I think that is where a lot of people are getting confused or hung up. They think the First Amendment means the government is not allowed to speak at all. That is incorrect. It prohibits "abridging the freedom of speech," in other words, forcibly restraining other people from speaking.
So: it is legal for the FBI to call up a company and say what they think. And the company is free to act on that, or not, as they wish.
If the FBI wishes to apply the force of law, that is when they would need to show evidence, get a warrant, etc. But just speaking to companies is normal, and often welcomed by the company if the FBI is sharing information that is useful.
This makes me think of "the implication" in it's always sunny in philadephia.
FBI calls you up and tell you what they think, and you'll totally ignore FBI. Totally.
People hate Musk way too much that they are blind. If this was trump, the shitstorm would begin. It would be drummed up as the biggest scandal ever.
So what are you saying? The government doesn't actually have a right to speak? Without some evidence of threats or coercion I don't see the problem.
> People hate Musk way too much that they are blind.
You think Musk would act any differently?
> If this was trump, the shitstorm would begin.
Not true.
https://www.businessinsider.com/twitter-granted-requests-fro...
This is like saying employees have the right to reject when their bosses make sexual advances.
In theory, sure. In practice, not really. Employees fear for their careers
This is why it's such a big no even if employees have mutual romantic interests.
Same with the FBI. They can fuck up your life beyond repair if they want to.
Thus, "the implications"!
I'll concede that the big tech companies certainly have an incentive to comply with law enforcement because of their legal authority, however as we all know, big tech companies are well equipped in terms of political influence as well as powerful legal teams that ensure these companies don't have to do anything they don't want to if they're complying with the law, especially if law enforcement isn't issuing a legal command and is merely "telling you what they think".
> This is why it's such a big no even if employees have mutual romantic interests.
In all cases of boss vs subordinate there is a near total power asymmetry in favor of the boss unless the boss is egregiously abusive or retaliatory, and often times even that doesn't matter. A boss also never has a genuine business interest in making sexual advances, whereas law enforcement may have a genuine law enforcement interest in asking for a company's cooperation.
FBI asked for the location of the accounts that "Twitter will voluntarily provide to aid the FBI". Ref: https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1604191731141984256
> whereas law enforcement may have a genuine law enforcement interest in asking for a company's cooperation.
Then, getting a subpoena shouldn't have been an issue since they have a genuine law enforcement interest. Judges would have an easy time signing the subpoena since this would be totally justified and reasonable. right? right?
Yet FBI decided not to do that and decided to ask Twitter to "volunteer" the information.