I had to clean dog shit from my shoes today and really work at it. Does that count?
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Facebook Parent Company Meta loses record $230B in one day.
- Thread starter Zarathustra[H]
- Start date
- Status
Randall Stephens
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2017
- Messages
- 1,725
Was bagging candy for the trick or treaters last night and found a piece of dog shit on the floor. Then I realized it was a tootsie roll that had come out of the wrapper…
![Zarathustra[H]](https://cdn.hardforum.com/data/avatars/m/9/9298.jpg?1677728934){kind=avatar}
Zarathustra[H]
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2000
- Messages
- 37,427
No, none of us are in Chinese Military Intelligence, as far as I am aware.
But you never know. They are unlikely to tell you, if they are.
Maybe Chairman Kyle can fill us all in
Last edited:
Happy Hopping
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2004
- Messages
- 7,683
they do own facebook. But that doesn't give them the rights to deny Freedom of Speech, all G20 countries has the equivalent of First Amendment, that law over ride facebook "community standard"
Shoganai
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2018
- Messages
- 1,524
They literally are infringing on rights. The idea that they can do what they want no longer holds true when the government is using them to silence others they don’t agree with. It makes it a much larger issue than simply moderation. It’s getting out of hand on all big tech platforms and not caring about what’s going on doesn’t make it not an issue.
Nobu
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2007
- Messages
- 9,238
Kyle "The [H]oss" Bennet.
They don’t have to let you use it at all. You have no rights when it comes to Facebook.
UnknownSouljer
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2001
- Messages
- 8,279
Basically this.
People make this argument all the time. It's literally the businesses prerogative to. If some hotel as an example only hosts right wing fundamentalists for their balls, they are within their rights to do so. There is no "freedom of speech" arguments you could make against them. It's their right to do what they want with their property.
You either are on board with their policies or you don't use them or their platform.
KazeoHin
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2011
- Messages
- 8,892
As much as I think what Meta does is scummy: Freedom of speech is a right that only restricts government entities from restricting your speech.
If you say something to me, and I say "I don't like what you said, Don't say that or I'm not talking to you anymore" I'm not violating your freedom of speech.
This is like what Social Media networks do: "I don't like what you said, so you can't say it on our platform". You aren't being prevented from saying it anywhere else. You aren't being charged legally for what you say.
To limit what those private businesses can enforce on their platform would be direct interference with their rights and WOULD be a violation of free speech. Which seems back-assward.
You could make the argument that these platforms are so large and all-encompassing that they are more than just a "private business", and that the ability for these platforms to allow others to reach such an unprecedented number of people that their ham-fisted enforcement of their agendas is immoral and potentially history defining, but doing so would bring up some major criticisms of the free market, definitions of monopolies, and discussions on where the responsibility of enforcing change comes from.
In other words, if you're a fan of the free market, but want to limit how a business operates within it, you're not a fan of the free market. If you're a fan of free speech, but want to limit what speech a business can and cannot enforce on it's platform, you're not a fan of free speech.
Last edited:
Shoganai
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2018
- Messages
- 1,524
Yes … and since the government is now using Facebook as a means to silence others (literally demanding them to or they’d face consequences) … it is now an issue of free speech. This has gone far beyond the scope of a private entity moderating how they choose. This is becoming 1984 level nonsense.
UnknownSouljer
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2001
- Messages
- 8,279
Ehhh, yes and no. Social media in general for better or for worse has made it possible for "nobodies" to have an unprecedented ability since the beginning to broadcast their thoughts and beliefs.
In 'the before times' if you wanted to put a message out there, there were gate keepers called newspapers, magazines, owners, and editors not to mention the capital cost of mass scale printing or newsrooms with broadcasting technology, all of which would stand in your way from delivering whatever nonsense you want.
If you want to argue that 'only certain voices' get silenced and "that's how we're therefore in a 1984-like reality" I'd say that's absurd. If anything every annoying yahoo that wants to spout unverified "alternative facts" is more than capable of doing so, again at a level that is unprecedented. If anything, the 90's and before this technology existed was our 1984.
