Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Friday April 07 2017, @09:51PM   Printer-friendly
from the unmasking dept.

Reuters reports that Twitter has sued to stop the U.S. government's effort to learn the identity of a Twitter user who has criticized that government's policies.

"The rights of free speech afforded Twitter's users and Twitter itself under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution include a right to disseminate such anonymous or pseudonymous political speech," Twitter said in the lawsuit.

further information:
court filing

additional coverage:


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Lagg on Friday April 07 2017, @10:15PM (16 children)

    by Lagg (105) on Friday April 07 2017, @10:15PM (#490563) Homepage Journal

    They seem to partake in censorship (there was some truly weird shit going on with their tags during a few wikileaks releases) that causes vast confusion and uncertainty in the userbase. But at the same time have an established history of protecting user privacy. I know there's no inherent reason they can't be pro-censorship and pro-user-privacy at the same time. It's just really odd.

    --
    http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @10:25PM (15 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @10:25PM (#490568)

    Crazy notion: people can have values and still not want racists, mysoginists, and trolls on their private platform.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @10:40PM (6 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @10:40PM (#490575)

      But then your "values" don't include being as pro-free speech (the principle, not the legal implementation) as possible. So while you can still have values if you censor, you're definitely decreasing the amount of free speech that your platform offers. And just because someone has a legal right to do something doesn't mean they are ethically right in doing it.

      I like SN's system better.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @10:51PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @10:51PM (#490582)

        Well, that's why we're here instead of on Twitter.

        Even as a bleeding heart liberal, I'd still rather be here.

        Many of my comments might fit in 140 characters, but sometimes I may need a long-winded essay with citations.

      • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday April 07 2017, @10:58PM

        by kaszz (4211) on Friday April 07 2017, @10:58PM (#490585) Journal

        The problem with Twitter and Facebook is that it's like mental poo for flies. One might simple prefer a higher intelligent life to noise ratio.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 08 2017, @12:50AM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 08 2017, @12:50AM (#490633)

        So while you can still have values if you censor, you're definitely decreasing the amount of free speech that your platform offers.

        Quantity is definitely what matters.
        That's why I prefer a gallon of cellulose-fortified walmart store-brand ice-cream over a pint of ben & jerry's.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 08 2017, @01:54AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 08 2017, @01:54AM (#490653)

          Quantity can definitely matter in some instances, and I think free speech is one of them. The more, the better. I don't share your desire to get rid of racist, hateful speech at all costs, even though I dislike it. As I said, I much prefer SN's system and won't be using garbage like Twitter or Facebook.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 08 2017, @03:14PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 08 2017, @03:14PM (#490850)

          Pssst! Hey, Buddy, that's not cellulose. They milked the bull to get that stuff.

      • (Score: 2) by http on Saturday April 08 2017, @05:26AM

        by http (1920) on Saturday April 08 2017, @05:26AM (#490711)

        Twitter's under no obligation to follow such a ridiculous absolutist interpretation of free speech.

        Oblig xkcd [xkcd.com]

        Actually, nobody's under any obligation to be as pro free speech as possible. Not even the government! Is it a bad thing that you can be imprisoned for uttering threats, for example?

        --
        I browse at -1 when I have mod points. It's unsettling.
    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @11:05PM (6 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @11:05PM (#490592)

      But they also censored anything trending about Bernie Sanders.

      So Twitter acted as a de-facto shield against anything that might make HRC look bad. Wikileaks, Bernie, and anything right-wing were actively suppressed from trending news feeds. Post-election, Dorsey started banning right-wingers who went against the homophobic, racist, misogynistic portrait that they wanted Trump supporters to look like.

      Anyway, back to the original article: Trump will re-file as a violation of the Hatch Act, and will likely win. This is a USG employee using a Twitter account to voice political opinions under the guise of being an official USG policy. Trump filed paperwork for his 2020 Presidential run the night of the Inauguration; he has effectively been campaigning since then, which prevents non-profits and government employees from voicing opinions against his policy. Brilliant move by the way. That presents a third path for recourse against this Government employee.

      It's okay to have a political opinion and voice it on the Internet. What's not okay is leeching off the Government's dime while you do it.

      Trump will re-file, and Twitter will lose here.

      You know, assuming Twitter doesn't shut down first. They've been bleeding users since the election.

      • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 08 2017, @01:19AM (4 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 08 2017, @01:19AM (#490642)

        But they also censored anything trending about Bernie Sanders.

        Bullshit. You bernie bros are just as nutty as the alt-right. Seeing conspiracy under every rock.

        At worst twitter's automated systems reacted to malicious reporting by people trying to manipulate the system. That's no more censorship by twitter than an anarchist group cutting CNN's satellite feed is censorship by CNN.

        Trump filed paperwork for his 2020 Presidential run the night of the Inauguration; he has effectively been campaigning since then, which prevents non-profits and government employees from voicing opinions against his policy. Brilliant move by the way.

        Case in point. No it does not. [snopes.com]

        For one thing, non-profits can and do make political speech all the time. Political action commitees are required to be non-profits for chrissakes.

        For another thing government employees have more guarantees of freedom of speech than do regular employees because the government is restricted by the 1st amendment despite being their employer. An anonymous twitter user can claim to be anything, that doesn't make it a violation of the hatch act. A big component of the hatch act is using the trappings of office to promote a political agenda. An anonymous twitter user has no more trappings of office than do I, Alt-Maddis the alt-secdef.

        • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday April 08 2017, @01:29AM (3 children)

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday April 08 2017, @01:29AM (#490643) Journal

          "Seeing conspiracy under every rock."

          But, there WAS a conspiracy, and that Wasserman-Schultz broad resigned in disgrace because it was exposed. Go ahead, explain that away. Give us your alt-reality.

          • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 08 2017, @01:42AM (2 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 08 2017, @01:42AM (#490647)

            > Wasserman-Schultz broad resigned in disgrace because it was exposed

            What does she have to do with twitter?
            Oh, that's right, nothing.
            But critical thinking has never been your strong suit, so you get a pass tonight.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 08 2017, @05:04AM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 08 2017, @05:04AM (#490705)

              Um, you must be dense (or something) if you can't connect the dots....

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 08 2017, @07:34AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 08 2017, @07:34AM (#490746)

                > Um, you must be dense (or something) if you can't connect the dots....

                I know, right? The world is full of sheeple who refuse to wake up.
                Its probably easier that way. The knowledge of conspiracy is a hairy burden, my friend.
                It is a weight I willingly shoulder for my fellow man though.
                Keep fighting the good fight, comrade!

      • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Saturday April 08 2017, @02:39AM

        by DeathMonkey (1380) on Saturday April 08 2017, @02:39AM (#490667) Journal

        But they also censored anything trending about Bernie Sanders.

        [CITATION NEEDED]

        So Twitter acted as a de-facto shield against anything that might make HRC look bad. Wikileaks...

        Actually, Twitter defended Wikileaks' privacy for pretty much the same reason. [wikipedia.org]

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 08 2017, @02:05AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 08 2017, @02:05AM (#490657)

      It's spelled "misogynists," like the soup.