
Our brief in support of Twitter's First Amendment suit against the US government - mmastrac
https://freedom.press/blog/2015/02/our-brief-support-twitters-lawsuit-against-us-government-violating-first-amendment
======
beedogs
It kinda blows my mind that the US government thinks this is a case they can
actually win.

If they actually do, it's pretty much all over for democracy in the US.

~~~
rayiner
Democracy survived the Supreme Court upholding internment of US citizens of
Japanese descent, and it will survive this.

Some kinds of gag orders are undisputably Constitutional. It's not like in
1790 the government couldn't do anything about someone tipping off a suspect
in a criminal investigation. The Sedition Act, banning criticism of the
government, was passed during the presidency of a Framer in 1789.[1] And Near
v. Minnesota noted that national security issues could justify prior restraint
even while striking down a restriction as violating the First Amendment. That
was in 1931.

That said hopefully the government loses this one, and there is good reason
for them to lose.[2] The bar for Constitutional prior restraints is very high.

[1] The Sedition Act also demonstrates how nobody ever agreed on the
definition of "freedom of speech." The Federalist argument in support of the
Act relied on the narrow English definition of the concept.

[2] This article in the Yale Law Journal has some good coverage of the
background to this litigation: [http://www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/warrant-
canaries-and-dis...](http://www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/warrant-canaries-and-
disclosure-by-design).

~~~
adventured
US democracy also survived the rise of the KKK, courtesy of very strong free
speech and free press protections. Had the US lacked such, it's entirely
plausible that the KKK could have become the US version of the National
Socialists in Germany. I think a lot of people are ignorant of just
threatening the KKK was for a few decades. The ability to freely argue ideas,
and for the right ideas to win, is what made it possible to fundamentally
neuter the KKK (such that now they're a meaningless, powerless, small group
with no real impact on national politics). All of that was accomplished
without having to fight a military conflict with the KKK / destroy them with
force.

~~~
cafard
It seems to me that the KKK had about three stretches of considerable power:
in the south during Reconstruction; in the south with some considerable
influence in Pennsylvania, the Midwest, and as far as Colorado, during the
1920s; and again mostly in the south in the 1950s and 1960s.

After Reconstruction, the KKK essentially won--no black votes, no black
officials. In the 1920s, I think it reduced itself to absurdity, with a high
official jailed under the Mann Act. And law enforcement, notably the FBI, had
a good deal to do with the end of its 1960s power.

------
mmastrac
Previous discussion here:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8422581](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8422581)

------
acheron
.press? Dammit, ICANN.

------
JumpCrisscross
Aside from donating to the EFF, how can I help?

~~~
dublinben
Don't use centralized services like Twitter that allow this to happen.

Take back control of your social networks and run your own instance of a
federated social network like Diaspora, Pump.io, or GNU Social.

~~~
lbotos
1) Twitter isn't allowing this to happen, they are fighting it.

2) If the government were to subpoena your Diaspora node you'd be in the same
boat, no?

------
shit_parade
People and companies need to remember that civil disobedience is a valid
option in response to unjust laws.

~~~
bbarn
Only at a critical mass. Below that, enough civil cooperation from others
following said unjust laws buries the voice, and hides the effort.