There is literally nothing preventing Trump (and Kanye West) from creating Truth social and saying on blast whatever viewpoint they want to do. Other than their own technological incompetence. Especially considering both of them could easily spend the capital to buy a few servers, some bandwidth, and a license to a BBS board.
On the other hand regulating Facebook has been done in a dumb way. Honestly all the government needs to enforce is that "the algorithm" gets destroyed and allow people to say whatever they want. Ironically doing those two things would likely kill the platform. As the algorithms purpose is designed to drive viewership. By making everyone's opinion's worthless (or equal), the equnimity would actually make people bored of the site. Kanye and Cat videos would have equal weighting.
"The algorithm" is exactly the problem. They optimize to maximize clicks and thus show you more ads. Thus they spread all kinds of crazy lies and trash because, lets face it, cat videos get boring fast and conspiracy theories get clicks. If social media worked more like [H] and everything was just organized into topics and threads and listed in chronological order we wouldn't have this problem. But no the algo promotes what ever gets the most clicks and tailors it to the user.
IMHO "the algorithm" should be treated as speech by the company. If the algo promotes lies to get more clicks and thus more ad money that's fraud (lying to get something of value) and should be charged as such. Antisocial media is literally designed to push your buttons and make you click. So yeah, I basically want to ban the algo. You can say whatever you want (unless it counts as libel, slander, defamation, fraud, etc.), but anything the company promotes should count as the company saying it and if it's to get more ad revenue it's a fraud if the post is a lie.
Liberals and conservatives are both getting sick of all the crap that gets bumped up on social media. Sooner or later they'll manage to call a truce long enough to swing the coercive power of the law hammer at it. I hope. If not we're all screwed. The current divisiveness in society is ridiculous and unsustainable. I grew up in a small town, live in Chicago at the moment, and I've been around. Not just in the US, but other countries too. I like to get out into the small towns on vacation and see the local big city. Never had a problem getting along with people wherever I go. Also kinda hard to hate on small town and country people when that's where you're from or big city people when that's where you live now. As far as I'm concerned we're not that different, meaning not different enough to justify all the political hatred and angst that's going on right now.
Shoganai
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2018
- Messages
- 1,524
No, not yes and no. Just no. Facebook is now an arm of the government. Period. This should concern you. People creating other social media platforms to spout nonsense makes them a private entity, and they can say whatever they want and that has nothing to do with free speech because they no longer classify as a government entity silencing people. They would just fall under what you were talking about before. It makes them just like this forum, where things can be moderated within the rules of the board. That has nothing to do with Facebook being used as a political weapon by the government to silence people they don't agree with. There is a stark difference between what you are talking about and government-manipulated media. And this new "misinformation" nonsense where the people declaring what is and isn't misinformation are they themselves constantly contradicting themselves and having to backtrack entirely things they've said because they were wrong ... things they permanently banned others for saying the exact same things they are backtracking on. I remember Twitter threatening to ban The American Heart Association ... THE AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION ... for posting a study linking the COVID vaccine to enlarged heart syndrome. It went against their narrative to say there might possibly be side effects from the vaccine. And they were going to silence a medical association that is probably pretty familiar with matters of the heart. It wasn't even political. They were just posting their findings. And whether you agree with what the Cheeto-In-Chief used to say, the fact that these companies can silence a sitting president should terrify you. Regardless if you think he was a complete clown or not should still worry you greatly the kind of power these companies hold. They need to be broken apart and regulated immensely. Nobody should have that kind of power. And now that the government has their hands up the backs of big tech like puppets, this is very much a matter of free speech and violating human rights. But it goes far beyond that.
The government shouldn't have this kind of power. Corporations should not have this kind of power. The power should belong to the governed, not the government. They're here to serve us. Not them. Period.
I believe people should be able to say whatever they want as long as they aren't trying to incite harm on other people. I mean on Twitter you have terrorist accounts literally constantly calling for the death of all Jews and their accounts are fine. It's completely asinine.
