• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judge bars Biden administration from working with social media companies on 'protected speech'

Funny - government intervention should not be used to quell misinformation (and I understand that) but if a POTUS lies about the election while still in office in an attempt to destroy democracy; it's OK?
 
Credence said:
Funny - government intervention should not be used to quell misinformation (and I understand that) but if a POTUS lies about the election while still in office .............
Click to expand...
Well, this ruling would also theoretically prevent a Trump administration from pressuring social media companies to take down "misinformation" about him losing the election.
 
Nomad4Ever said:
Only in the most general sense.

Can you just say what you are getting at plainly without playing 20 questions?
Click to expand...

The injunction covers every employee of the DOJ. Can NONE of them report a tweet or post now?
 
BlueTex said:
The injunction covers every employee of the DOJ. Can NONE of them report a tweet or post now?
Click to expand...
I am not sure, but I could see how it could be interpreted that way. As part of the military I have tons of restrictions on my speech. I don't have an issue with elements of speech being highly restricted/scrutinized for government officials.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
I have no idea, but likely a lot. Of course, only a few will likely be impacted.
Click to expand...
So you haven't actually read the injunction?

Let me help...

Screenshot 2023-07-06 at 8.44.23 AM.png

Based on your legal knowledge, wouldn't that include EVERY employee of of the Department of Homeland Security?
 
Nomad4Ever said:
I am not sure, but I could see how it could be interpreted that way. As part of the military I have tons of restrictions on my speech. I don't have an issue with elements of speech being highly restricted/scrutinized for government officials.
Click to expand...
Interpreted that way? It's plain writing in the actual injunction?

Screenshot 2023-07-06 at 8.47.58 AM.png

Shine starting to come off? Still think the judge is on sound legal grounds?
 
BlueTex said:
Interpreted that way? It's plain writing in the actual injunction?

View attachment 67455362

Shine starting to come off? Still think the judge is on sound legal grounds?
Click to expand...
As I said directly in the post you just replied to, I don't take issue with the speech of government employees being held to different standards than the public. I think this is fine.
 
Nomad4Ever said:
As I said directly in the post you just replied to, I don't take issue with the speech of government employees being held to different standards than the public. I think this is fine.
Click to expand...

LOL... Yeah, that's not how any of this works... Nice try though...
 
BlueTex said:
So you haven't actually read the injunction?

Let me help...

View attachment 67455361

Based on your legal knowledge, who that include EVERY employee of of the Department of Homeland Security?
Click to expand...

Yep, yet obviously not EVERY employee was engaged in trying to get other user’s social media content removed.

I currently have a major problem with Facebook. My (rarely used by me) account has been ‘taken over’ by someone else. To make matters worse, they changed the language to Vietnamese (I think) rendering it impossible for me to use my own account to report the problem. It appears that the only way to contact Facebook (to report problems with the account) is via ones Facebook account.

 
Last edited:
BlueTex said:
LOL... Yeah, that's not how any of this works... Nice try though...
Click to expand...
Why don't you just explain to me how it works then?

I just don't understand why you approached this conversation with snarky questions and constantly berating me. I don't know the specifics of law. If this is legally unsound in some way I am more than open to hearing why (if only you would tell me), but you treating me like I'm some kind of idiot for not knowing it getting tiresome.

I'm not TRYING anything, except to have an actual conversation with you. I was trying to have a conversation with you because you seem to know something about this ruling. If you aren't interested in discussing the pro/cons or specifics of the legality of this ruling then I'm done here.
 
If the relationship between the Progressives in the media and the Progressives in our government is as innocuous as they claim, this ruling will not have any effect on it.


How the reaction by this administration's reaction along with the reaction of the media implies that maybe it's not as innocuous as they would like us to believe.

Biden is appealing the ruling. The media is condemning it. Why?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Yep, yet obviously not EVERY employee was engaged in trying to get other user’s social media content removed.

I currently have a major problem with Facebook. My (rarely used by me) account has been ‘taken over’ by someone else. To make matters worse, they changed the language to Vietnamese (I think) rendering it impossible for me to use my own account to report the problem. It appears that the only way to contact Facebook (to report problems with the account) is via ones Facebook account.

Click to expand...


The injunction applies to EVERY employee and prohibits them from reporting any content. Do you think that might be viewed as a bit broad? Just to recap that is EVERY employee of DHS, DOJ, CISA, CDC, Census Bureau, Health and Human Services, NIAID, FBI and the State Department... That's a couple of hundred thousand employees at least....
 
trouble13 said:
If the relationship between the Progressives in the media and the Progressives in our government is as innocuous as they claim, this ruling will not have any effect on it.


How the reaction by this administration's reaction along with the reaction of the media implies that maybe it's not as innocuous as they would like us to believe.

Biden is appealing the ruling. The media is condemning it. Why?
Click to expand...

So you haven't actually read the injunction either? The injunction is a joke and the judge should be embarrassed to have even put his name on it...
 
BlueTex said:
The injunction applies to EVERY employee and prohibits them from reporting any content. Do you think that might be viewed as a bit broad? Just to recap that is EVERY employee of DHS, DOJ, CISA, CDC, Census Bureau, Health and Human Services, NIAID, FBI and the State Department... That's a couple of hundred thousand employees at least....
Click to expand...

Yep, yet the ongoing interference by employees of those agencies was deemed “a bit broad”. Did you expect the judge to issue (individual?) injunctions for specifically named government employees?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Yep, yet the ongoing interference by employees of those agencies was deemed “a bit broad”. Did you expect the judge to issue (individual?) injunctions for specifically named government employees?
Click to expand...

Let's say Sally, a secretary at the Census Bureau reports a facebook post critical of her brand of knitting needles. Has she violated this injunction?

Screenshot 2023-07-06 at 9.33.50 AM.png
 
BlueTex said:
Let's say Sally, a secretary at the Census Bureau reports a facebook post critical of her brand of knitting needles. Has she violated this injunction?

View attachment 67455366
Click to expand...

Likely not, unless Facebook decided that criticizing her brand of knitting needles violated their terms of service (or posed a national security threat) when that was reported (requested?) by Sally.

The basic problem is that Facebook knows who Sally is, while the offending poster has no idea that Sally was involved with having their post removed.
 
Last edited:
BlueTex said:
So you haven't actually read the injunction either? The injunction is a joke and the judge should be embarrassed to have even put his name on it...
Click to expand...
Explain why you feel that way
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Likely not, unless Facebook decided that criticizing a brand of knitting needles violated their terms of service (or posed a national security threat) when that was reported (requested?) by Sally.
Click to expand...

What? The injunction says NOTHING about what actions the social media takes... It is EXCEEDINGLY clear it would violate the injunction....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom