Lawsuit Uncovers Federal Bureaucrats Coercing Social-Media to Censor Speech | Hacker News Reader

Lawsuit Uncovers Federal Bureaucrats Coercing Social-Media to Censor Speech

nclalegal.org

54 pointsBrainVirus53 comments

This is pretty hard to follow.

There are no concrete details in the press release. All the direct quotes in the press release are from the lawyers filing suit essentially saying, "the government is behaving so badly!" And then the linked court filing[0] is 700 pages long, so quite a task to parse through it.

It's a shame the NCLA couldn't summarize their key points more effectively.

[0] https://nclalegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Joint-State...

> It's a shame the NCLA couldn't summarize their key points more effectively.

Pretty sure that is what will happen in court. They don't need to summarize it to gain internet outrage.

There are plenty of articles out there that summarize the findings.

https://reclaimthenet.org/emails-facebook-coordinating-with-...

Usually HN comments complain about secondary sources. Now people are complaining about using primary sources. On a website where it's normal to see Git commits and FTC filing documents.

There's a difference between outright censorship and not promoting garbage conspiracies and hate speech.

I've been on the wrong end of a FB ban for the stupidest reason and I get how that can be no fun. But then again, it's FB and it's a tire fire of trash. What ev er.

Government has discovered they can simply outsource all their authoritarianism to private businesses.

The unholy alliance between SV executives and government bureaucrats is very scary to any believer in democracy.

Especially the revolving door between high-level executive positions in tech companies and presidential administrations deserves some explanation.

Flagging because the original article is completely content-free grandstanding.

They link to a court filing by the Att'ys General of Missouri and Lousiana. That's anything but "content free".

can we agree that it’s mostly content free then? The text of the posted article is on par with cable television news, and I mean that derisively. I think we can do better here on HN.

Feel free to submit a link to the PDF directly, or at least something that talks about the merits of the case.

So we can't discuss it and it's no longer on the main page? Seems like there's alot of comments about the content as well.

What is there to discuss without details? Should we accept the partisan framing presented by the article that there that the current administration across all levels of government are “secretly” instructing social networks to censor content, and go from there without any evidence or nuance? I think we can have a better discussion than that.

Now, someone pointed out that I overlooked a link to the court filing. That’s my mistake. That would maybe spur a better discussion.

They argue in bad faith and there is no consensus to be had. Drives me crazy and I still try despite knowing this.

Never heard of this organization, and this is one of the first results I found with a good bit of background on it: https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/New_Civil_Liberties_Al...

The site describes them as "a 501(c)(3) right-wing litigation group"

Being against government censorship is "right-wing" now? Interesting...

Can you tell me any progressive (or merely non-right-wing) causes the organization has supported? Because it certainly looks highly partisan to me. I’d hope that any organization concerned with civil liberties would make the effort to act in a bipartisan, politically neutral way.

> I’d hope that any organization concerned with civil liberties would make the effort to act in a bipartisan, politically neutral way.

Funny, because you could say the same about the ACLU, but swap progressive/conservative.

Here’s a list of cases that the ACLU has defended which are in alignment with right wing causes:

https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/defending-speech-w...

From the ACLU:

"a reason to decline taking a free-speech case “the extent to which the speech may assist in advancing the goals of white supremacists or others whose views are contrary to our values." In selecting speech cases to defend, the ACLU will now balance the “impact of the proposed speech and the impact of its suppression.” Factors like the potential effect of the speech on “marginalized communities” and even on “the ACLU’s credibility” could militate against taking a case." [1] [2]

[1] https://www.axios.com/2018/06/21/aclu-leaked-memo-free-speec...

[2] https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-aclu-retreats-from-free-exp...

Your list looks impressive. But what cases did they choose to not accept that aren't listed there?

Correct. "Our values" used to mean "civil liberties." That's what the "CL" in the name means.

Now it apparently means "subscribes to currently trendy theories of social justice."

And yet you still haven’t provided any cases this organization has pursued that would further non-right-wong causes. Here we compare sizable number of cases to… zero.

I never said this organization is neutral. Merely that if you criticize this organization you should also criticize the ACLU for the same lack of neutrality.

