government opinions in the same public forums as the rest of us and let the chips fall where they may.


That last step is more controversial. The government is allowed to think that huffing paint is bad and is allowed to try to persuade people to take action based on that belief, just like any other speaker. But are they allowed to try to persuade private parties who own communications platforms to act on a belief that huffing paint is bad? - albaby

Persuading the population at large, fine. Persuading (or attempting to persuade) businesses to do what you as government aren't allowed to to do is Bad. There is a fine line between persuasion and coercion when the infinite power of government is doing the persuading. Dangerous to freedom.

Persuading the population at large, fine. Persuading (or attempting to persuade) businesses to do what you as government aren't allowed to to do is Bad. There is a fine line between persuasion and coercion when the infinite power of government is doing the persuading. Dangerous to freedom.

Is it, though?

This puts me in mind of the efforts by past Republican governments (federal and state) to work with faith-based organizations (ie. mostly churches) to try to cut down on teenage pregnancy. Those efforts didn't involve the feds "coercing" those institutions into doing something the government couldn't do directly. The government, of course, is forbidden from making a religious argument in favor of abstinence - but because that's something that the churches already wanted to do, the government was using funds and resources to try to help them do it better.

That's almost certainly what the government claims is happening here. They portray these efforts as "helping" Facebook and Twitter (and others) implement policies that those organizations already had. For example, they want to prevent their sites being used for the exchange of forbidden child sexual material - so the law enforcement agencies that investigate the trafficking of such material will alert them to groups of individuals that are using the site to facilitate such exchanges so that Facebook and Twitter can block them. That helps the government achieve its goals, of course; but ostensibly, Facebook and Twitter independently want to throw those folks off their site as well.

For example, they want to prevent their sites being used for the exchange of forbidden child sexual material - so the law enforcement agencies that investigate the trafficking of such material will alert them to groups of individuals that are using the site to facilitate such exchanges so that Facebook and Twitter can block them. That helps the government achieve its goals, of course; but ostensibly, Facebook and Twitter independently want to throw those folks off their site as well. = albaby

-----------------------

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).

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.

The absolute power to declare what is disinformation and censure accordingly is arguably more dangerous.

I'm coming from a science background. Science is the arbiter of what is correct, and what is not. At least for those questions that science addresses, and has sufficient data to support. Your (or my) opinion is not a substitute for data. The vaccine works, or it doesn't. Ivermectin works, or it doesn't. Etc.

Now, if we're talking "gay people are immoral", I agree. That is not subject to the same standards as science, and censure of opinions on either side of that issue is very dangerous.

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. - albaby

Perhaps even stationing some FBI agents at their facility to make those discussions easier. Or the platform making special API's available to the government to facilitate the government submitting helpful suggestions so the platform can better understand (expand) the scope of that which the platform already wanted to ban but may not have realized it until the government pointed it out. This seems dangerous to me.

I read something that helps me understand the seemingly endless opposition of views, paraphrasing,

"The difference between the factions is that progressives fundamentally trust whatever the government is saying whereas the conservative fundamentally is skeptical of whatever the government is saying."

That I think explains our differing views on the Government/Corporate alliance with respect to what is <mis>information .

"The difference between the factions is that progressives fundamentally trust whatever the government is saying whereas the conservative fundamentally is skeptical of whatever the government is saying."

I'm not sure that's entirely correct. I'm skeptical about almost everything, and I would undoubtedly fall left of center in the USA. On some matters, I would probably be "progressive". Yet I'm skeptical.

Sometimes it's just "does the government/person/organization have an angle or something to gain?". So, for example, masks...no they don't. So I don't think much more about it (and then studies indicated that masks reduced transmission, which I file away in the "evidence for" folder). Other things demand more evidence before I'll accept them. I usually hear this phrase with respect to religion, but I apply it to almost everything: the more extraordinary the claim, the greater the evidence that is required to accept it. So if you say you have a puppy, that is a common thing. No evidence required. If you say there is a nationwide conspiracy to silence conservatives and steal elections, that will require a LOT of evidence.

"The difference between the factions is that progressives fundamentally trust whatever the government is saying whereas the conservative fundamentally is skeptical of whatever the government is saying."

Oh, I don't think that's true at all. Progressives deeply distrust the government in lots of ways. That explains a whole lot of their policy proposals.