UnknownSouljer
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2001
- Messages
- 8,279
First all of your conjectures would have to be verifiable. There is a great irony in calling Facebook effectively an arm of the government after Zucks time in front of congress and him clearly dragging his feet on bringing about any algorithmic or policy related to removing posts. He has been sighted as being "ineffective" at removal of posts. Repeatedly. We definitely can't have it both ways.
Secondly if you're getting your news and information from social media, you deserve what's coming to you. It's 99% noise. With very few people actually saying anything remotely relevant to anyone. People paying attention to unverified sources is no one's problems. Ironically I can probably learn more about the news from Saturday Night Live than I can from Facebook. And they're both a big joke.
On basic principle we agree. I would much rather have the government take a less is more, or a much less is more approach to all form of governance, but we don't live in those times. Great irony that Republicans aren't fiscally conservative and neither are Democrats. Basically there is no one to vote for, but that's again nether here nor there for the purposes of this discussion.
The issue there is how do you define harm? Half of the things you complained about in your first paragraph was related to harm reduction that the government was trying to do. Especially trying to stop/disrupt medical misinformation. Perhaps to the point of stupidity, but the point I'm making remains the same. Who gets to decide that and how do they decide that? Because you can't make the statement you just did without a touch of irony.
Right, and that to me points to the idea that for the most part Twitter/Facebook doesn't really care what is posted. Most of the post deletion has, as you say, come at behest of the government. For the most part these platforms have been pretty ambivalent about removing of toxic posts. Again though, how are they to moderate this? Who gets to decide? Unfortunately "facts" and "truth" are politicized and we live in a "belief" society.
EDIT: Anyway, this will be my last post on this subject. Feel free to respond if you'd like. I think I've stated my opinion in a fair way without being overly political (in terms of taking a political line), but I've been temp banned for less. So, respond if you'd like, have the last word, and I'm outta here.
Last edited:
Zuck is one of the biggest offenders. Kill the algo and he loses mega billions. Can't trust Zuck. He has so much $ he can trash the US and just bail out to any other country in the world and live like a king.
These days figuring out what's really going on takes an unfortunately large amount of work. You have to check liberal and conservative news outlets and a few foreign news outlets, do some thinking and try to figure out what's really going on. In my experience the news outlets from "less interested" countries are often the best, but which one depends on the subject matter so you still have to do some thinking and check multiple sources.
We just need to stop big $ social media from pushing out whatever post makes them the most $. Facebook and other "social media" companies bump up trash to make $ so they should assume responsibility for the results. So if someone posts that you should drink drain cleaner to cure Covid, Facebook's algorithm promotes it because it gets clicks and sells ads, then someone goes and drinks Drano to sure their Covid and dies... sorry Facebook, you're liable for a wrongful death claim & maybe criminal charges.
They don't care wheat gets posted, but they care a lot about what they promote. The problem is Twitter/Facebook/etc. promoting crap for profit. Democracy requires a free market of ideas, but antisocial media is running the market and bending and twisting it to whatever makes them the most profit. All we have to do is treat "ranking algorithms" as corporate speech and nail the companies for fraud/defamation/libel/slander/etc. whenever the algo promotes a lie and the problem will mostly go away, or at least go away enough that city and country peeps can stop hating on each other and life can get back to what we called normal before the last decade or two and actually talk about politics.
Shoganai
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2018
- Messages
- 1,524
It’s not conjecture, but thanks.
https://theintercept.com/2022/10/31/social-media-disinformation-dhs/
Zarathustra[H]
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2000
- Messages
- 37,427
Lol.
You should actually try reading the first amendment some time, because it sounds to me like you have no idea what it actually says. Let me help you by quoting it below:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The first amendment protects you from Congress making any law that prohibits you from having free speech, or throwing you in prison or fining you or any other legal consequence for what you say. (it also guarantees other similar protections for religion, the press, the right to assemble and to petition government)
It does NOT guarantee that other private entities have to carry your speech if they don't want to. No such right exists. No such right has ever existed.
