Biden administration can resume contact with social-media platforms ‘until further orders’

Most private businesses are going to be intimidated if the FBI comes to them directly with information claiming that such and such item violates their company policy and it is in the public interest if you remedy the situation. When the White House does it, the ante goes up. These are social media companies, so they already have a lot of exposure. The administration or FBI could easily build a case against them if they wanted to.

Regardless, the bottom line is it's an effort to censor and nobody has ever successfully validated censorship over an issue like medications being injecting into your body. I feel very strongly that is a topic that should be discussed freely and openly, without censorship. If someone chooses to ignore health professionals and doctors, it is on them. Discussion shouldn't be contained.

 

Well, I never said anything like the NIH or their website shouldn't exist. On your 2nd point, if you already feel it's "problematic", there is no need to draw any distinctions. Do you think Bolshevik style usurpation would spontaneously manifest itself in a day here in the U.S.? More likely, it would occur with many tiny steps over a prolonged period of time.

 

It’s pretty black and white. It is simply not in the government’s purview to micromanage media, journalism or free speech. If someone is physically threatened by speech, for example, that person would file a complaint via law enforcement and said complaint would be subject to judicial review. Then it’s the government’s purview. But for government to proactively seek to suppress speech, without due process no less, is frightening for our democracy.

 

If the FBI walked into your place of business and said “we don’t like item such and such over there. We would like you to remove it.” Would you not feel threatened?

 

No, I don’t think that was appropriate for Trump to say, although I think it was inconsequential. NFL teams want to win and if Kaepernick was good enough to help an NFL team win more games, Kaepernick would have gotten a contract. This is the same league that gave Deshaun Watson, Michael Vick and Antonio Brown contracts. Among numerous other shady past characters.

Also, Trump didn’t say that in a clandestine manner. Whereas a lot of the censorship efforts are being done without the American public knowing.

In any event, what Trump said doesn’t make what the Biden administration is doing any more or less unconstitutional than it is. It’s a direct attack on free speech and the free press, both specifically forbidden by the 1st amendment. We fall into the trap of saying “but Trump”. Well, Trump is not the president anymore. Our Constitution is the main reason why he’s not president anymore. Our Constitution is an enduring document. Not subject to whom or whom isn’t president anymore or what one past president said.

 

Legal precedent typically errs on the side of the Constitution. Kaepernick doesn’t have a plausible case that the government’s actions kept him from kneeling. The NY Post and several doctors and pundits do have a case the government pushed to censor them.

And if certain people think the government is doing it out of the goodness of their hearts regarding Covid, how could you possibly be that naive? Politicians care about maintaining their power first and foremost. It’s all state propaganda to keep their administration in power. When you begin taking a piss on the citizens right to free speech and press, that’s taking it to another level.

 

Let me rephrase it to you this way: if there was no “teeth” behind the government’s requests, then what’s the purpose of the communication? Any business which had a federal government employee in authority contact them to adjust something they’re doing, I believe it’s safe to assume there is “teeth” behind that request. I mean a cop follows me and turns his lights on, can I just assume he’s just bored and keep on driving until I reach my destination or is it understood I need to pull over?

 

Even then, a cop has to have probable cause a crime has been committed before compelling you to pull over. They can’t just check in with you without legal reason, whether you welcome the communication or not.

 

If you read the Missouri Attorney General's complaint, you will see there was nothing inherent to be inferred. The WH followed up on specific requests because they didn't feel Facebook had adequately addressed their concerns. Like telling a child: "I asked you to clean your room. You said you would start right away, but it's no better than it was an hour ago before I asked you. What gives?" Not much to be inferred there. Compulsion is pretty evident by the fact the WH followed up on the same request and complained, because it hadn't been addressed sufficiently to their liking the first time.

 

The problem is deeming it as "simply communicating" is simply dishonest and you know that. The federal government is forbidden from doing indirectly what it cannot do directly. They do not have legal authority to circumvent the 1st Amendment by using a surrogate or proxy. If you don't support 1st Amendment protections, just come out and say it. Stop dancing around the subject.

Note that when director Wray was asked about this last week by Congress, he didn't blow it off as "simply communicating" or some other euphemism as you are doing. He could have and legally speaking, there's not much the committee could have done with that. Which is why you're saying it. But, he didn't. Instead choosing to avoid the topic altogether, the best he could.