this post was submitted on 15 Mar 2024

91 points (96.0% liked)

News

23397 readers

3505 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

rjc@lemmy.world

Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world

Tenthrow@lemmy.world

JonsJava@lemmy.world

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

jeffw@lemmy.world

enu@lemmy.world

In shadow of Trump tweets, Supreme Court outlines when officials can be sued for social media use (www.nbcnews.com)

submitted 8 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

24 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Former President Donald Trump’s frequent use of Twitter lurked in the background as the justices weighed whether an official’s online activities can constitute government action.

The Supreme Court ruled Friday that members of the public in some circumstances can sue public officials for blocking them on social media platforms, deciding a pair of cases against the backdrop of former President Donald Trump’s contentious and colorful use of Twitter.

The court ruled unanimously that officials can be deemed "state actors" when making use of social media and can therefore face litigation if they block or mute a member of the public.

In the two cases before the justices, they ruled that disputes involving a school board member in Southern California and a city manager in Michigan should be sent back to lower courts for the new legal test to be applied.

top 24 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Fredselfish@lemmy.world 23 points 8 months ago (4 children)

I'm surprised that our right wing Supreme Court would rule this way. What am I missing? Because they have not lately been ruling in good faith.

[–] ChicoSuave@lemmy.world 14 points 8 months ago (1 children)

There is no long term plan with conservative/authoritarians. They live in a world where arbitrary rules are fine and justice applies to all (others).

[–] ghostdoggtv@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

The long term plan of conservatives is to accumulate privilege and shed limitations. That's the only end game they care about and as long as that is the status quo they are happy as pigs in shit.

[–] Telodzrum@lemmy.world 12 points 8 months ago

Don’t conflate the conservative Supreme Court’s philosophy with the MAGA GOP’s philosophy. The two align a lot, but they are very much not the same thing.

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago

They've made several surprising rulings lately.

[+] juicy -19 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

Free speech is not a left or right issue anymore. The left is anti-free-speech as often as the right is. The left is happy to silence speech it doesn't like when it's online or on campus. The right is happy to silence it when it's a library book or story time.

I hope leftists wake up as they watch anti-Zionist speech get silenced by the mechanisms they used to use against the right. The answer to bad speech, whether hate speech or misinformation, is more speech.

Edit: spelling

[–] baru@lemmy.world 15 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Free speach is not a left or right issue anymore.

Ah, there's the usual "both sides" "argument".

[+] juicy -7 points 8 months ago (2 children)

I gave specific examples. Be specific in your response. Where was I wrong?

[–] Evkob@lemmy.ca 6 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The "left", insofar as it seeks to limit speech, usually tries to limit hate speech towards minority and oppressed groups.

The "right" usually limits speech to restrict the voices of those same minority and oppressed groups. Equating the two is absurd at best.

[–] juicy 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

It's not, though. The precedent protecting speech that does not incite imminent lawless action, Brandenburg v. Ohio, was won when the ACLU defended a Ku Klux Klan leader. That precedent protects your right to call for the workers of America to rise up and overthrow the corrupt billionaire-led capitalist regime and the politicians who do their bidding. Of course the left and right are not equivalent. But they do have at least one thing in common: deep-seated ambivalence about the free speech. Even the ACLU is faltering: NYT: Once a Bastion of Free Speech, the A.C.L.U. Faces an Identity Crisis

The Palestine issue shows how hate speech restrictions can be used against minority and oppressed groups. Just label it anti-semitism.

Wikipedia: Working definition of antisemitism

Hate speech rules can also be used against criticism of white supremacy and patriarchy. Just claim it expresses hatred of white people and men.

[–] snooggums@midwest.social 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The whole thing, from start to finish.

[–] NoIWontPickAName@kbin.earth -4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Ah so you are full of shit! I got you

[–] Lupus108@feddit.de 10 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Nope. They're right, you're wrong.

You didn't even give specific examples as you pretended to, it was just a blanket "both sides do it!" You just used more words.

