One point I didn't go into in the post is that if the administration and the people running the social media are ideological allies, no threats are needed. I was reminded of an old poem by Humbert Wolfe:
The true answer is of course to get the government out of almost everything it sticks its nose into today.
But absent some miracle, mandate that any actions taken by the government against any person or organization must include all communications between the two in the prior 5 years. "Mandate" is working some magic there, but at the very least, it would have to be included in all the evidence the jury sees, and if it's a bench trial, should also include forcing the judge to address all such communications with something more credible than a hand wave.
“The Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits in establishing that the Government has used its power to silence the opposition. Opposition to COVID-19 vaccines; opposition to COVID-19 masking and lockdowns; opposition to the lab-leak theory of COVID-19; opposition to the validity of the 2020 election; opposition to President Biden’s policies; statements that the Hunter Biden laptop story was true; and opposition to policies of the government officials in power. All were suppressed.”
Noticeably missing from this list is the current toxicity over climate; through the leverage of funding, lawfare, and a friendly (but clueless) media, scientists who question the government’s drive to convince us all that climate catastrophe is just around the corner are shunned, silenced, or, at the worst, suspended. The Murthy v. Missouri case is specifically about speech, but indirectly touches on the power of the “bully pulpit” of the White House and its minions. Those who treasure the climate change scam should be reminded daily about the privilege that the First Amendment protects.
Many people argue that the Bill of Rights “grants” certain rights. It does not. Robert Jackson argued that “the very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” Logically, then, the outcome of an election should not grant the winner the right to suppress those privileges.
...Fauci is entitled to claim that the lab leak theory is ruled out by the relevant science...
I have to disagree with the entire paragraph this line was taken from. Fauci, and other administration officials are in positions of trust. Lying by my brother is simply lying. Lying by someone in a position of power and trust is fraud. Claiming the Hunter laptop is Russian disinformation was fraudulent.
The President has already much reason to fear Facebook. But only if the President is a Republican.
As for publicity, I think most of the materials - except ones where the government can claim law enforcement or national security privileges - should be disclosable under FOIA? Organizations like Judicial Watch fight valiantly to obtain such documents, but usually it takes many years to sort through the layers of bureaucracy and the court system and by the time the materials are available the public already forgot what it all was about. Which I guess is kinda the point of the whole exercise.
“ I propose that any communication between any government actor in a position to make threats — the local post office worker doesn’t qualify — and any employee of a social media firm in a position to affects its policy should be public information, available in a searchable database online.”
One point I didn't go into in the post is that if the administration and the people running the social media are ideological allies, no threats are needed. I was reminded of an old poem by Humbert Wolfe:
You cannot hope
to bribe or twist,
thank God! the
British journalist.
But, seeing what
the man will do
unbribed, there's
no occasion to.
The true answer is of course to get the government out of almost everything it sticks its nose into today.
But absent some miracle, mandate that any actions taken by the government against any person or organization must include all communications between the two in the prior 5 years. "Mandate" is working some magic there, but at the very least, it would have to be included in all the evidence the jury sees, and if it's a bench trial, should also include forcing the judge to address all such communications with something more credible than a hand wave.
But that still would be easy to get around.
“The Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits in establishing that the Government has used its power to silence the opposition. Opposition to COVID-19 vaccines; opposition to COVID-19 masking and lockdowns; opposition to the lab-leak theory of COVID-19; opposition to the validity of the 2020 election; opposition to President Biden’s policies; statements that the Hunter Biden laptop story was true; and opposition to policies of the government officials in power. All were suppressed.”
Noticeably missing from this list is the current toxicity over climate; through the leverage of funding, lawfare, and a friendly (but clueless) media, scientists who question the government’s drive to convince us all that climate catastrophe is just around the corner are shunned, silenced, or, at the worst, suspended. The Murthy v. Missouri case is specifically about speech, but indirectly touches on the power of the “bully pulpit” of the White House and its minions. Those who treasure the climate change scam should be reminded daily about the privilege that the First Amendment protects.
Many people argue that the Bill of Rights “grants” certain rights. It does not. Robert Jackson argued that “the very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” Logically, then, the outcome of an election should not grant the winner the right to suppress those privileges.
Second amendment?
...Fauci is entitled to claim that the lab leak theory is ruled out by the relevant science...
I have to disagree with the entire paragraph this line was taken from. Fauci, and other administration officials are in positions of trust. Lying by my brother is simply lying. Lying by someone in a position of power and trust is fraud. Claiming the Hunter laptop is Russian disinformation was fraudulent.
The President has already much reason to fear Facebook. But only if the President is a Republican.
As for publicity, I think most of the materials - except ones where the government can claim law enforcement or national security privileges - should be disclosable under FOIA? Organizations like Judicial Watch fight valiantly to obtain such documents, but usually it takes many years to sort through the layers of bureaucracy and the court system and by the time the materials are available the public already forgot what it all was about. Which I guess is kinda the point of the whole exercise.
“ I propose that any communication between any government actor in a position to make threats — the local post office worker doesn’t qualify — and any employee of a social media firm in a position to affects its policy should be public information, available in a searchable database online.”
Great minds think alike: https://www.cato.org/briefing-paper/shining-light-censorship-how-transparency-can-curtail-government-social-media
I'll just share this https://www.techdirt.com/2023/07/06/the-good-the-bad-and-the-incredibly-ugly-in-the-court-ruling-regarding-government-contacts-with-social-media/ so people may, if they want, get a view on how shoddy Judge Doughty's ruling was.
Particularly about the "laptop" -- did the Biden administration go back in time to suppress it, before the administration even existed :)
We can put anti trust as far from politicians as the ECB council or the US Supreme Court.
Or even more!
For example, we can make an Anti Trust council chosen by lot from a list experts; they sit in council for 15 years.
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/PyqPr4z76Z8xGZL22/sortition