Other developed countris in the west have similar laws and or constitutional guarantees on their books as well. I'm not aware of any that force 3rd parties to carry the speech of anyone who wants them to, but I haven't been everywhere. This sounds like something the French would do
Zarathustra[H]
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2000
- Messages
- 37,427
What have you been smoking? Can I have some?
Facebook is no more a part of a government than any other business out there. Your local barber shop, bakery or car mechanic. It's just a hell of a lot bigger. That doesn't make it government.
I'm genuinely curious how you would evne come to such a conclusion as it has no resemblence to reality what so ever.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not the worlds #1 Zuck fan or anyhting. Facebook drives me up a wall, and their stupid unreliable algorithms have put me in FB jail my fair share of times for no apparent reason, but that doesn't change the fact that they are a private enterpise, with no government ownership what so ever, and can thus run their business as they please as long as they don't run afoul of any other government regulation.
Happy Hopping
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2004
- Messages
- 7,683
okay, I forgot the name of that federal law, but this is how it works:
when a co. becomes large enough that you have to rely on them for whatever reason, that co. CANNOT remove you from their platform, for e.g.:
at Dish Network, they ACCEPT advertising and AIR advertising of DirectV. They can use your argument said that, look we are the owner of Dish Network, we don't want to see our own competitors air on OUR network. But there is some federal law prohibit Dish to do that.
Likewise, in the old days when we use Yellow Page, they cannot deny a certain advertiser as Yellow Page dominates, and they are the only means of advertising
By the same token, ebay cannot deny you being a member as the only place to sell is ebay.
Now I forget the name of this federal law, but the above are the example. The law specify that when a certain co. dominates, federal law overrides that co. user agreement.
Back in 1996, there is a co. that map the entire human genome, and they are keeping that to themselves, as they own it, it's that co. property. Bill Clinton overrides, he said that co. has to fully disclose the mapping of the human genome, same sort of law
when a co. becomes large enough that you have to rely on them for whatever reason, that co. CANNOT remove you from their platform, for e.g.:
at Dish Network, they ACCEPT advertising and AIR advertising of DirectV. They can use your argument said that, look we are the owner of Dish Network, we don't want to see our own competitors air on OUR network. But there is some federal law prohibit Dish to do that.
Likewise, in the old days when we use Yellow Page, they cannot deny a certain advertiser as Yellow Page dominates, and they are the only means of advertising
By the same token, ebay cannot deny you being a member as the only place to sell is ebay.
Now I forget the name of this federal law, but the above are the example. The law specify that when a certain co. dominates, federal law overrides that co. user agreement.
Back in 1996, there is a co. that map the entire human genome, and they are keeping that to themselves, as they own it, it's that co. property. Bill Clinton overrides, he said that co. has to fully disclose the mapping of the human genome, same sort of law
Zarathustra[H]
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2000
- Messages
- 37,427
There are certainly some who feel this way, but as far as I am concerned Musk can do whatever he wants with that shitty company.
His free-speech absolutist approach may set him for a collision course with advertisers who essentially pay for Twitter though. it will be interesting to see how that goes. No one wants their marketing slogan next to a tweet from the KKK. That's a little bit of an over-the-top example to illustrate a point, but it does highlight advertisers concerns.
Platform censorship has traditionally not only been about these companies taking political sides. It has totally been about them protecting their advertising revenue. As with all business, the money comes first
There are also some limits to free speech, including various types of incitement to do harm, and the age old example of yelling fire in a crowded theater, which posters on twitter will also find themselves legally on the hook for if they post.
Armenius
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2014
- Messages
- 38,917
Zarathustra[H]
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2000
- Messages
- 37,427
There are specific federal laws that apply to advertisers.
There is no general law or constitutional right that automatically applies to any organization that is large enough.
One way government in the U.S. establishes this type of precedent is by classifying a business as a common carrier or public utility, but that doesn't happen automatically. Congress has to actually enact a law that says so, and thus far no one is talking about making social media either common carriers or public utilities.
We couldn't even agree on making the internet a common carrier a few years back in order to protect net neutrality.
That, and Facebook is by no means the only social network, or the only way for people to share their message.
