White House colludes with Facebook 1st Amendment violations

[jnug]

Press Secretary admits White House working with Facebook on removing claimed misinformation which violates 1st Amendment. First it's racist policies, now government suppressing free speech.

Mike Lee: White House colluding with Facebook 'looks like First Amendment violation'

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, on “America's Newsroom” Friday slammed the White House for flagging Facebook posts, claiming it "looks like a First Amendment violation.”

www.foxnews.com

More horse shit dumbassery from the Right.
When folks insist on getting their "news" from social media they are already in trouble as they clearly do not understand that all social media does with its algorithms is push at you the stuff you keep clicking on. THAT IS NOT NEWS. That is your own biases, filtered and shoved back at you. Social media is not a news source no matter how much some Americans want it to be.

That of course opens the door for the Donald Trumps, Tucker Carlson's, Ron Johnsons and the propagandists that support their efforts with their keystrokes to just inundate the audience with bullshit.

Its really pretty simple. All you need to draw massive attention on the Internet is to be provocative. All you need to be provocative is a good wordsmith. That is an English major for God sake. That is all you need. They can pump out provocative bullshit orders of magnitude faster than it would take an expert like a virologist or an epidemiologist to actually counter that crap. The expert HAS to counter with actual science, not bullshit. That is also why the social media giant claims that the Biden administration is being "so unfair" to them is also bullshit. They know how their algorithms work.

Combine the simple fact that all you need to attract clicks and likes in the first place is to be provocative with those algorithms and you have a ready made platform designed to misinform and that is the Biden administration's complaint. All they are asking the social media giants to do is not cut their algorithms loose on that provocative COVID vaccine crap. Nobody is really asking them to stop users from posting what they want to post as long as it is not inherently hateful or violent. They are being asking to stop feeding it to a willing and frankly dumb as a rock audience.

As for what to do about the Faux entertainers like Tucker and the rest of them pumping out straw man arguments claiming that the government'e efforts to get people to get vaccinated are the equivalent of FORCING people to get vaccinated, I don't have an answer for that one. The government is not doing anything more than an ad executive would do. Have we suddenly decided to be so SOCIALISTIC that we want to string up ad execs now. Sort of an odd position for Faux News to put itself in.

 

[danielpalos]

An Infotainment category should be a fixed Standard enacted by Congress.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Supreme Court case: MANHATTAN COMMUNITY ACCESS CORP v. HALLECK

Under this Court’s cases, a private entity can qualify as a state actor in a few limited circumstances— including, for example, (i) when the private entity performs a traditional, exclusive public function, see, e.g., Jackson, 419 U. S., at 352–354; (ii) when the government compels the private entity to take a particular action, see, e.g., Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U. S. 991, 1004–1005 (1982); or (iii) when the government acts jointly with the private entity, see, e.g., Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U. S. 922, 941–942 (1982).

Private entity being Facebook working with the White House in flagging and removing posts related to Covid-19.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-1702_h315.pdf

I hate to tell you this, but "the White House" and "the Government" are NOT the same thing (no matter how much Mr. Trump wanted them to be).

You might also want to note

"The relevant function in this case—operation of public access channels on a cable system—has not traditionally and exclusively been performed by government."

"Providing some kind of forum for speech is not an activity that only governmental entities have traditionally performed. Therefore, a private entity who provides a forum for speech is not transformed by that fact alone into a state actor. "

"But the City’s designation is analogous to a government license, a government contract, or a government-granted monopoly, none of which converts a private entity into a state actor—unless the private entity is performing a traditional, exclusive public function. See, e.g., San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. United States Olympic Comm., 483 U. S. 522, 543–544. And the fact that MNN is subject to the State’s extensive regulation “does not by itself convert its action into that of the State.” Jackson, 419 U. S., at 350. Pp. 11–14."

"The producers alternatively contend that the public access channels are actually the City’s property and that MNN is essentially managing government property on the City’s behalf. But the City does not own or lease the public access channels and does not possess any formal easement or other property interest in the channels. It
does not matter that a provision in the franchise agreements between the City and Time Warner allowed the City to designate a private entity to operate the public access channels on Time Warner’s cable system. Nothing in the agreements suggests that the City possesses any property interest in the cable system or in the public access channels on that system. "

(emphasis added)​

All from the case you cite as supporting your position, but, which, in fact, refutes it.

Might I suggest that it is always better to actually read your citations than it is to rely on what someone else says they were told that someone heard they were supposed to mean.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Interesting statements from Psaki.

