Hacker News Reader

Comment by vdqtp3 | Hacker News Reader

If the government is violating my fourth amendment rights if it arranges for a third party to search my property when they cannot themselves, it follows that it would be equally unacceptable for them to arrange for a third party to censor my speech.

https://www.fletc.gov/audio/definition-government-agent-unde...

View on HN

I don't think the analogy holds. Twitter is not your house. It would be akin to arguing that federal agents shouldn't be allowed to search your checked bags when you board a domestic flight. Again, I'm not saying that there shouldn't be any restrictions on searching those belongings, but it's less black-and-white than you suggest.

Do you think the government would have been overstepping if they ordered Twitter to make the removal, against their will?

I don't know. I think it depends on a lot of factors. I think there are some circumstances where that sort of heavy-handed approach would be warranted, but I also think there are a lot of cases where it would be unwarranted and potentially an abuse of rights. The challenge is coming up with a litmus test to differentiate the two. As I've pointed out multiple times in this thread, the Supreme Court will soon hear arguments on that exact issue. I am curious to read the opinions of the various justices on the matter.

https://apnews.com/article/social-media-protected-speech-law...

Looks like a federal judge felt that the US Government was overstepping and "seems to have assumed a role similar to an Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth" and decided to block them from engaging in the censorship behavior.

Did you miss the link I posted above? The Supreme Court put that ruling on hold: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23a243_7l48.pdf

Hence my argument about this not being settled law.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com