Free Speech Until it's Inconvenient
- Thread starter 86Hawkeye
- Start date
Ummm...whut? This seems redundant - the first part of the statement saying it's "legal" is quite literally the same as the last saying "it isn't illegal".
I guess @RileyHawk doesn't see the WH press briefings.
MS. PSAKI: Sure. Well, first, we are in regular touch with these social media platforms, and those engagements typically happen through members of our senior staff, but also members of our COVID-19 team, given, as Dr. Murthy conveyed, this is a big issue of misinformation, specifically on the pandemic.
In terms of actions, Alex, that we have taken — or we’re working to take, I should say — from the federal government: We’ve increased disinformation research and tracking within the Surgeon General’s office. We’re flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/page/3/
@CarolinaHawkeye
MS. PSAKI: Sure. Well, first, we are in regular touch with these social media platforms, and those engagements typically happen through members of our senior staff, but also members of our COVID-19 team, given, as Dr. Murthy conveyed, this is a big issue of misinformation, specifically on the pandemic.
In terms of actions, Alex, that we have taken — or we’re working to take, I should say — from the federal government: We’ve increased disinformation research and tracking within the Surgeon General’s office. We’re flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/page/3/
@CarolinaHawkeye
Last edited:
Fully aware. Again, Facebook is not a government entity. Your conspiracy theory is bunk.
Is the White House a government entity?
And what conspiracy? Psaki said the White House is flagging content they want Facebook to remove.
It is right there in her own words.
It was just something else you were ignorant about.
Big surprise to me.
Facebook is not a government entity no matter how many times it communicates with the government about posts.
And anyone who thinks Facebook is liberal leaning is mistaken; FB knows where it gets its traffic:
And anyone who thinks Facebook is liberal leaning is mistaken; FB knows where it gets its traffic:
I see abby is doubling if not tripling down on his or her stupidity. Well done Abby, leave no doubt in the minds of others regarding how dumb you are.
Last edited:
No one is saying Facebook is a government entity.
They are pointing out that a government entity, the White House, is trying to get Facebook to pull posts the White House doesn't like. That's where the First Amendment issues arise.
That professor is an idiot.
Professor suggests it should be a federal hate crime to criticize Fauci and other government-funded scientists | The College Fix
Targeted by far-right extremism.'www.thecollegefix.com
No, they don’t.
The First Amendment doesn’t apply unless Facebook is a government entity.
Which is why every lawsuit against social media platforms falls on its face: they require
the platforms to be a government entity.
You're misplacing my concern.
I don't raise a First Amendment issue with Facebook.
I raise a First Amendment issue with the White House flagging posts and telling Facebook the White House wants to see them removed.
The government entity shouldn't be making those requests.
THAT is a First Amendment issue.
there is a big difference between trying to protect the country from misinformation that can kill a lot of people and trying to manipulate politically damaging messages.
I flag posts if they are false. You can do it too.
To mark a post as false news:
- Click
next to the post you'd like to mark as false.
- Click Find support or report post.
- Click False Information, then click Next.
- Click Done.
www.facebook.com/help/572838089565953/?helpref=uf_share
Last edited:
Criticism of any government official shouldn’t be curtailed if it isn’t that should be pretty standard.
I'd like it if they stuck to eliminating disinformation....misinformation is pretty subjective.
I think you are missing a lot of context. Not all speech is protected, for example yelling fire in a crowded theater.
Not only do I think it is appropriate for the government to flag/limit/remove speech that can literally cost lives, but it should be their job.
A) I'd have to have an account.I flag posts if they are false. You can do it to.
To mark a post as false news:
- Click
next to the post you'd like to mark as false.
- Click Find support or report post.
- Click False Information, then click Next.
- Click Done.
www.facebook.com/help/572838089565953/?helpref=uf_share
B) Are you a government entity? If not, First Amendment restrictions don't apply to your censorship requests.
C) Do you have final approval on any multi-billion dollars deals that Facebook is conducting or may conduct in the future that might influence their willingness to consider and implement your request?
That is not.
Like any other party, the White House can ask for posts to be removed.
They are not requiring FB to remove posts nor is Congress passing laws that give them the power to remove FB posts. And FB is not a government actor.
Thus the First Amendment is not implicated at all. Full stop.
I think it’s a bad policy choice and poor optics for the White House to do this, but it’s not unconstitutional under 1A.
The point is the government is just doing what every FB poster can do. FB makes the final decision whether I flag it or the WH flags it.
Government works with private sector all the time, giving their input is not an anomaly.
Unlike any other party the White House is a government entity with final say over multi-billion deals executed by Facebook. They hold a leverage no one else does in that regard.
The White House 'requesting' the removal of content they don't like is the government/corporate fusion at the core of fascism.
That's why this raises First Amendment concerns.
When you make the request FB can consider the request on its merits.
When the WH makes the request FB makes the decision also in light of how displeasing the WH could affect their multi-billion dollar decisions, because of power the WH has that you don't to nix those deals.
Can you see how that isn't the same thing?
And this is example 438,675 of a HROT poster complaining about supposed First Amendment violations while demonstrating that they don’t know what the First Amendment actually says.
Was it misinformation when Fauci said, “There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you’re in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet, but it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. And, often, there are unintended consequences — people keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face.”
FB doesn't record who flags a post. I think it just alerts their staff to check out the post and determine if it is appropriate for FB. There are other options as to flagging a post. They are nudity, violence, harassment, suicide/self injury, false information, spam, unauthorized sales, hate speech, terrorism, or something else. I imagine there are many law enforcement agencies that monitor FB posts. My impression is the WH has people who monitor FB and flags posts with false Covid information. If there is a threat from the WH involved then you might have a point, but I think it's more of a community service than a 1st amendment violation. No one benefits from receiving information that is not true.
When FB has multi billion dollar decision that is solely on the hands of the WH and it gets upturned because the WH doesn't like their actions you might have an argument. There is nothing to indicate either that such decisions are in the hands of the WH not that the WH would or could affect such decisions. Your theory is so far fetched - it's ludicrous.
Legally it's pretty much all the same coming from the White House. The POTUS has always been able to utilize the bully pulpit.
You think they're using the link you posted? That's cute!
"Well, first, we are in regular touch with these social media platforms, and those engagements typically happen through members of our senior staff"
I imagine they do contact FB directly in some cases, but the fact remains FB makes the final decision. If FB feels it's being unfairly pressured there is a legal remedy for them to pursue.
What do you feel is the benefit of false information being shared on FB?