​

The White House wants Facebook to act quicker in removing posts containing vaccine misinformation.​

​

White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Facebook takes too long to remove "violative posts" during a press briefing. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy said during the briefing that misinformation is slowing the pace of vaccinations in the US.​

​

"Facebook needs to move more quickly to remove violative posts," Psaki said. "Posts that will be within their policies' removal often remain up for days. That's too long. The information spreads too quickly."​

The White House isn't letting Facebook off the hook for allowing misinformation to spread on its platforms

​

Does this not appear to be demands for censorship from the federal government to a private company?
Is this not the definition of when the private company becomes a 'state actor'?

No it does NOT "appear to be demands for censorship from the federal government to a private company". What it does appear to be (because that is what it is) is a statement from a "press secretary" (which is neither an elected nor a cabinet position) that a private company is not acting in accord with the methods that the private company says it is acting in accord with.

You might not have noticed it, but Ms. Psaki did NOT specify any particular types of Facebook posts which would "be within their policies' (for) removal" Facebook should be acting more expeditiously on and those posts could just as easily be "pro-Biden" as they could be "pro-Trump".

You might be interested in reading

How do I mark a Facebook post as false news?​

and if you will do you will find that ANYONE can report false statements to Facebook and, once reported, Facebook's internal management process deals with the reports. I would suspect that the more reports that a particular post receives the faster Facebook's internal management process deals with the reports.

And, no, that is NOT the definition of when the private company becomes a 'state actor'.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

Let me fix that sentence for you.

Private entity being Facebook working with the White House in flagging and removing LIES related to Covid-19.

During a national health emergency, I would want/expect my government to look out for the well being of it's citizens. If going after lies and miss-information to achieve that goal is what they have to do, good for them.

That would just be the start. Anytime the Biden Administration deems posts to be detrimental to its policies would continue to collude with social media to violate free speech by the government.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

I hate to tell you this, but "the White House" and "the Government" are NOT the same thing (no matter how much Mr. Trump wanted them to be).

The White House is part of the Executive branch of the government, is it not? Basic Civics 101.

All from the case you cite as supporting your position, but, which, in fact, refutes it.

Might I suggest that it is always better to actually read your citations than it is to rely on what someone else says they were told that someone heard they were supposed to mean

Even though you totally ignored section (iii)...When the government acts jointly with the private entity...which you did nothing to refute.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

Press Secretary admits White House working with Facebook on removing claimed misinformation which violates 1st Amendment. First it's racist policies, now government suppressing free speech.

Mike Lee: White House colluding with Facebook 'looks like First Amendment violation'

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, on “America's Newsroom” Friday slammed the White House for flagging Facebook posts, claiming it "looks like a First Amendment violation.”

www.foxnews.com

Incorrect.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

If Joe suggested I do his bidding I would just go ahead and do it before he challenged me to a push up contest , or worse .
He is one tough dude !
View attachment 67343197

Why the racist meme? What does it have to do with push ups or your argument, such as it is?

 

[Linuxcooldude]

No it does NOT "appear to be demands for censorship from the federal government to a private company". What it does appear to be (because that is what it is) is a statement from a "press secretary" (which is neither an elected nor a cabinet position) that a private company is not acting in accord with the methods that the private company says it is acting in accord with.

You might not have noticed it, but Ms. Psaki did NOT specify any particular types of Facebook posts which would "be within their policies' (for) removal" Facebook should be acting more expeditiously on and those posts could just as easily be "pro-Biden" as they could be "pro-Trump".

You might be interested in reading

How do I mark a Facebook post as false news?​

and if you will do you will find that ANYONE can report false statements to Facebook and, once reported, Facebook's internal management process deals with the reports. I would suspect that the more reports that a particular post receives the faster Facebook's internal management process deals with the reports.

And, no, that is NOT the definition of when the private company becomes a 'state actor'.

And if that "anyone" includes the government, thats a violation of freedom of speech. The 1st Amendment prevents the government from suppressing free speech, even on a privately owned social networking platform. The government must remain neutral.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

Incorrect.

Do you have anything other than...nuhuh? Why is it incorrect.

 

[danielpalos]

And if that "anyone" includes the government, thats a violation of freedom of speech. The 1st Amendment prevents the government from suppressing free speech, even on a privately owned social networking platform. The government must remain neutral.

Right-Wingers are the worst offenders. There should be laws regarding, Perjury against the People.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

The White House is part of the Executive branch of the government, is it not? Basic Civics 101.



Even though you totally ignored section (iii)...When the government acts jointly with the private entity...which you did nothing to refute.

Did you know that "is a part of" and "is" do not mean the same thing?

"Your arm 'is a part of' you." is a true statement, but "Your are 'is' you." is NOT a true statement.

I didn't bother because that was a reference to a case where the private individual was "acting under colour of law" which is the exact reverse of the situation which you say exists. In order for Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co. to be relevant to the situation which you say exists, "Facebook" would have to be relying on some "US law" to "deprive" Mr. Trump of some "property" in violation of some "constitutional right".

