The U.S. government is like the Orwellian Ministry of Truth

[jross]

The Ministry of Truth in the 1984 novel refers to a governmental institution responsible for altering historical records and disseminating propaganda to manipulate and control public perception.

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

STATE OF MISSOURI, ET AL. v. JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR., ET AL. | CASE NO. 3:22-CV-01213

On May 5, 2022, the Attorney Generals for Louisiana and Missouri filed suit against various named defendants for violations of the First Amendment. They asserted the defendants are liable for their conduct relating to the alleged suppression of certain ideas and viewpoints on social media platforms.  Judge TERRY A. DOUGHTY wrote that the AGs are likely to succeed in their case based on the evidence.  https://casetext.com/case/missouri-v-biden-4

This case is about the Free Speech Clause in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The explosion of social-media platforms has resulted in unique free speech issues— this is especially true in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. If the allegations made by Plaintiffs are true, the present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history. In their attempts to suppress alleged disinformation, the Federal Government, and particularly the Defendants named here, are alleged to have blatantly ignored the First Amendment’s right to free speech. Although the censorship alleged in this case almost exclusively targeted conservative speech, the issues raised herein go beyond party lines. The right to free speech is not a member of any political party and does not hold any political ideology. It is the purpose of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of the market, whether it be by government itself or private licensee. 

Quote

The Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits on their claim that the United States Government, through the White House and numerous federal agencies, pressured and encouraged social-media companies to suppress free speech. Defendants used meetings and communications with social-media companies to pressure those companies to take down, reduce, and suppress the free speech of American citizens.

...Unlike previous cases that left ample room to question whether public officials’ calls for censorship were fairly traceable to the Government; the instant case paints a full picture.  A drastic increase in censorship, deboosting, shadow-banning, and account suspensions directly coincided with Defendants’ public calls for censorship and private demands for censorship. Specific instances of censorship substantially likely to be the direct result of Government involvement are too numerous to fully detail, but a birds-eye view shows a clear connection between Defendants’ actions and Plaintiffs injuries.

...Although the COVID-19 pandemic is no longer an emergency, it is not imaginary or speculative to believe that in the event of any other real or perceived emergency event, the Defendants would once again use their power over social-media companies to suppress alternative views. And it is certainly not imaginary or speculative to predict that Defendants could use their power over millions of people to suppress alternative views or moderate content they do not agree with in the upcoming 2024 national election.

Read 155 pages or at least the introduction and conclusion at https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520.293.0.pdf.
 

---------------Quotes--------------

Quote

Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one place to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.  Harry S. Truman

Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the free acts of speech. Benjamin Franklin, Letters of Silence Dogwood.

I may disapprove of what you say, but I would defend to the death your right to say it.  Evelyn Beatrice Hill, 1906, The Friends of Voltaire

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.

If there is a bedrock principal underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable. Matal v. Tam, 137 S. Ct. 1744, 1763 (2017)

The benefit of any doubt must go to protecting rather than stifling speech. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 130 S. Ct. 876, 891 (2010).

 

Edited July 5, 2023 by jross

[Plasmodium]

It'll be interesting to see this play out.  I'm most interested in:

1) How the government was able to force the suppression of disinformation in a select few companies/organizations, but not countless others.

2) Whether the judicial branch is indeed able to silence the scientific agencies that our society relies on.  This order looks like it will restrict what the CDC and National Weather Service (amongst others) can and can't say.  Disaster waiting to happen.

3) The effectiveness of packing the court system with politically motivated jurists.  Thus far, it appears remarkably effective.

 

[Le duke]

The evidence in the case begins in 2017.

It seems absolutely insane that they are suing Biden for the actions of several companies. Particularly when those companies did many of these things when he wasn’t president.

Also, the funny thing in the MO AG’s statement is that it uses the word that is the fatal flaw in their case: “ask”. The government didn’t censor anyone; it *asked* social medial platforms to control misinformation, which they did, willingly.

I imagine this will get crushed 6-3 at SCOTUS.

The entire case is built on non-existent case law. There’s nothing to support this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Offthemat]

1 hour ago, Le duke said:

The evidence in the case begins in 2017.

It seems absolutely insane that they are suing Biden for the actions of several companies. Particularly when those companies did many of these things when he wasn’t president.

