Really? I’d love to see the case law on that.
I’d also love to see the case law that says no limits to free speech or free press exist.
If the Government said “or else” or forced them to do it, yes. But the Administration simply requested the changes. I do not see how a simple request, even from the seat pf power can be unconstitutional.
Yes, the vaccine did stop transmission.
And yes, the unvaccinated were putting others at risk.
A study2 of covid-19 transmission within English households using data gathered in early 2021 found that even a single dose of a covid-19 vaccine reduced the likelihood of household transmission by 40-50%. This was supported by a study of household transmission among Scottish healthcare workers conducted between December 2020 and March 2021.3 Both studies analysed the impact of vaccination on transmission of the α variant of SARS-CoV-2, which was dominant at the time.
It is true that that was not the vaccines primary purpose.
No, it is not. So the various health agencies putting out advisory press releases would be unconstitutional?
Correct. Every Press conference “influences” the press.
A clearly biased judge. And when/if his ruling is overturned?
This is the nub of a rational discussion that this decision tossed in the trash.
The mob asks people to do things. They don’t say “or else.” They don’t need to. Every request carries the implicit “or else” because everybody knows that the mob has enormous powers and can hurt you, probably with impunity.
Requests from the government often come with that implicit “or else.” People who said no found themselves audited by the IRS or subject to more frequent inspections or had permits held up or grants refused or any of the million things that the modern government does.
Does the government always wield a baseball bat behind every request? That question goes to the heart of democracy. I think the answer is usually no, fortunately for us. We’re not a banana republic or an autocracy, no matter what some people say. Yelling about the First Amendment is merely emotional; it blinds rational discussion of the facts. The Judge here already did that.
Talk about weaponizing government.
Those are the illegal acts. Not the request. Otherwise every press release becomes illegal.
I never said that any request was illegal. The Judge said these are, but I said he’s wrong.
I said that requests are not ipso facto non-violational. People here have said that, and I’m saying they are also wrong.
To be explicit. There is a line after which a government “request” can violate laws or be unconstitutional. It’s not visible from here but it exists.
I’m going to take something of a contrarian or devil’s advocate position here, because I find this sort of conversation about free speech frustrating as hell. Free speech is not a controversial concept. We’re all for it. Every civilized country guarantees it. So why is it that seemingly in the US alone we’re always having these conversations about ridiculous extremes of “free speech”? It’s not about the First Amendment per se, it’s about the history and culture of how it’s been interpreted.
This not an argument I’m ever going to win with First Amendment absolutists. The reality, however, is that reasonable regulation of speech is in fact the norm in most democracies, where the protection of free speech against government censorship is highly valued but is tempered with the imperatives of responsible stewardship of the tools of mass communication and other reasonable restrictions, like the prohibition of incendiary hate speech, for example.
The dire consequences feared by First Amendment loyalists simply haven’t happened, because these are vibrant democracies, not totalitarian states. The further reality is that reliably accurate information is essential to our health and safety and to a functional democracy. Voting is a meaningless exercise if voters are persistently misinformed; it’s a democracy in name only.
Unrestrained free speech absolutism ultimately leads to a vicious circle of bad information and bad government. Indeed it devalues and eventually destroys the meaning of truth itself. If you don’t trust government to ensure that major sources of public information are factual, those sources risk becoming cesspools of misinformation, subject to the whims of self-serving ideologues, demagogues, plutocrats, and assorted lunatics. Who then proceed to do things like attack and demonize good government policies on COVID, on the environment, and on all manner of policies that right-wing lunatics don’t like.
This shitty information leads to a badly informed public who then vote in shitty governments. The shitty governments are taken as proof that governments can’t be trusted – because, like, they’re obviously so shitty – and you therefore need the protection of unrestrained free speech absolutism. Because Trump or someone like him may be elected again. Meanwhile the abyss of ignorance grows ever deeper, and truth and lies become increasingly indistinguishable. And the probability of some dangerous demagogue being elected again grows ever more likely.
