Should government officials immediately cease contacting social media companies to censor content, with exceptions for illegal speech? The U.S. government attorney, Brian Fletcher, eloquently argues for SCOTUS to discuss the following theoretical legal issues regarding free speech censorship on social media rather than specifics of the case.
Should the government have privacy in speech moderation policies? The lawsuit discovery process exposed government pressure applied behind closed doors, with 24/7 badgering and profanity arising from the highest W.H., FBI, CDC, and CISA officials until Big Tech capitulation.
While government purports to censor disinformation and enforce Big Tech data security, government became the #1 source of disinformation and engaged in massive personal data surveillance without a warrant.
The intimate details of extensive government entanglement within each platform specific to each agency was repressive and intimidating - likely Fletcher would prefer to dwell on not intrusive government action, but rather theoretical issues like government rights and scenarios demanding urgent government oversight.
Can government officials contact social media platforms to remove unfavored by persuasion so long as coercive legal threats are not mentioned? Fletcher asserts that the government didn't engage in coercion, but rather "Significant encouragement" to censor misinformation.
The W.H. can threaten FB with government litigation or loss of Section 230 protections for noncompliance, making any request from the government "Unsubtle strong-arming." The threat of government litigation and loss of Section 230 are not theoretical.
Should government censorship be permitted in certain circumstances, such as disinformation during public health threats or election season? Fletcher contends that government censorship should be permitted during a public health emergency.
No comments:
Post a Comment