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.
But how do you know that the FBI was "just speaking" and merely that? We all are looking at the same source here, there's clearly ambiguity with respect to what was discussed in the FBI's repeated calls with Roth
It seems to me like you're incredibly eager to assume that there's nothing more to this, and that the FBI is just merely "speaking to companies" and nothing more
I'm not saying that the FBI is merely speaking or doing more than speaking, I'm saying that we don't know and there's insufficient information available to make that kind of judgement
> Does the First Amendment protect intimidating speech?
Not always. The First Amendment does not protect intimidation in the form of “true threats,” “where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence” against another person or group. Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343, 360 (2003).
Even when speech is not openly threatening, states and localities nonetheless may impose some restrictions on speech in order to protect the integrity of elections and the rights of voters to cast their ballots free from intimidation. In Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191 (1992), the Supreme Court upheld a Tennessee law that banned campaigning within 100 feet of the entrance to a polling place.
https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?art...
> Long before the Court affirmed the right to vote as constitutionally protected, Congress had passed a series of laws which extended civil rights protections, including suffrage protections, to recently emancipated slaves following the civil war. These laws, deemed the “Enforcement Acts,” are to some extent still in place today, and those statutes continue to be the primary method by which the federal government enforces the civil rights of individual citizens. 18 U.S.C. §§241 and 242 provide broad jurisdiction to prosecute corruption of rights. The statutes cover the intentional deprivation of any right protected under the Constitution or federal law. §241 makes it unlawful for two or more persons “to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States.”38 §242 makes it unlawful for anyone “acting under color of law” to deprive a person of such a right.
> The Supreme Court acknowledged the broad scope of §241 when it opined that “[t]he language of §241 is plain and unlimited. [It] embraces all of the rights and privileges secured to citizens by all of the Constitution and all of the laws of the United States....We think [its] history leaves no doubt that, if we are to give §241 the scope its origins dictate, we must accord it a sweep as broad as its language.”51 The broad scope of the law allows for the sweeping protection of federally recognized rights. At the same time, it constructs some barriers for applying the law when new types of violations must be articulated. To that end, the statute has been the target of a vast number of vagueness challenges in federal courts – although to little avail.
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.
> FBI calls you up and tell you what they think, and you'll totally ignore FBI. Totally.
The OP literally says that's an option that certain companies have opted to do:
> An FBI agent just reached out with a key point about the “gross” subservience of Twitter before the FBI: “A lot of companies we deal with are adversarial to us. Like T-Mobile is totally adversarial. They love leaking things we're saying if we don't get our process right.” (1/2)
> “I feel like that’s the default position. People used to get mad about that in the Bureau, but — they're supposed to represent their clients and their customers. Why in the hell would you expect them to make it easy on you? Do the right thing. Do it the right way.”
https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1603890210252668928
It sounds like Twitter was choosing to play nice with the feds, unless any evidence of coercion arises.
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"!
This is like your bosses make sexual advances at you. The power dynamics would make you uncomfortable.
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.
You are getting more and more obtuse. You know this is not the same, but you still use it in your argument.
In this case, FBI asked for the location of the accounts that "Twitter will voluntarily provide to aid the FBI". Ref: https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1604191731141984256
Why didn't FBI get a subpoena properly? why asking twitter to voluntarily provide information?
Were the FBI afraid of getting a subpoena for some reason?
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.