Terry A. Doughty says he gets to decide who the FBI, DHS, HHS, and the Justice Department can talk to. [text in the comments]

submitted by [deleted] from (prospect.org)

all 13 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]Tarrock 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

Don't care, fuck the federal government, and fuck anyone trying to defend the federal government.

[–][deleted]  (2 children)

[deleted]

    [–][deleted]  (1 child)

    [deleted]

      [–][deleted] 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (7 children)

      You brigade vote manipulated your own post again? Thats very undemocratic of you

      [–][deleted]  (6 children)

      [deleted]

        [–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

        You have a history of doing that, and I don't think the demographic of users on this site is particularly pro-censorship. I don't care if people here agree with me, on many issues they don't, - but I don't believe 9 users on this site think that the government should be able to coerce social media companies to censor content that is not illegal. I find it much more plausible that you upvoted that post with your alt accounts given what I know about you and the other users here

        [–][deleted]  (4 children)

        [deleted]

          [–]Tarrock 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

          Stop it, we all know you're brigading votes. When I stepped in this morning, this post had 7 updoots and 0 discussion. That's what you get with a quick image meme, not a new article. No one on saidit is going to a complete nothing site like "prospect.org" that no one's ever heard of, then going "man, this article about how unaccountable government agencies can no longer censor us and here's why it's bad, sure is amazing, I'm going to make sure more people see it!"

          This was fake as fuck and just as obvious as fuck.

          [–][deleted]  (2 children)

          [deleted]

            [–]Tarrock 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

            You don't need multiple logins, you just need a discord and to go "Hey, I'm being a dipshit and spamming propaganda, could you guys upvote this? PS The FBI and CIA RULE!!"

            [–][deleted] 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

            Oh you want sources?

            Please familiarize yourself with the legal definition of disinformation, because you aren't using that word the correctly in the legal sense

            https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/35

            There is a very high bar for defining disinformation. In order to legally be considered disinformation, the person saying the thing has to KNOW it is untrue. I.E. It is not disinformation under the law if the person thinks it is true, or even if you just can't PROVE in a court of law that the person KNOWS otherwise

            You would have to establish this knowness of the alleged falsehood in a COURT OF LAW, the white house cannot unilaterally decide what is and is not legally disinformation, only a court can, because there is a BURDEN OF PROOF on the KNOWINGLY UNTRUE clause

            [–][deleted]  (3 children)

            [deleted]

              [–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

              Yes, section 230 has a very similar burden, as does the defamation law. This burden has often protected news sources like the New York Times, who a court ruled had spread misinformation about Sarah Palin, and even done it knowingly, but not 'maliciously', so they were not found culpable

              "The end of the trial was not without drama. While jury deliberations were underway on Feb. 14, Judge Rakoff announced that he intended to dismiss the lawsuit — even if the jury ruled in Ms. Palin’s favor — because she had failed to show that The Times acted out of actual malice. The following day, the jury rejected Ms. Palin’s lawsuit."

              https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/31/business/sarah-palin-new-york-times-libel.html

              These type of claims have an extremely high bar, and there are good reasons for this. What if TRUMP's white house was dictating what the facts were and demanding stuff he didn't like got removed with no oversight? Something tells me you would have a different opinion on the same issue in this circumstance, which would be legally inconsistent. The white house cannot unilaterally make this legal determination. Which the judge correctly ruled on according to existing laws, he is not supposed to consider the 'oughts' of policy making. And you may not like the result of this ruling, but it also protects you from would-be-dictators that would DEFINITELY abuse this power to "legislate facthood" without any oversight.

              Do you really believe that is a good idea on principle? Because it sounds like Nazi Germany or 1984. Giving the white house the power to legislate facts when only when you agree with the guy in power is NOT a real position. Laws must be based on principles and applied consistently

              [–][deleted]  (1 child)

              [deleted]

                [–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

                You are missing the point. Neither those agencies nor the President have the power to unilaterally determine what is false, factual, or disinformation. A court (the judicial branch) has to determine that. You are arguing that the executive branch has the power to unilaterally to legally determine this, they do not. Surely you could see how it could be extremely problematic if they could, and imagine a myriad of ways this could be abused

                [–]SoCo 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

                That is Honorable Judge Terry A. Doughty to you dip-shit!

                And he is enforcing the law, in the normal legal way, against overt abuses of the Constitution by this banana-stand administration.

                This is just a temporary injunction before the full ruling, but the attached memorandum strongly suggests that Doughty is going to side with the plaintiffs and issue a permanent injunction soon. Even if his action does get overturned on appeal, this is no way to run a country.

                This write doesn't know how law or courts work at all. This entire text is extremely misleading and incorrect.

                [–][deleted]  (1 child)

                [deleted]

                  [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

                  Imagine censoring the world's top cardiologist for Pfizer. Sad America.

                  [–][deleted]  (6 children)

                  [deleted]

                    [–][deleted] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

                    "Don't debate the brand new disease or the brand new cure" --Socks and Fauci

                    [–][deleted]  (4 children)

                    [deleted]

                      [–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

                      science is always a debate, dipshit

                      [–][deleted]  (2 children)

                      [deleted]

                        [–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

                        https://www.theblaze.com/news/twitter-reinstates-two-esteemed-doctors-who-had-been-banned-for-raising-alarm