As far as the Human Genome Project goes, it was paid for by the government through the NIH (National Institutes of Health). There have been some cases that have gone to the supreme court regarding whether or not human genes can be patented, but that was much more recent (2013) and those were decided on other grounds.
In Association For Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. the Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Thomas. The Court held that “a naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated, but that cDNA is patent eligible because it is not naturally occurring.”
Zarathustra[H]
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2000
- Messages
- 37,427
Facebook cooperating with the government, does not make Facebook a part of the government.
Just about every large corportaiton out there interfaces and cooperates with government. It would be a very fringe legal opinion that this makes them the same as government for legal and constitutional purposes.
Also, to tackle the elpehant in this article, there have always been exceptions to complete freedom of speech. The most famous example is the "Yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater" exception, and various incitement laws which have been found by the supreme court to be constitutional.
I'm not a legal expert in this or any field, but I do read a lot, and generally - I believe - it has to do with the intent to do harm and the likelihood in which it accomplishes this.
A recent example is that legal case where the teen girl with the lethal eyebrows (sorry, can't remember names, and have no desire to Google it right now) convinced her maybe boyfriend to kill himself and faced legal consequences for it.
Tackling intentional misinformation is a bold new era. but the conversation has been brought on by the massive quantities of such misinformation the social media age has brought upon us. If it can be classified along with other types of speech intended to do harm, then there is plenty of legal precedent that would support such efforts.
In other words, while speech is generally free, there are plenty of exceptions, including areas which are pretty much universally agreed upon, like the "fire in a crowded theater" example or even consequences for this misrepresenting themselves in order to commit fraud.
Pitchshifter
n00b
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2022
- Messages
- 30
The old "you can't yell fire in a crowded theater therefore you have no rights" argument. Every single time.
Armenius
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2014
- Messages
- 38,917
It does make it a First Amendment issue, though. There is judicial precedence stating that the federal government going through the private sector to suppress speech by proxy is still a violation of the First Amendment. The fact that they say they're just passing "suggestions" by tagging posts and users wouldn't pass muster. This is governmental interference in the rights of citizens, plain and simple.
Which is ironic when the case that comment was made was overturned, not to mention the fact people use the phrase while ignoring the context in which the comment was made.
https://www.theatlantic.com/nationa...g-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/
https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/...hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/
Zarathustra[H]
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2000
- Messages
- 37,427
You have never had rights to do harm
Equating a loss of all rights with the extremely narrow exceptions intended to prevent harm is a huge red herring.
GoodBoy
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2004
- Messages
- 2,649
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Let's put this another way in terms that match the time period it was written: Congress cannot write a law that abridges the freedom of speech.
It does NOT say that the print shop itself cannot refuse to print your flyers. Because the print shop CAN refuse to print your flyers, or anything else. I run the town church which has a small printshop, you come to me wanting to use the printshop to print out your 1800's porn stories. I can refuse and you can't do shit about it.
Now in 2022: It does NOT say that Facebook cannot refuse to "print" your post to the internet. It says that Congress cannot tell Facebook to NOT print your post. Facebook can decide what it does and doesn't post all day long. You can't print porn on Facebook, and they are not required to let you.
To those who point to Government regulation as a "law prohibiting speech", there are plenty of times that this has occurred, and is in fact allowed:
"[A] government regulation is sufficiently justified if it is within the constitutional power of the Government; if it furthers an important or substantial governmental interest; if the governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression; and if the incidental restriction on alleged First Amendment freedoms is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest."
That was the decision when someone burned their draft card on the court steps as a protest of the draft, and he was arrested for it, then claimed a free speech violation.
It's completely logical that there are going to be things you cannot say, and there will be laws to lay that out. Get over it.
Let's put this another way in terms that match the time period it was written: Congress cannot write a law that abridges the freedom of speech.
It does NOT say that the print shop itself cannot refuse to print your flyers. Because the print shop CAN refuse to print your flyers, or anything else. I run the town church which has a small printshop, you come to me wanting to use the printshop to print out your 1800's porn stories. I can refuse and you can't do shit about it.