For example, progressives generally assume that nearly every governmental regulatory and permitting agency is far too deferential to business interests. That's why they bitterly oppose any changes to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) - because it gives them leverage to "correct" all the things that government is going to get wrong about projects that involve governmental funds.

FOIA, the Civil Service Act, private attorneys general clauses....there's a huge strain of liberal/progressive mechanisms that reflect mistrust of government that dates back to the Vietnam/Unsafe at Any Speed era. That's just the formal mechanisms - progressives constantly push to have government be "responsive" to non-governmental organizations (like unions) before taking action, so that they can make sure that government doesn't go too far in the wrong direction. And head down to local government, and "blue state" regulation is a patchwork of citizen's advisory boards, community outreach panels, neighborhood planning councils, and a plethora of other mechanisms designed to keep government at heel.

The most powerful, most intrusive aspect of the government - at any level - is criminal justice. The power to lock people up, the (near) monopoly on violence. You think progressives "fundamentally trust" what the nation's police departments say? Or the military - the largest single government agency in the country?

bighairymike: Perhaps even stationing some FBI agents at their facility to make those discussions easier. Or the platform making special API's available to the government to facilitate the government submitting helpful suggestions so the platform can better understand (expand) the scope of that which the platform already wanted to ban but may not have realized it until the government pointed it out. This seems dangerous to me.


Seems silly to me.

Looking through the judge's opinion, he writes that "Flaherty acknowledged receiving Facebook's detailed report and demanded a report from Facebook on a recent Washington Post article that accused Facebook of allowing the spread of information leading to vaccine hesitancy. Flaherty emailed the Washington Post article to Facebook the day before, with the subject line: 'You are hiding the ball,' and stated 'I've been asking you guys pretty directly, over a series of conversations, for a clear accounting of the biggest issues you are seeing on your platform when it comes to vaccine hesitancy and the degree to which borderline content as you define it -- is playing a role.'

So the White House pointed out a Washington Post article that argued Facebook is intentionally allowing disinformation on its site which is resulting in an increase in vaccine hesitancy.

Flaherty writes: "I am not trying to play 'gotcha' with you. We are gravely concerned that your service is one of the top drivers of vaccine hesitancy -- period. I will also be the first to acknowledge that borderline content offers no easy solutions. But we want to know that you're trying, we want to know how we can help, and we want to know that you're not playing a shell game with us when we ask you what is going on."

Hhhmm. Doesn't sound, as the judge claims in his preface to the quoted material, like a "demand". Sounds like the White House is saying this is complicated, we both know there are no simple solutions but we're ready to help you if you'll give us information that lets us help you.


The White House also suggests that social media platforms have a responsibility to their users: "We're asking them to consistently take action against misinformation super-spreaders on their platforms."

No, the judge writes: "Each United States citizen has the right to decide for himself or herself what is true and what is false."

Well, umm, what?


bighairymike: I read something that helps me understand the seemingly endless opposition of views, paraphrasing,

"The difference between the factions is that progressives fundamentally trust whatever the government is saying whereas the conservative fundamentally is skeptical of whatever the government is saying."

That I think explains our differing views on the Government/Corporate alliance with respect to what is <mis>information .

Nope, not me. Rather, I suggest this: "Conservatives like to paint with a broad brush and generalize haphazardly."

Here's what the judge wrote on the subject of free speech:
The principal function of free speech under the United States' system of government is to invite dispute; it may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Texas v. Johnson, 109 S. Ct. 2533, 2542'43 (1989). Freedom of speech and press is the indispensable condition of nearly every other form of freedom. Curtis Pub. Co. v. Butts, 87 S. Ct. 1975, 1986 (1967).

The following quotes reveal the Founding Fathers' thoughts on freedom of speech:

For if men are to be precluded from offering their sentiments on a matter, which may involve the most serious and alarming consequences, that can invite the consideration of mankind, reason is of no use to us; the freedom of speech may be taken away, and dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep, to the slaughter.

George Washington, March 15, 1783.

Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the free acts of speech.

Benjamin Franklin, Letters of Silence Dogwood.

Reason and free inquiry are the only effectual agents against error.

Thomas Jefferson.

The question does not concern whether speech is conservative, moderate, liberal, progressive, or somewhere in between. What matters is that Americans, despite their views, will not be censored or suppressed by the Government. Other than well-known exceptions to the Free Speech Clause, all political views and content are protected free speech.

'and that's what this is about. I'm astonished that this is even a debate.