It's well-known that ACLU has changed its freedom of speech stance recently, which greatly disappointed many long-standing members, and definitely had a negative effect on its reputation.

However, that was a very specific and rather recent change. ACLU before that change can still be seen as a model organization that threw its weight behind causes regardless of whether they were "left wing" or "right wing", so long as one of its principles were affected.

Can you tell me any right-wing causes Media Matters for America (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Matters_for_America) has supported? Because it certainly looks highly partisan to me. I’d hope that any organization concerned with media fairness would make the effort to act in a bipartisan, politically neutral way.

Sounds like a straw man argument. I’m talking about NCLA — not Media Matters.

If you agree that NCLA is objectively right-wing in their supported causes, then that’s all that matters here.

"a straw man argument"?

I deliberately parodied your words. If you think a non-profit should be non-partisan (a reasonable argument, by the way), then Media Matters should be as well. Correct?

Or maybe a vast number of 501(c)(3) organizations support only causes associated with one side or the other, and your criticism is highly selective.

Again, another straw man.

Notice I didn’t say all non-profits should be non-partisan.

I said that organizations concerned with civil liberties should pursue those rights in a non-partisan manner if their intentions are genuine.

That's just your opinion, not any law or regulation.

Non-profits are free to adopt whatever slant on civil liberties or any other issue they care about, as long as they don't support political candidates or parties, or otherwise violate the IRS's rules.

Who said anything about laws or regulations? We're discussing whether they are a credible source on the matter of civil rights or not.

OK, so they can't be credible unless they support some left wing causes.

Can they be credible if don't support any right wing causes?

> I’d hope that any organization concerned with civil liberties would make the effort to act in a bipartisan, politically neutral way.

That seems naive. LGBTQ organizations are going to naturally bias heavily liberal. The NRA is naturally going to bias heavily conservative. Quite a few of our civil liberties are deeply partisan.

They are a "right-wing" litigation group. But if you think everything "right-wing" is wrong (their stance on fossil fuels, gay rights, abortion is not my cup of tea), you need to step out of the echo chamber. "left-wing" is also wrong from my point of view on many things: starting with equity and positive discrimination.

There's plenty of cases of "left-wing" craziness, but I give most of 'em a partial pass because a) they are a fringe minority, b) they do mean well

"Right-wing" extremism is an identified threat(1), and seems to be more mainstream amongst those on that side of the aisle.

I abhor partisanship and my belief/value system is open to refinement as compelling information/insights become available. As someone who would likely be called a "leftist" (not my choice or identity) I yearn for a balance where thoughtful conservatism can keep the the excesses of the left in check, rather than the scorched earth policy I see today.

1. https://www.fbi.gov/news/testimony/confronting-white-suprema...

> NCLA represented a Virginia landlord, "arguing that the CDC did not have the legal authority to prevent Brown from evicting clients

Does the CDC have that authority. Support the action or not, seems weird that the CDC can do that.

> Filed Amicus Briefs in Support of Koch-Backed Organizations

No specific cases mentioned, just the Koch boogeyman. Koch is the left's Soros.

> NCLA filed an amicus brief supporting tech multinational Oracle against the Department of Labor and has represented FDRLST Media, LLC, _which owns The Federalist_, in a labor case.

More ad hominem. I bet they'd call the ACLU "right wing" for supporting the KKK.

> NCLA attacked the Supreme Court's Chevron decision in a 2019 legal challenge to a ban on bump stocks.

2nd Amendment seems in scope of a Civil Liberties charity.

___________

I think you can learn all you need to know about that website by just looking at their logo.

I think if what the lawsuit's pleadings allege is true, then it is as serious a violation of the Constitution as if the government had sent police to a street corner to shut down a speaker directly. The marketplace for speech may be changing, but the protection for free speech does not.

The beaurocrats in the government should not be allowed to circumvent the Constitution by using 3rd parties.

Based on the articles linked from the organization’s press releases page, and it does seem like this lawsuit is in service of furthering misinformation about covid.

https://nclalegal.org/2022/06/unchecked-by-courts-government...

I'm so very over people tying their identity to their takes on covid and the vaccines. It's unoriginal thought at best, at worst it's primitive and thoughtless tribalism.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com