Now in 2022: It does NOT say that Facebook cannot refuse to "print" your post to the internet. It says that Congress cannot tell Facebook to NOT print your post. Facebook can decide what it does and doesn't post all day long. You can't print porn on Facebook, and they are not required to let you.
To those who point to Government regulation as a "law prohibiting speech", there are plenty of times that this has occurred, and is in fact allowed:
"[A] government regulation is sufficiently justified if it is within the constitutional power of the Government; if it furthers an important or substantial governmental interest; if the governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression; and if the incidental restriction on alleged First Amendment freedoms is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest."
That was the decision when someone burned their draft card on the court steps as a protest of the draft, and he was arrested for it, then claimed a free speech violation.
It's completely logical that there are going to be things you cannot say, and there will be laws to lay that out. Get over it.
Last edited:
Zarathustra[H]
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2000
- Messages
- 37,427
A little context is relevant.
Schenk v. United States was a case during WWI brought by those seeking to avoid the draft. The ruling held - among other things - that some speech which was intended to "incite imminent and harmful action" was banned. It also had several implications for the draft.
During the Vietnam War era the ruling was partially overturned in Brandenburg v. Ohio, but only the dections relating to the draft were overturned. The rest of it, specifically the parts relating to speech causing incitement still stand to this day.
Armenius
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2014
- Messages
- 38,917
These later decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. . . . A statute which fails to draw this distinction impermissibly intrudes upon the freedoms guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. It sweeps within its condemnation speech which our Constitution has immunized from governmental control.
"Imminent" is the keyword, here, and it has to be specific. The application of imminent incitement to lawless action has strict standards outside the kangaroo courts of the congress. In other words, you certainly can yell "fire" in a crowded theater without fear of legal recourse in a criminal court. The theater could sue you in a civil court for any damages resulting from that action, however.
You were wrong on this one, let it go.
Depends on the "cooperation" and if you think there is anything voluntary when the government comes knocking at your door to kindly ask you for something or else, well...
“Platforms have got to get comfortable with gov’t. It’s really interesting how hesitant they remain,” Microsoft executive Matt Masterson, a former DHS official, texted Jen Easterly, a DHS director, in February.
Last edited:
I don't believe that includes the DHS instructing companies to ban you if you report about them murdering an innocent family with a drone strike while they are holding conferences how the target vas valid, properly identified and they did nothing like the independent reports are stating...
...until they admit it a few days later.
Or to ban you for lab leak possibility conspiracy theory...
until it is admitted as a valid possibility a few months later.
Zarathustra[H]
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2000
- Messages
- 37,427
Absolutely not.
The ruling still stands today. Rulings are rarely overtutrned in their entirety. Only a small part of the 1919 supreme court decision was overturned, and it was not the part we are talking about here.
The whole "yelling fire in a crowded theater" concept is still the law of the land and the guiding precedent the Supreme Court considers for questions like these.
In fact, the test used to determine if speech is lawful or not has even been referred to as the "Brandenburg Test", after the latter 1969 Brandenburg v. United States case that overturned portions of the original Schenck v. United States. It uses largely the same "fire in a crowded theater" concept, but isn't quite as quotable as its predecessor, which is why you don't hear it as often.
The Brandenburg Test considers three distinct aspects of the speech:
1.) The intent to speak
2.) The imminent nature of the lawlessness or harm resultant from said speech; and
3.) The likelihood of said lawlessness or harm
Do you realize how common it is for employees to go both directions, both leaving regulated industries and going to work for the government agency that regulates them, and leaving government agencies and going to work for the industry they regulate.
It is a little bit of a concern from a corruption standpoint as you have to wonder where their loyalties lie, enforcing the law, or helping the industry, but this happens all the time across almost every industry that has any interaction with regulation, which is pretty much all of them.
I work in Medical Device development, and I know several people who are ex FDA and work in the industry, and some people who I used to work with but who now work for FDA. Same thing happens with tax accountants and the IRS, oil industry and EPA, private attorneys and various attorney generals offices, you name it.
