Is there a distinction to be made between “asking” and “demanding” or “forcing?”
I’m not a lawyer, so I’m not sure what the legal distinction is. If the federal government approached me to ask me to ask me to do something, I’d absolutely feel compelled to do it, because it’s the government. If they asked me to stop doing something I had the right to do, then I’d absolutely feel like my rights were being infringed upon.
IIRC, some of the “asking” that was being done of social media companies in the recent past involved dragging them in front of Congress on television and grilling them about their actions. So, I imagine it somewhat depends on how you’re being asked.
Often there is no difference between being asked and being intimidated into compliance simply based on who is asking you.
Well, in this case they are approaching big corporations and not an individual. And we have examples of the government asking private business to not do something and they ignored them (Pentagon Papers case leaps to mind and led to the supreme court banning the government from “prior restraint.” The government asked The New York Times to not publish those papers and NYT did it anyway.)
The irony is that Donald Trump signed an executive order that attacked social media companies for labeling his communications as false or misleading, and in his words it was to “defend free speech”. The courts said nothing at the time. But what he did seems in my eyes to be a clear violation along the lines of what this federal judge is attacking the Biden administration over.
Maybe the Democrats should have taken this to court the way that the Republicans did later.
I’d say democrats bringing this case would fail on standing but the recent supreme court decisions show they care nothing for standing. So…maybe they should have.
I think a high percentage of politicians can be trusted to see danger lurking in any form of speech that calls their views and actions into question. Such speech could lead to the possibility - obviously dangerous to any sensible person - that their opponents might prevail in an upcoming election.
I’m talking about actual danger. Speech that literally can kill people, and has. A politician ranting about speech that harms them politically is not relevant.
As perceived by whom?
Until that politician is among those who decide what’s dangerous.
The courts, as was done for decades prior to Brandenburg. It’s no different than when someone stands up in front of people and incites them into imminent lawless action, which currently is illegal, and not protected by the First Amendment. Who decides when that occurs? The courts do.
FWIW, here are items mentioned in the ruling, that plaintiffs allege against the Biden administration:
(1) suppressing the Hunter Biden laptop story prior to the 2020 Presidential election;
(2) suppressing speech about the lab-leak theory of COVID-19’s origin;
(3) suppressing speech about the efficiency of masks and COVID-19 lockdowns;
(4) suppressing speech about the efficiency of COVID-19 vaccines;
(5) suppressing speech about election integrity in the 2020 presidential election;
(6) suppressing speech about the security of voting by mail;
(7) suppressing parody content about Defendants;
(8) suppressing negative posts about the economy;
(9) suppressing negative posts about President Biden.
As mentioned before…the government cannot engage in “prior restraint.” Which is to say, they cannot stop you from saying something no matter how “imminently dangerous” they think it is.
They can come after you later perhaps.
And I don’t see how the government asking for something from a company is a problem as long as the company can ignore them.
This is a bit like saying that there should be no problem if the company CEO asks his secretary for after-hours personal favors - she can just say no.
I feel the same way, and since I’m not a legal expert I can’t say when it crosses the line into “abridging” free speech (the language in the constitution).
Again…there is a BIG difference between leaning on your secretary and leaning on a mutli-billion dollar corporation that has a platoon of attorneys and gobs of money and a media platform to beat you up with.
I’m not sure there is any difference from a legal perspective.
From a legal perspective I cannot see how asking for something is against the law.
It depends on how it’s asked. If you are implying that there will be consequences if they don’t comply, then that seems like a violation of their rights to me. If you do so publicly in order to harm their reputation, that looks like a violation as well. I’m not a lawyer, as I’ve said before, but the act of “asking” isn’t necessarily harmless.
And since a judge here is ruling that it is against the law, it seems that your statements are not completely accurate.
The that ask is extortion and against the law. Take them to court.
Which is what happened, and that led us to the actions that spurred this thread, we’ve come full circle. 
I do not think extortion was at issue in this case.
A power imbalance does not mean the person with more power cannot ask something of someone with less power. The person with power may need to be cautious about it to avoid being seen as overbearing but there is nothing inherently wrong with asking.