Free speech or yelling fire in a crowded theater?

[WisconIndependent]

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4741030-alito-white-house-social-media-dissent/

Justice Alito complains that the Biden administration is silencing free speech concerning the court's decision to rule that the plaintiffs did not have standing in the administration's attemtp to keep false health information off the internet. Several red states brought the suite wanting to end the administration's efforts to keep such info off the internet. I guess it comes down to seeing such false information as free speech or as yelling fire in a crowded theater as it could and probably has led to deaths of those who believed the false information. You tell me what you think it is and why?

 

[SCrider]

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4741030-alito-white-house-social-media-dissent/

Justice Alito complains that the Biden administration is silencing free speech concerning the court's decision to rule that the plaintiffs did not have standing in the administration's attemtp to keep false health information off the internet. Several red states brought the suite wanting to end the administration's efforts to keep such info off the internet. I guess it comes down to seeing such false information as free speech or as yelling fire in a crowded theater as it could and probably has led to deaths of those who believed the false information. You tell me what you think it is and why?

Why is the right in favor of false information? Oh yeah, their beliefs are mostly lies.

 

[ttwtt78640]

The federal government shouldn’t be able to establish a ministry of truth to help censor internet content.

 

[mrjurrs]

The federal government shouldn’t be able to establish a ministry of truth to help censor internet content.

Then you should be willing to allow these companies to simply follow their 'terms and conditions' right?

How can you possibly feel that the purposeful dissemination of false information is what the framers had in mind when they determined free speech was critical to our country?

 

[Integrityrespec]

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4741030-alito-white-house-social-media-dissent/

Justice Alito complains that the Biden administration is silencing free speech concerning the court's decision to rule that the plaintiffs did not have standing in the administration's attemtp to keep false health information off the internet. Several red states brought the suite wanting to end the administration's efforts to keep such info off the internet. I guess it comes down to seeing such false information as free speech or as yelling fire in a crowded theater as it could and probably has led to deaths of those who believed the false information. You tell me what you think it is and why?

Except don't we now know that a lot of the "speech" that was blocked on twitter was not false? While I haven't read the courts briefs, I have a feeling those plaintiffs must surely have cited some examples.

 

[phoenix2020]

The federal government shouldn’t be able to establish a ministry of truth to help censor internet content.

I agree. Furthermore, in the long run we only have to gain by MAGA posting false health information. After all, doing so will lead to the horrific, painful death of MAGAs who subsequently will be replaced by hard-working, more patriotic immigrants with a stronger moral compass. This will lead to a net positive for the nation.

Therefore the Biden Admin should not stand between MAGA telling each other all sorts of wack conspiracy theories.

 

[The AntiDonald]

The federal government shouldn’t be able to establish a ministry of truth to help censor internet content.

I disagree when it's a matter of life and death. Covid was a national emergency. People were hearing that they should inject disinfectants and stay away from a potentially lifesaving vaccine and take certain drugs that were not tested for Covid. Those are lies.

Regardless of your political lean, the administrations job is to protect the people from harm. If you think the president doesn't have a right to protect American citizens, take it to court. Oh, that's right, someone already did and lost.

 

[daeler]

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4741030-alito-white-house-social-media-dissent/

Justice Alito complains that the Biden administration is silencing free speech concerning the court's decision to rule that the plaintiffs did not have standing in the administration's attemtp to keep false health information off the internet. Several red states brought the suite wanting to end the administration's efforts to keep such info off the internet. I guess it comes down to seeing such false information as free speech or as yelling fire in a crowded theater as it could and probably has led to deaths of those who believed the false information. You tell me what you think it is and why?

Free speech,

The government can put out information that combats the disinformation, they can put out safety warnings, but they can't censor information.

