House Judiciary Committee to consider recommending Congress hold Zuckerberg in contempt

HARK! · Jul 26, 2023

The House Judiciary Committee on Thursday will consider recommending Congress hold Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg in contempt for failing to comply with a subpoena seeking internal company documents involving online censorship.

Meta said it has complied with congressional requests and turned over tens of thousands of pages of documents, but federal lawmakers believe the Big Tech company has withheld info about its interactions with the Biden administration to coordinate censorship.

House Judiciary Committee to consider recommending Congress hold Zuckerberg in contempt

The House Judiciary Committee on Thursday will consider recommending Congress hold Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg in contempt for failing to comply with a subpoena seeking internal company documents involving online censorship.

www.washingtontimes.com

FireDragon76 · Jul 26, 2023

Political theater designed to bully tech companies for not allowing racists and conspiracy theorists onto their platforms.

HARK! · Jul 26, 2023

FireDragon76 said:
Political theater designed to bully tech companies for not allowing racists and conspiracy theorists onto their platforms.

Justice, for refusing to comply with a subpoena, and violating the civil liberties of Americans, is not political theater.

FireDragon76 · Jul 26, 2023

HARK! said:
Justice, for refusing to comply with a subpoena, and violating the civil liberties of Americans, is not political theater.

How did a tech company violate the civil liberties of Americans? Isn't it a company's right to uphold moderation standards on its platform?

Arcangl86 · Jul 26, 2023

HARK! said:
Justice, for refusing to comply with a subpoena, and violating the civil liberties of Americans, is not political theater.

There is no indication that Meta isn't complying with the subpoena.

HARK! · Jul 26, 2023

Arcangl86 said:
There is no indication that Meta isn't complying with the subpoena.

The Judiciary Committee's contempt report says otherwise.

HARK! · Jul 26, 2023

FireDragon76 said:
How did a tech company violate the civil liberties of Americans? Isn't it a company's right to uphold moderation standards on its platform?

It's a violation of civil rights for the government to pick and choose which posts will be censored, regardless of a company's moderation standards, or the law.

But hey, if Left wingers want to bring back the good ol' days of McCarthyism, wait until the Republicans are back in control; and if enough Left-wingers press hard enough; maybe some Right wingers will get on board with them and they can work toward Despotism.

Pommer · Jul 27, 2023

HARK! said:
It's a violation of civil rights for the government to pick and choose which posts will be censored, regardless of a company's moderation standards, or the law.

But hey, if Left wingers want to bring back the good ol' days of McCarthyism, wait until the Republicans are back in control; and if enough Left-wingers press hard enough; maybe some Right wingers will get on board with them and they can work toward Despotism.

The Eisenhower years were an era of despotism?

FireDragon76 · Jul 27, 2023

HARK! said:
It's a violation of civil rights for the government to pick and choose which posts will be censored, regardless of a company's moderation standards, or the law.

But hey, if Left wingers want to bring back the good ol' days of McCarthyism, wait until the Republicans are back in control; and if enough Left-wingers press hard enough; maybe some Right wingers will get on board with them and they can work toward Despotism.

There is no evidence the government conspired to prohibit free expression. Only a politically motivated harassment campaign.

KCfromNC · Jul 27, 2023

FireDragon76 said:
There is no evidence the government conspired to prohibit free expression.

There is some evidence the previous administration did, at least if we go by the premise in the OP that cooperating with private companies is government censorship - https://thehill.com/policy/technolo...tory-tweet-from-chrissy-teigen-whistleblower/. But weird the GOP held House would end up targeting the wrong company based on this evidence. Doesn't show them to be all that serious in their concerns.

HARK! · Jul 27, 2023

Arcangl86 said:
There is no indication that Meta isn't complying with the subpoena.

Oh lookey there! What a difference a day (...well...and putting contempt charges on the table...) makes!

Lawmakers table contempt citation for Zuckerberg after Facebook hands over censorship documents

The House Judiciary Committee postponed a contempt recommendation against Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg after the company handed over internal Facebook documents about the Biden administration’s role in online censorship.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan published excerpts of documents on Twitter that he said proved Facebook censored Americans under pressure from President Biden.

Lawmakers table contempt citation for Zuckerberg after Facebook hands over censorship documents

The House Judiciary Committee postponed a contempt recommendation against Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg after the company handed over internal Facebook documents about the Biden administration’s role in online censorship.

www.washingtontimes.com

See? You just have to ask real nice.

Say it aint so · Jul 28, 2023

HARK! said:
Justice, for refusing to comply with a subpoena, and violating the civil liberties of Americans, is not political theater.

Tell that to the majority leader of the committee who, refused to comply with a subpoena.