Once again, I urge you to actually read your citations rather than relying on what someone else says they were told that someone heard they were supposed to mean.

PS - It is extremely bad practice to cherry pick 9 words out of a 13,125 word judgment and claim that they actually represent the judgment (especially if you haven't actually read the judgment).

PPS - It also doesn't help if the case you cite resulted in a loss for the party using what you cite as proof.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

And if that "anyone" includes the government, thats a violation of freedom of speech. The 1st Amendment prevents the government from suppressing free speech, even on a privately owned social networking platform. The government must remain neutral.

The actual words of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America are

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.
(emphasis added)​

That amendment does not say

Neither the government nor anyone associated with it shall ever point out to anyone that something violates the rules.​

PS - Stop flailing, you only sink into the quicksand faster.

 

[RealityNow]

Good Works to Protect The Nation and Its People....

 

[Linuxcooldude]

Did you know that "is a part of" and "is" do not mean the same thing?

"Your arm 'is a part of' you." is a true statement, but "Your are 'is' you." is NOT a true statement.

I didn't bother because that was a reference to a case where the private individual was "acting under colour of law" which is the exact reverse of the situation which you say exists. In order for Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co. to be relevant to the situation which you say exists, "Facebook" would have to be relying on some "US law" to "deprive" Mr. Trump of some "property" in violation of some "constitutional right".

Once again, I urge you to actually read your citations rather than relying on what someone else says they were told that someone heard they were supposed to mean.

PS - It is extremely bad practice to cherry pick 9 words out of a 13,125 word judgment and claim that they actually represent the judgment (especially if you haven't actually read the judgment).

PPS - It also doesn't help if the case you cite resulted in a loss for the party using what you cite as proof.

Now your being daft and being totally disengenious on the White House being the government.

Its not cherry picking when it breaks down three reasons why a private entity can be considered a "State Actor". Section iii being one of them. And notice, you don't have to violate all three. Just one section is enough to be considered as a state actor.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

The actual words of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America are

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.
(emphasis added)​

That amendment does not say

Neither the government nor anyone associated with it shall ever point out to anyone that something violates the rules.​

PS - Stop flailing, you only sink into the quicksand faster.

Facebook, now being a state actor, is considered to be acting on behalf of the federal government violating free speech.

 

[RealityNow]

Facebook, now being a state actor, is considered to be acting on behalf of the federal government violating free speech.

You might want to learn more about "what free speech is" and "what it is not" - Try starting with the word "Responsible'

 

[danielpalos]

Facebook, now being a state actor, is considered to be acting on behalf of the federal government violating free speech.

I agree to disagree. They are following the procedures already promulgated by that private sector firm. Just another "user" flagging "false" content.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Now your being daft and being totally disengenious on the White House being the government.

Its not cherry picking when it breaks down three reasons why a private entity can be considered a "State Actor". Section iii being one of them. And notice, you don't have to violate all three. Just one section is enough to be considered as a state actor.

Why don't you try actually reading the cases that you cite. After all, I was kind enough to provide links to the ones that you didn't provide links to.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Facebook, now being a state actor, is considered to be acting on behalf of the federal government violating free speech.

[1] Facebook is not, under the actual definitions of what is required to be a "state actor" a "state actor".

[2] Show me the law that Congress has passed (as is required by the First Amendment) that restricts the "freedom of speech".

 

[Eatomus]

Why the racist meme? What does it have to do with push ups or your argument, such as it is?

Maybe President Biden needs to talk down to people who do not look like he does and maybe are not as " clean & articulate " as he is ?
But so what even if they are , That could still help change hearts & minds , right ?

 

[Linuxcooldude]

Why don't you try actually reading the cases that you cite. After all, I was kind enough to provide links to the ones that you didn't provide links to.

I already did provide a link, perhaps you should more carefully "read" my posts.

 

[vegas giants]

Facebook, now being a state actor, is considered to be acting on behalf of the federal government violating free speech.

Facebook is not a state actor and never has been

 

[Linuxcooldude]

[1] Facebook is not, under the actual definitions of what is required to be a "state actor" a "state actor".

[2] Show me the law that Congress has passed (as is required by the First Amendment) that restricts the "freedom of speech".

1. Already did, as I cited a Supreme Court case that defines state actors in regards to private entities.

2. The government does not necessarily have to just pass laws to violate freedom of speech. Actions themselves by the government can violate freedom of speech.

 

[vegas giants]

1. Already did, as I cited a Supreme Court case that defines state actors in regards to private entities.

2. The government does not necessarily have to just pass laws to violate freedom of speech. Actions themselves by the government can violate freedom of speech.

Then what stops the gop from filing a case to stop this?