It's pretty clear in the case law that government is allowed to try to persuade people. They're allowed to try to get third parties to change their behavior to favor the government's preferred policies.

Your analogies are normally very good, but this one misses the mark: in the example you give, you're outlining cases where the government is handing out MORE information in an attempt to persuade its audience. That's perfectly valid, and actually FURTHERS the public debate.

But what underlings of Biden and Trump were doing was the complete opposite in trying to SUPPRESS the national debate.

One might be tempted to excuse suppressing COVID 'disinformation' as a function of a national emergency. After all, during wartime if, say, an aircraft carrier was leaving port the government could issue a blackout order to shield the warship's movements. Fine. But that would the suppression of a know fact (the carrier leaving port) that could lead to direct harm to the United States (the enemy getting information on the ship's movements).

But that's not what happened during COVID: nobody knew much, and a lot of what the government was saying was either flat-out wrong (get the vaccine and you can't spread the disease) or so highly nuanced that what they were saying was essentially wrong (wearing a mask stops COVID transmission) that what was needed was in fact a rigorous public debate.

They didn't allow that. Glossed over here was the suppression of Hunter's laptop for blatantly political reasons. That's not acceptable no matter what the national situation is.

Dope: But that's not what happened during COVID: nobody knew much, and a lot of what the government was saying was either flat-out wrong (get the vaccine and you can't spread the disease) or so highly nuanced that what they were saying was essentially wrong (wearing a mask stops COVID transmission) that what was needed was in fact a rigorous public debate.

I followed Covid 19 scientific information for the first 1.5-2 years and there never was an advice or article, etc., that I read stating that if you got the vaccine you couldn't spread the disease. Initially it was 95% effective at you not getting it two weeks after injection. We understood it was evolving but were disappointed with 65% six months later. We also understood that if you did get it, it would be a lighter case and you could still spread in the lighter case. In other words, you still spread asymptomatically in the light case.

NEVER EVER did I ever read that masks STOPPED COVID transmission. In fact the mask grades tell you they don't. They made nice little chart memes that showed the effectiveness with an infected person wearing a mask, and not wearing a mask meeting people who wore no mask, a surgical mask, and N95 mask, etc.

And I might add, when you sense that it might be critical to your life to get the best information, seek out the best sources that can get the info to you and convey it in a way you can understand. Get rid of political and ideological sources.

ish there were a way to calculate the number of covid deaths due to people who refused a vaccine because of the anti-vaxxers spreading disinformation on social media platforms. And a way to calculate those who were hit really hard by covid, with long-term consequences, instead of a brief and mild infection, because of the anti-vaxxers spreading disinformation on social media platforms.

People who refused vaccines were adults, were they not? Their choice to believe wrong and harmful information (disinformation in this case).

Conversely, scientists have been wrong numerous times. They have far better methods and much more respect for truth even when it clashes with their theories. But when they are wrong, they are (unknowingly) spreading disinformation as well. There is no infallible source of truth. You have to judge in all cases, even if "judging" (as in my case) means putting faith in scientists employed by the government.

What about CDC saying "you don't need masks" in the beginning of the pandemic? Presumably to hoard the supply for doctors and nurses, treating ordinary citizens like me as disposable?

Science is VERY fallible. VERY.

Unlike the pope of course :-)

Dope: But that's not what happened during COVID: nobody knew much, and a lot of what the government was saying was either flat-out wrong (get the vaccine and you can't spread the disease) or so highly nuanced that what they were saying was essentially wrong (wearing a mask stops COVID transmission) that what was needed was in fact a rigorous public debate.
*****************************************
Lapsody: I followed Covid 19 scientific information for the first 1.5-2 years and there never was an advice or article, etc., that I read stating that if you got the vaccine you couldn't spread the disease. .... NEVER EVER did I ever read that masks STOPPED COVID transmission.

The information that the CDC disseminated reflected primarily what had been learned up to that point, and that was a work in progress. And when the CDC's knowledge was still evolving, at least any misconceptions were NOT of the kind that would significantly increase one's chances of getting covid, or getting very very ill with it, or dying from it. They would make life more inconvenient.....like when we were washing down everything we bought at the supermarket. But that was the extent of the "damage." But the misinformation/disinformation being spread by the anti-vaxxers, the anti-maskers, the people pushing Trump's trumpeted (and ineffective-to-harmful) treatments......these consequences were devastating. opg provided some statistics.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.