NxNW · Jul 28, 2023

HARK! said:
The House Judiciary Committee postponed a contempt recommendation against Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg after the company handed over internal Facebook documents about the Biden administration’s role in online censorship.

Alleged role in alleged online censorship. Claims which will no doubt be retracted after the GOP reps get their sound bites on video, and then forgotten when they decide to investigate Hunter's Netflix history.

Say it aint so · Jul 28, 2023

HARK! said:
It's a violation of civil rights for the government to pick and choose which posts will be censored, regardless of a company's moderation standards, or the law.

But hey, if Left wingers want to bring back the good ol' days of McCarthyism, wait until the Republicans are back in control; and if enough Left-wingers press hard enough; maybe some Right wingers will get on board with them and they can work toward Despotism.

Were they directly telling them to remove, and let's be clear what the vast majority of it was, right wing covid misinformation during a pandemic of death?
Or are they flagging it and leaving it up to their moderation board?

ThatRobGuy · Jul 28, 2023

FireDragon76 said:
How did a tech company violate the civil liberties of Americans? Isn't it a company's right to uphold moderation standards on its platform?

It depends if the company can reasonably be considered drifting into the territory of being a "State Actor". I just posted this in a different thread, but it'll be relevant to this conversation as well.
*************************************************************
In US constitutional law (with numerous instances of case precedent)
"a state actor is a person or entity who is acting on behalf of a governmental body, and is therefore subject to limitations imposed on government by the United States Constitution, including the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments"

The following case rulings highlight that:
- the performance of a "public function" (a function that has been traditionally performed by the state) is state action (Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946));

- if the government coerces, influences, or encourages the performance of the act, it is state action (Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830 (1982));

- if the government is "pervasively entwined" with the leadership of the private organization, the acts of the organization are state action (Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association, 535 U.S. 971 (2002)).

I think you can find instances of all 3 of these criteria being met with regards to the big social media platforms

1) Conveying government approved public health messaging and providing polling locations and reminders as well as facilitating voter registrations are a public function.

2) It goes without saying that the government definitely encouraged and influenced the ToS of both Twitter and FB with regards to them setting their policies on Covid and Election misinformation (if hauling the CEOs up to Senate hearings to say "we think this is a problem, what are you gonna do to stop this?" doesn't constitute that, I don't know what does)

3) Being that many elected leaders, public officials, and government agencies use those platforms as a primary means of communicating with people and conveying information, and have called them up to meetings/hearing to influence their company policies, they're entwined.
*************************************************************

In the case of Facebook and Twitter, I think they were treading that line pretty heavily (if not fully stepping over it)

FireDragon76 · Jul 28, 2023

ThatRobGuy said:
It depends if the company can reasonably be considered drifting into the territory of being a "State Actor". I just posted this in a different thread, but it'll be relevant to this conversation as well.
*************************************************************
In US constitutional law (with numerous instances of case precedent)
"a state actor is a person or entity who is acting on behalf of a governmental body, and is therefore subject to limitations imposed on government by the United States Constitution, including the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments"

The following case rulings highlight that:
- the performance of a "public function" (a function that has been traditionally performed by the state) is state action (Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946));

- if the government coerces, influences, or encourages the performance of the act, it is state action (Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830 (1982));

- if the government is "pervasively entwined" with the leadership of the private organization, the acts of the organization are state action (Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association, 535 U.S. 971 (2002)).

I think you can find instances of all 3 of these criteria being met with regards to the big social media platforms

1) Conveying government approved public health messaging and providing polling locations and reminders as well as facilitating voter registrations are a public function.

2) It goes without saying that the government definitely encouraged and influenced the ToS of both Twitter and FB with regards to them setting their policies on Covid and Election misinformation (if hauling the CEOs up to Senate hearings to say "we think this is a problem, what are you gonna do to stop this?" doesn't constitute that, I don't know what does)

3) Being that many elected leaders, public officials, and government agencies use those platforms as a primary means of communicating with people and conveying information, and have called them up to meetings/hearing to influence their company policies, they're entwined.
*************************************************************

In the case of Facebook and Twitter, I think they were treading that line pretty heavily (if not fully stepping over it)

No, corporations are not state actors. The notion is ridiculous.

durangodawood · Jul 28, 2023

ThatRobGuy said:
It depends if the company can reasonably be considered drifting into the territory of being a "State Actor". I just posted this in a different thread, but it'll be relevant to this conversation as well.
*************************************************************
In US constitutional law (with numerous instances of case precedent)
"a state actor is a person or entity who is acting on behalf of a governmental body, and is therefore subject to limitations imposed on government by the United States Constitution, including the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments"

The following case rulings highlight that:
- the performance of a "public function" (a function that has been traditionally performed by the state) is state action (Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946));

- if the government coerces, influences, or encourages the performance of the act, it is state action (Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830 (1982));

- if the government is "pervasively entwined" with the leadership of the private organization, the acts of the organization are state action (Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association, 535 U.S. 971 (2002)).