Also, the funny thing in the MO AG’s statement is that it uses the word that is the fatal flaw in their case: “ask”. The government didn’t censor anyone; it *asked* social medial platforms to control misinformation, which they did, willingly.

I imagine this will get crushed 6-3 at SCOTUS.

The entire case is built on non-existent case law. There’s nothing to support this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This from the ruling memorandum:

 

At a White House press conference, Psaki publicly reminded Facebook and other social media platforms of the threat of “legal consequences” if they do not censor misinformation more aggressively.  Pg 22
 

does not sound like ask.  Noting your avatar, what is your duty when your commanding officer “asks” you to do something?  

Edited July 6, 2023 by Offthemat

[Le duke]

This from the ruling memorandum:
 
At a White House press conference, Psaki publicly reminded Facebook and other social media platforms of the threat of “legal consequences” if they do not censor misinformation more aggressively.  Pg 22
 
does not sound like ask.  Noting your avatar, what is your duty when your commanding officer “asks” you to do something?  

The legal consequences being the end of Section 230 if someone decides to sue them and succeeds. That was pretty clear to me.

My commanding officer has legal authority to ask me to do just about anything within the bounds of the law. If I disagree with an order’s legality, I better be ready to back that up with a damn good reason as to why I feel it is illegal.

The executive has no power over companies other than enforcement of the law. The government can ASK anyone to moderate their content; they cannot FORCE Facebook to do it. I haven’t seen anything indicating that they were planning to arrest anyone at FB for failure to comply. No hints of developers being arrested, etc.

An originalist/textualist reading of this would have to conclude that there is no government-on-person injury here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Offthemat]

19 minutes ago, Le duke said:

The legal consequences being the end of Section 230 if someone decides to sue them and succeeds. That was pretty clear to me.

My commanding officer has legal authority to ask me to do just about anything within the bounds of the law. If I disagree with an order’s legality, I better be ready to back that up with a damn good reason as to why I feel it is illegal.

The executive has no power over companies other than enforcement of the law. The government can ASK anyone to moderate their content; they cannot FORCE Facebook to do it. I haven’t seen anything indicating that they were planning to arrest anyone at FB for failure to comply. No hints of developers being arrested, etc.

An originalist/textualist reading of this would have to conclude that there is no government-on-person injury here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It was more like the end of 230 if they didn’t comply.  The president said “they’re killing people” and people were scared.  You may get your reversal, but this judge understands the situation and his ruling is justified. 

[Le duke]

It was more like the end of 230 if they didn’t comply.  The president said “they’re killing people” and people were scared.  You may get your reversal, but this judge understands the situation and his ruling is justified. 

The president can’t end 230 without congress. As we learned in a recent court case, the president doesn’t make the law. Which is why Facebook lobbies Congress hard, on both sides of the aisle, to maintain 230.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Offthemat]

Who controlled congress in 21 and 22?

[Le duke]

Who controlled congress in 21 and 22?

Section 230 lobbyists?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Offthemat]

As I suspected, your arguments are disingenuous. 

[Le duke]

As I suspected, your arguments are disingenuous. 

So, the Democrat controlled Congress didn’t have a single anti-230 bill make it out of committee in either house. What is the point you are trying to make?

But, here is our favorite former wrestler with HIS plan to kill off 230:

https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/house-republicans-draft-bill-to-strip-big-tech-companies-of-section-230-protections.amp


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Plasmodium]

Seems to be a pattern forming here.

 

[Offthemat]

8 hours ago, Le duke said:

So, the Democrat controlled Congress didn’t have a single anti-230 bill make it out of committee in either house. What is the point you are trying to make?

But, here is our favorite former wrestler with HIS plan to kill off 230:

https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/house-republicans-draft-bill-to-strip-big-tech-companies-of-section-230-protections.amp


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It was a threat.  They complied, therefore no action taken.  Ain’t that the way it works?

[Plasmodium]

4 hours ago, Offthemat said:

It was a threat.  They complied, therefore no action taken.  Ain’t that the way it works?

No.  They have threats from all sides and make their own choices based on what they consider legal and consistent with terms and conditions.  BTW, ivermectin is only effective in treating COVID when taken rectally.