Judge rules White House pressured social networks to “suppress free speech” (arstechnica.com)

submitted 1 year ago by asteroidrainfall@kbin.social to c/tech@kbin.social

84 comments fedilink hide all child comments

A federal judge yesterday ordered the Biden administration to halt a wide range of communications with social media companies, siding with Missouri and Louisiana in a lawsuit that alleges Biden and his administration violated the First Amendment by colluding with social networks "to suppress disfavored speakers, viewpoints, and content."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] czech@no.faux.moe 0 points 1 year ago

This is about attempts to stop folks from spreading provably wrong info online that's killing people. It's like protecting the free speech of someone yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.

The headline is also overstated. Its a preliminary injunction and of course its from a Trump nominee.

But Judge Terry Doughty, a Trump nominee at US District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, granted the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction imposing limits on the Department of Health and Human Services, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,

[-] CoCoIchibanCurry@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago

But if the government can pressure platforms to remove provably false information that is actively killing people, it will have a chilling effect on my constitutional freedom to lie to people. Won't somebody please think of the grifters and anti-sciencers?

[+] jimbolauski@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago

[deleted]

[-] barf@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago

Who gives a shit, frankly. The first amendment is the first amendment, science or anti-science or anything in between. Whether or not I agree with anything in your comment.

[-] CmdrShepard@lemmy.one 0 points 1 year ago

Do you extend the same to lies or threats? If I claimed your computer is full of CP would you still support me?

I personally think this is a brain-dead approach akin to the many "zero tolerance" laws that only exist to remove thought from the equation. "Yes Billy, you may not have actually thrown any punches but we're suspending you from school for getting beat up by that bully because you were a participant in the fight."

[-] barf@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It’s brain dead to respect the law? Are you drawing a line between what I said and some idea of unlimited free speech? If so, that’s not my stance.

Edit: also half the things you said would be illegal, so no I wouldn’t support you

load more comments (64 replies)

load more comments (69 replies)

load more comments (70 replies)

this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2023

0 points (NaN% liked)

Technology

165 readers

1 users here now

This magazine is dedicated to discussions on the latest developments, trends, and innovations in the world of technology. Whether you are a tech enthusiast, a developer, or simply curious about the latest gadgets and software, this is the place for you. Here you can share your knowledge, ask questions, and engage in discussions on topics such as artificial intelligence, robotics, cloud computing, cybersecurity, and more. From the impact of technology on society to the ethical considerations of new technologies, this category covers a wide range of topics related to technology. Join the conversation and let's explore the ever-evolving world of technology together!

founded 2 years ago