I think you can find instances of all 3 of these criteria being met with regards to the big social media platforms

1) Conveying government approved public health messaging and providing polling locations and reminders as well as facilitating voter registrations are a public function.

2) It goes without saying that the government definitely encouraged and influenced the ToS of both Twitter and FB with regards to them setting their policies on Covid and Election misinformation (if hauling the CEOs up to Senate hearings to say "we think this is a problem, what are you gonna do to stop this?" doesn't constitute that, I don't know what does)

3) Being that many elected leaders, public officials, and government agencies use those platforms as a primary means of communicating with people and conveying information, and have called them up to meetings/hearing to influence their company policies, they're entwined.
*************************************************************

In the case of Facebook and Twitter, I think they were treading that line pretty heavily (if not fully stepping over it)

1. Newspapers have traditionally provided news and information about public functions. So OK. Lets consider all news media "state actors".

2. No. Congress cannot impose vast restrictions on private corporations by the mere act of calling them to DC for a haranguing.

3. "Entwined with the leadership" really ought to mean something different than just using the platform to distribute information, like my local FD does on Twitter - or X, or whatever it will be next week..

RestoreTheJoy · Jul 28, 2023

FireDragon76 said:
Political theater designed to bully tech companies for not allowing racists and conspiracy theorists onto their platforms.

That is certainly a spin, and a popular distraction among progressive talking heads that litter CNN and MSNBC and their ilk. But the reality is that the government CANNOT censor speech utilizing agents to do what it it is prohibited from doing itself, which is what happened here. THAT is the issue. Not the distractions as you throw in here.

ThatRobGuy · Jul 28, 2023

FireDragon76 said:
No, corporations are not state actors. The notion is ridiculous.

Corporations can absolutely be state actors. That's the basis for the State Actor case law.

"State Actor" is a private citizen or entity that's performing a public function.

Are you forgetting that the US has privatized prison systems? Yet, they're performing a public function, therefore, they're doing the will of the government and therefore a state actor despite being a private corporation.

ThatRobGuy · Jul 28, 2023

durangodawood said:
1. Newspapers have traditionally provided news and information about public functions. So OK. Lets consider all news media "state actors".

A) Newspapers aren't a forum for public speech, they're publishers not platforms
B) When officials want to spread the word about something (whether it be public health info or something else), are they taking out an ad in every newspaper across the country, or are they making a Facebook/Twitter post?

The centralization, user engagement, and critical mass of those two social media companies have are unlike anything in the newspaper world.

durangodawood said:
2. No. Congress cannot impose vast restrictions on private corporations by the mere act of calling them to DC for a haranguing.

The case in question mentions coerces, influences, or encourages

Are you saying that the senators weren't encouraging/influencing/coercing Mark and Jack to tighten the restrictions on what could be posted?

Certain senators basically brag about how they put pressure on Facebook on their official Senate websites

Menendez Slams Facebook for Continued Lack of Transparency, Calls on Platform to Release Data on Vaccine Misinformation | U.S. Senator Bob Menendez of New Jersey

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) today called on Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg to publically release all available data pertaining to vaccine misinformation on its social media platform. Despite numerous calls from the Senator, Facebook continues to refuse to share the...

www.menendez.senate.gov

durangodawood said:
3. "Entwined with the leadership" really ought to mean something different than just using the platform to distribute information, like my local FD does on Twitter - or X, or whatever it will be next week..

Is your local FD summoning the heads of the companies to come in and pressure them in efforts to make sure other speech or content isn't distributed?

The fact that there was so much pearl clutching about Musk buying Twitter with headlines like these...

...shows that people, deep down, know that companies like Facebook and Twitter aren't just "some old company like any other"

I doubt they'd be fretting to this degree if Musk bought "The Beaver Creek Tribune" in Colorado, right?

Any politician or pundit that's openly suggested or implied that "if the person who owns that company isn't on our side, it presents a existential threat" is indirectly acknowledging that "that company" is more than just a regular company.

House Judiciary Committee to consider recommending Congress hold Zuckerberg in contempt

שמע

Well-Known Member

שמע

Well-Known Member

Newbie

שמע

שמע

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

שמע

Lawmakers table contempt citation for Zuckerberg after Facebook hands over censorship documents​

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Part of the IT crowd

Well-Known Member

re Member

Well-Known Member

Part of the IT crowd

Part of the IT crowd

Similar threads

Lawmakers table contempt citation for Zuckerberg after Facebook hands over censorship documents