 

[Mungo Jerry]

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4741030-alito-white-house-social-media-dissent/

Justice Alito complains that the Biden administration is silencing free speech concerning the court's decision to rule that the plaintiffs did not have standing in the administration's attemtp to keep false health information off the internet. Several red states brought the suite wanting to end the administration's efforts to keep such info off the internet. I guess it comes down to seeing such false information as free speech or as yelling fire in a crowded theater as it could and probably has led to deaths of those who believed the false information. You tell me what you think it is and why?

Falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater: Clear, present, and immediate threat
Posting false medical information on the internet: Not a clear, present, and immediate threat.
Apples / giraffes.

 

[The AntiDonald]

Free speech,

The government can put out information that combats the disinformation, they can put out safety warnings, but they can't censor information.

They didn't censor anything. They ASKED the tech companies to do it. The tech companies didn't have to do it. They did it voluntarily which is their right.

When the vaccine deniers finally realize this, they will better understand the SC decision.

 

[daeler]

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4741030-alito-white-house-social-media-dissent/

Justice Alito complains that the Biden administration is silencing free speech concerning the court's decision to rule that the plaintiffs did not have standing in the administration's attemtp to keep false health information off the internet. Several red states brought the suite wanting to end the administration's efforts to keep such info off the internet. I guess it comes down to seeing such false information as free speech or as yelling fire in a crowded theater as it could and probably has led to deaths of those who believed the false information. You tell me what you think it is and why?

There is also a difference in censoring information and pointing out violations of TOS.

 

[daeler]

They didn't censor anything. They ASKED the tech companies to do it. The tech companies didn't have to do it. They did it voluntarily which is their right.

When the vaccine deniers finally realize this, they will better understand the SC decision.

I went specifically by what the OP said not by the case.

 

[Buckeyes85]

Except don't we now know that a lot of the "speech" that was blocked on twitter was not false? While I haven't read the courts briefs, I have a feeling those plaintiffs must surely have cited some examples.

Cited some examples of what?
To have standing, plaintiffs must demonstrate that the restriction caused "injury in fact" to them, or infringed upon their rights. I don't have standing to challenge a local ordinance requiring you to take down an offensive sign in your yard. I suspect that's what these plaintiffs were doing.

 

[The AntiDonald]

Falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater: Clear, present, and immediate threat
Posting false medical information on the internet: Not a clear, present, and immediate threat.
Apples / giraffes.

I would say worse than yelling fire in a crowded theater. In a theater, you have a potential of harming a few hundred people.

Telling people that a lifesaving vaccine is dangerous has the potential of harming millions of people. We've seen the statistics on how the vaxxed and the unvaxxed faired the pandemic.

 

[Mungo Jerry]

I would say worse than yelling fire in a crowded theater. In a theater, you have a potential of harming a few hundred people.

In a theater, the threat is immediate, the reaction is immediate; the immediate reaction to the threat is for everyone to run for the exits.
These reactions are far different threat to the safety of those in the theater than misinformation posted on the internet.
Thus: Apples / giraffes

 

[The AntiDonald]

In a theater, the threat is immediate, the reaction is immediate; the immediate reaction to the threat is for everyone to run for the exits.
These reactions are far different threat to the safety of those in the theater than misinformation posted on the internet.
Thus: Apples / giraffes

You just repeated yourself. Anything new?

 

[Mungo Jerry]

You just repeated yourself.

Because your response - the internet reaches more people - indicated you did not understand the argument.
Thus, I elucidated.
Clear, present, and immediate threat.
Yelling fire in a theater will send you and everyone else running to the door now.
Misinformation on the internet will not.

 

[The AntiDonald]

Because your response - the internet reaches more people - indicated you did not understand the argument.
Thus, I elucidated.
Clear, present, and immediate threat.
Yelling fire in a theater will send you running to the door now.
Misinformation on the internet will not.

I don't know about that. The poison control hotline lit up after Trump's presser suggested people inject disinfectant. I don't know how many people actually suffered harm from those comments, but it was more than a few.

You may very well be far more intelligent than the average Twitter user who gets all their news that way. But many people are not so smart.