So when I see a pamphlet from the CDC telling me to wash my hands before I eat, should be concerned they will come down on my hard if I fail to do so? Are they oppressing me and my freedom to be a slob?
I think dropping a line to the social media companies saying, hey here is a bunch of bad stuff we found on your site you might want to clean it up, is just helping them out.
I’m too lazy to find the roll-eyes emoji. Assume it.
I posted before I read your other replies in which you clarify that you weren’t saying that all government requests were necessarily coercive, and that in particular these were not, but that some could be even without being explicit. See for example Trump’s perfect phone call.
In that case we are in agreement.
I fail to see any resemblance at all between those two situations. When the Mafia “asks” you to do something, the implicit “or else” is clear, because the Mafia has a consistent history of carrying out threats against those who don’t do as they “request”. And they don’t make the threats explicit, because doing so would open them up to legal action.
The government, however, has no reason to leave threats implicit, because they are the law. If the government wants an “or else” with their “requests”, then they’ll make it explicit: “Turn over those documents or you’ll be arrested”. And unsurprisingly, therefore, they don’t have much of a history of acting on implied threats.
The irony here is that in this case, it’s the folks who describe themselves as being for “free speech” who want to restrict the administration’s speech.
That’s a great example, though I guarantee you that nobody in the Biden administration has ever come close to anything like that.
…of someone asking someone else to do something illegal. Taking down covid lies is not- in any way shape or form- illegal.
Not at all the point. If it was something legal, the implicit threat would have been the same.
That almost never happens. And I’m using the “almost” just because.
You honestly think the CDC tells anybody to turn over the documents or you’ll be arrested? Or the White House National Climate Advisor? Or the State Department? Or the Census Bureau Senior Advisor for Communications, Division Chief for the Communications Directorate? All of them are named in the decision.
The government doesn’t make overt threats. The entire DoJ couldn’t handle the caseload. Asking a hospital for their documents by threatening arrest even implicitly would tie them up five years in court.
The government communicates. They are on the phone or Zoom or whatever all day long. They talk. They prod. They wheedle. They mention budgets. They find the local member of Congress. The wheels turn, maybe, possibly, if very slowly. A government which acted like you think could maybe get a great deal accomplished. But the government doesn’t. We saw this in the Trump administration. Why do you think he was yelling about the Deep State all the time? He actually thought the government worked like this.
Never think like Trump. It just makes you frustrated by reality.
I’d say first they ask. They may or may not get the resolution they want. At that point they have the option to drop the matter or to issue a subpoena or an order to force compliance. Did any of those agencies ever take that second step? Because that is the point at which is concede that the government is forcing/ demanding compliance. Contacting a moderation team and pointing out TOS violations or violations of the law and asking for action? Seems pretty legit to me.
So, thugs make threats.
But the point is- the coercion was to do something illegal. So, that example is outside the point.
Show us where the CDC made threads, and what the threats were.
The article characterized the defendants as “the Biden Administration” - but the lawsuit apparently names “Biden, et al”.
So, how is that supposed to work? Can no one point out if something might be violating Twitter’s own terms of service? What kind of power did the “et al” have over Twitter at the time?
For those being concerned that the issue is that the administration implicitly threatened the social media companies, there seems to be an issue of standing. Shouldn’t the media companies be the ones to sue to government since they were the ones who were “threatened”?
The feds dropped a dime on some anti-vaxers, and the companies said “thank you very much for the heads up” and kicked them off. That communication was just between the government and the company. That it resulted in the anti-vaxers being kicked off is ancillary. If they want to complain about being kicked off they should complain to the social media company.
Two recent supreme court cases showed the conservative courts are completely willing to ignore standing. It was egregious. To the point that justice Kagan, in a dissent, called it outright unconstitutional. That seemed to piss off Roberts who pushed back.
Kagan is right.