you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]dicknipples 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

The government did not "induce, encourage, or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish."

This is a frivolous case.

childrenshealthdefense.org is known for its disinformation and extremist bias: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/childrens-health-defense/

[–]thoughtcriminal 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I'm interested in why you think so. It seems pretty clear based on the evidence from the Twitter files that they did.

There are a number of examples, but the most egregious to me is the EIP which was later renamed the Virality Project. Multiple high level government agencies worked directly with this entity to suggest what to censor and what actions to take on the speech of US citizens. These requests were then forwarded to Twitter, and invariably acted on. In other words, the government used a private entity as a proxy to subvert the 1st amendment and censor legal (and even factually correct) speech.

The Virality Project was essentially absorbed into Twitter to the extent that they even had direct access to Twitter Jira boards (work tracking/ticketing system). This is not at all dissimilar to how the state controls businesses in China, it's only slightly more complicated due to that pesky constitution we have.

In many cases the government didn't even bother to use a proxy layer through a private entity. They just went directly to Twitter/Facebook/Google and told them what to censor or flag. There are a number of examples of this as well.

If the highest government agencies and officials working directly (or indirectly through proxy) with Twitter to censor legal speech of Americans isn't a violation of the 1st amendment, what do you think is? How does this not amount to inducement or encouragement?

[–]EternalSunset 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

He's a shill that constantly sides with the US deep state and with the democratic party on every chance he gets. Just ignore him.

[–]thoughtcriminal 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah should have looked at who I was replying to first lol