 

[Mungo Jerry]

I don't know about that.

Yes you do.

 

[MAGAnificent]

Then you should be willing to allow these companies to simply follow their 'terms and conditions' right?

How can you possibly feel that the purposeful dissemination of false information is what the framers had in mind when they determined free speech was critical to our country?

Bunk. Social Media could have simply posted disclaimers noting that posts were the words and opinions of the users. Censorship is not the answer and the government or social media boards are not always correct or intllectually honest. One example prior to Musk taking over Twitter was stories about Hunter Biden's laptop were censored as disinformation, and the stories ultimately turned out to be true. nd on the Covid front, I am as against disinformation as anbody else, however to accurate stories about vaccine side effects were censored as disinformation.

 

[Lutherf]

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4741030-alito-white-house-social-media-dissent/

Justice Alito complains that the Biden administration is silencing free speech concerning the court's decision to rule that the plaintiffs did not have standing in the administration's attemtp to keep false health information off the internet. Several red states brought the suite wanting to end the administration's efforts to keep such info off the internet. I guess it comes down to seeing such false information as free speech or as yelling fire in a crowded theater as it could and probably has led to deaths of those who believed the false information. You tell me what you think it is and why?

Alito was correct. Free speech means just that and unless there is some kind of imminent threat created by the speech or REASONABLY expected due to the speech then it should not be restricted by the government.

In this case there was ample evidence that the government was putting significant pressure on social media platforms to limit speech that the government alone sought to limit. Ironically, some of the information that the government was putting out turned out to be less than 100% accurate as well and THAT is the problem with controlling speech.

Most importantly, the majority decision in this case was that states and individuals don't have standing to address concerns over government abuse of Constitutionally protected rights. That's a HUGE problem and, frankly, flies straight in the face if the First Amendment. The court, when addressing rights held by the people and restricted to the government should ALWAYS afford the people a hearing.

 

[trouble13]

The federal government shouldn’t be able to establish a ministry of truth to help censor internet content.

I'm with you on that but does that mean they are not allowed to make the private sector aware of information they believe is false or maybe even true depending on the circumstances. I find myself on the fence about where to draw the line.

What I did not like about the rul8ng is that it decided nothing. They dismissed it based on standing. They have set a near impossible standard to be met so in practice terms they will never have to answer the question of where the line is between the gov and the private sector.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I disagree when it's a matter of life and death. Covid was a national emergency. People were hearing that they should inject disinfectants and stay away from a potentially lifesaving vaccine and take certain drugs that were not tested for Covid. Those are lies.

Regardless of your political lean, the administrations job is to protect the people from harm. If you think the president doesn't have a right to protect American citizens, take it to court. Oh, that's right, someone already did and lost.

OK, but that censorship was also used to pretend that Hunter Biden’s laptop content wasn’t real and that COVID-19 had absolutely no connection to the US funded gain of function research in China.

 

[Buckeyes85]

I'm with you on that but does that mean they are not allowed to make the private sector aware of information they believe is false or maybe even true depending on the circumstances. I find myself on the fence about where to draw the line.

What I did not like about the rul8ng is that it decided nothing. They dismissed it based on standing. They have set a near impossible standard to be met so in practice terms they will never have to answer the question of where the line is between the gov and the private sector.

Your last point suggests dismissing a case on standing is a triviality. It is far from that. Our legal system and particularly that of the higher courts cannot and should not be bogged down addressing claims that do not directly involve the person or persons asserting them.

The question of where the line is between the government and the private sector lies can be addressed when one of the companies supposedly affected by these regulations challenges it. The court correctly refused to take up a case that was brought for purely political reasons rather than to address a legitimate constitutional issue.

 

[The AntiDonald]

OK, but that censorship was also used to pretend that Hunter Biden’s laptop content wasn’t real and that COVID-19 had absolutely no connection to the US funded gain of function research in China.

As you guys like to say, the court has spoken. Take it up with them.