And " the only answer to bad speech is more speech" is just factually and provable wrong. The Nazis and their enemies had free speech during the Weimarer Republik, they all used it extensively, the social democrats, the liberals, the communists, the clerics, the workers, the unions, they all used their right to free speech to try and fight the "bad speech" the Nazis could deploy openly, do you know how that story continues? They all lost their free speech because they were forced to let the cancer that is fascism roam free, with lies, propaganda, misinformation, calls for violence and just pure hate.

So the "bad speech" got plenty of "more speech" to counter but it didn't change anything.

[–] NoIWontPickAName@kbin.earth -5 points 8 months ago

What am I wrong about?

I just called them full of shit for blowing someone off.

It’s almost like I did the same thing they did

[+] juicy -8 points 8 months ago (1 children)

You could make the same argument against every civil liberty the Germans enjoyed in the Weimar Republic: freedom of movement, freedom of press, freedom of assembly, even democracy.

Here's more specifics: https://thehill.com/opinion/education/4317052-what-the-vexed-history-of-campus-hate-speech-codes-teaches-us-about-fighting-antisemitism/

https://www.hrw.org/report/2023/12/21/metas-broken-promises/systemic-censorship-palestine-content-instagram-and

[–] Lupus108@feddit.de 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

You could make the same argument against every civil liberty the Germans enjoyed in the Weimar Republic: freedom of movement, freedom of press, freedom of assembly, even democracy.

That's exactly my point, the Nazis never acted in good faith, they were never beholden to the freedoms they used, in fact they used those freedoms to get rid of them, so to protect them we have to restrict them. So unfortunately we have to exclude some things from the protection Democratic values can deliver. For example the swastika in Germany - all it represents, all it refers to in that context is anti democratic, anti freedom so if you show it outside of a educational context we have to assume it represents exactly that - that you want to get rid of democratic values like free speech, so we exclude that symbol from the protection of our democratic values TO protect said democratic values.

It's a little paradox and a lotta complicated. We should never take those measures lightly but imo they have to exist, because history showed that if you don't protect them , some forces are willing to use them to destroy them.

Your first link shows what happens when we don't apply those measures carefully and too broadly, the framework has to be very precise for them to make sense, otherwise they do the job of the deconstructors of democracy for them.

Your second Link refers to a private entity, those can not restrict free speech, they can censor what speech they want to host and it is their right under free speech to do so, so it is irrelevant. Like if you're in my house talking shit I can kick you out, no free speech was impeded by that action, I just exercised my free speech to show you the door.

[–] juicy 0 points 8 months ago

I'd like to point out that this thread began with me asserting that the left and right are both anti-free-speech in different contexts. I was told I was wrong. I asked how I was wrong. Then you stepped in and began arguing against free speech in certain situations. This is my precise point. The left is not pro-free-speech, but pro-speech-I-like, just like the right. Why should the right respect your speech rights if you don't respect their speech rights? The end result is everyone's speech rights get chipped away, and eventually speech restrictions will be used by antidemocratic forces within the government to entrench themselves.

[–] ghostdoggtv@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)

This is laughably incorrect. The left are so tolerant of harmful speech by their political opponents it's neutered their own ability to sell themselves as competitively viable when they do clash with fascists in the political arena. The most lefty space I know bends over backwards to accommodate genocidal retards in the name of pacifying the right and it's because they believe people who say things like this.

Fuck Israel, free Palestine

[–] juicy -1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

As you complain about excessive tolerance of free speech, you make my point for me.

[–] ghostdoggtv@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Your point about free speech being neither left nor right? Hate speech is not free speech. Incitement of violence and genocidal ideation is not free speech.

[–] juicy -2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Sedition is not free speech. Defacing the flag is not free speech. Blasphemy is not free speech. Criticism of party officials is not free speech.

[–] ghostdoggtv@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

lmao, are those your opinions?

[–] juicy -2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

No. My point is if you arbitrarily redefine free speech to exclude speech you don't like, free speech loses all meaning.

[–] ghostdoggtv@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

It's not arbitrary, though you ran with it like they're all the same.