Hacker News Reader

Comment by verdverm | Hacker News Reader

I would think to stopping doing something is equally an action as to do something, in regards to warrant canaries and gag orders. You had to take make some change to your process, or if automated take an actual action to disable. In either case, there was a cognizant choice that was made

View on HN

The legal theory is that in the US the first amendment prevents the government from forcing you to make a false update. I don’t know if it’s ever been tested.

As I understand, this theory wouldn’t even hold up in other countries where you could be compelled to make such a false update.

What if I, sometimes, annually paint a canvas with an artistic interpretation of a canary bird? Can a government compel me to make an artistic expression with specific content, at my own expense? What if I'm just not in the right kind of creative mood to make it a good painting?

Or maybe I can bill the government for the compelled artwork -- I'm afraid I'm tremendously expensive as an artist.

Yes but the theory, at least in the US, is that the government cannot compel you to say something. That is, they can't make you put up a notice.

More specifically, the theory is that cannot compel you to lie, there are all kinds of cases where businesses are compelled to share specific messages.

Ah, that was confusing to me. Thank you.

As far as I've seen, the examples of that have always been things like health warnings and ingredients lists, where showing that message is a condition of being in that (licensed) business, and applies equally to any company.

Do you have a more custom example in mind?

All sorts of consent decrees, a huge amount of union and workplace law requires things to be posted for employees.

For employee things, I can understand being required to notify parties in agreements the company has entered into. As far as I understand, consent degrees are settlements and as such a mutually-agreed mechanism for ending a lawsuit early; their terms are whatever the parties negotiate and do not come from the government.

To be more precise, the law requires employees to publish the nlrb notice in well trafficked or otherwise conspicuous locations.

I think there are other places where "government mandated corporation inform people of their rights" is a thing, especially with things like data use and sharing.

In terms of consent decrees, that was the wrong example. But lots of judgements do involve various notification requirements.

Car manufacturer warranty recall letters are probably a good example. I get them even though I've never done business with the car manufacturer -- I bought the vehicle from a private party.

But that still sort of connects (at least in my mind) to health warnings etc.

What do you think of this angle: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45892680

yea, I get that, but my gut tells me this doesn't pass the sniff test

It's a choice you make and action you take either way, be it not updating a canary or sending a covert financial transaction

That it has not been tested in court is why it's still a "theory" (hypothesis?)

My hope is that a jury of our peers would stay closer to the spirit than the letter of the law

Inaction is not action.

The choice to cease perform an act, when you have been consistently doing it, is itself an action

No, making a choice to do nothing is not considered action by any legal definition.

And this would be why warrant canaries aren't seen as a proven legal shield yet.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com