If the fact that Microsoft hired a former DHS official means that Microsoft is now part of the government, then heck, just about every business in the country is a part of the government. That clearly isn't the case.
I don't think you'll find any serious legal thinker making this argument, because it is just that absurd.
Zarathustra[H]
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2000
- Messages
- 37,427
If you care to read up on the on the subject, this law firm (which I just came across right now, and am previously unfamilliar) seems to do a pretty good job (a much better one than I - not a lawyer - ever could) in summarizing the various cases relevant to this discussion, and explains why the original "Schenck" case in 1919 is still relevant (but has been massaged a bit by later rulings)
Sawan & Sawan: When Is Incitement Not Protected Free Speech?
And yelling fire in a crowded theater doesn't automatically violate those conditions and therefore is not illegal per se. I can absolutely go in a crowded theater today and yell fire and more probable than not not siffer any legal consequences. It is NOT illegal, but it could be.
They don't have to be "part of the government" for your rights to be infringed when they operate on the instructions of said government. "Private" corporations aren't a magical buffer that absolves the government from infringing your rights.
Is it also common for them to text their (former) colleagues in the government expressing their surprise how their current private company is hesitant to government interference?
Zarathustra[H]
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2000
- Messages
- 37,427
If DHS were telling social media companies "you must take down these posts or else" you would have a point, but that is not what is going on at all.
All this "Intercept" article is exposing is that government can flag posts they are concerned about. Your mother-in-law can flag a post she is concerned about too. This does not make Facebook content moderation a wing of your mother-in-law.
It just brings it to the attention of the content moderators who then make a decision about it, independently of the government. It does not rope in the entire company under the realm of what is considered "government" for Free Speech concerns.
Has congress made a law about what constitutes acceptable speech? No.
Is government putting posters in prison or fining them? No. They might do so with the original agents that originated the misinformation if they were caught in our jurisdiction (which they never are) but facebook jail is not real jail and the government is not putting people in it, just flagging posts the think are of concern. They are doing the equivalent of a concerned citizen bringing a KKK poster on a public bulletin board to the boards owner and saying "hey, do you really want that there?" and then allowing the bulletin board owner to decide whether or not to rip it down.
And government has a right to be concerned. A good chunk of the misinformation they are pursuing starts with foreign intelligence agencies looking to do the U.S. and its interests harm in order to undermine the free world and allow them to continue their shady dictatorial power without opposition. If a Russian intelligence operation plants shocking (and made up) information, and it then starts spreading like wildfire on social media, stopping the spread of that misinformation is a legitimate interest of the government.
The originator of that information is most definitely intending to have the effect of doing harm which can fit the Brandenburg test depending on how you interpret it, and probably suggests it needs some refinement for our modern era to the Brandenburg test, as lots of stuff has changed since 1969 which may need clarification.
Well, you may think what you please, but was actually used as the example of a case which is so clear cut that no one would argue that it isn't harmful speech, in both the 1919 Schenck case, and as part of the discussion in the 1969 Brandenburg case when they tried to come up with the Brandenburg test. It assumed that it is crowded enough that people can't tell what is going on, and thus will take the indication of someone yelling fire as legitimate and start panicking for the exits.
1.) Intentional speech? Yep.
2.) Likelihood of imminently having an effect (causing a panic) Yep
3.) Likelihood of harm if said effect occurs (stampede trampling people to death, etc.) Yeah.
Yelling something about a false danger in order to create a panic that might get people hurt or killed definitely meets all three. Are you going to be charged for it if nothing happens? Probably not. But if you are a persistent dick-bag about it, and keep doing it, you might get the wrong attention. Also if there actually is a stampede, and people get hurt or killed, you bet there will be charges, if they can find out who did it.
Again, read the linked article on that law firms website I posted above. It provides a lot of clarity.
From your article:
This seems to be right up the alley of the Brandenburg test. If someone is spreading false information and encouraging people to damage something like a cellphone tower, you bet that is inciting imminent harm.
Nope. Consult a lawyer.
You're making my point. It is not illegal. It could be if-then. You were wrong and are now just adding qualifiers that people already pointed out.
- Status