The right to free speech enshrined in the constitution is indeed expansive... but it also has some well-known limitations. Perhaps the most familiar of these limitations is the restriction on creating a public health hazard by yelling “fire” in a crowded theater.

I am left to wonder what the supreme court would find if a theater was actually on fire and the owners of the theater took it upon themselves to hand the announcement system over to a random person who proceeded to tell everyone to ignore the fire alarms because there wasn’t actually a fire and to just continue to enjoy the movie they were watching.

It seems to me that this kind of behavior represents another common sense limitation on the right to free speech.

I despise #3 with the scorching fire of 10,000 undying suns.

The *last* thing we need from government is 'leadership.'

If those in government need a grandiose mission statement, they should try 'honest'... Something like: We'll always perform our responsibilities with transparent integrity. Obviously, that would be a profound challenge for them, as they've never come close to doing so in the past.

I can't believe the guy said that about GOVERNMENT: "Part of leadership is praising good behavior and condemning bad behavior..." It's just ridiculous on it's face. There's nothing conservative about it at all. The guy's as addled as "West Wing" viewer stoned on Cabernet… His most potent daydream is compassionate command.

Orion, none of this is any of your business.

> but it also has some well-known
> limitations.

Spoken like a true Chinaman-- You wanted to express your submission to the CCP right in the first sentence. Good Little Citizen!

You just don't get it.

Shorter White:

"Nice platform ya got there Zuck. Be a shame if somethin' were to happen to it."

Artemis, Ken White has some thoughts on your analogy as well. You probably won't appreciate them as much...https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/

So, if social media companies have a moral responsibility to suppress posts that might lead to harm, then they should clearly suppress all calls for the defunding of the police, right?

I am left to wonder.... ~ Artemis at July 17, 2021 3:09 AM

Artie, what you're describing not a reasonable restriction on free speech; it's depraved indifference on the part of the theater owner.

By the way, Holmes' "shouting fire" analogy was in a SCOTUS decision that upheld the Espionage Act of 1917, under which a socialist activist was convicted of conspiracy and attempting to cause insubordination in the military by distributing leaflets protesting the World War I draft. The precedent set by the Schenck decision was overturned by SCOTUS in 1969.

I do agree with the President using the Bully Pulpit to encourage desirable behavior. I wonder how the Pandemic would have gone if he had pushed reasonable precautions for Covid in the first place?

I have seen Facebook removing some propaganda concerning Covid. Is the writer saying that they are not going far enough?

The problem with this line of thinking : Who determines what is desirable vs. undesirable speech?

Everyone wants their personal beliefs used as the standard.

Crid,

You are a logically incoherent nutball.

On the one hand you accuse me of being a "submissive" and "good little citizen"... and on the other hand, you are pissed off because I won't provide you with personal information when you demand it.

So, which is it, am I submissive or intransigent?

I suspect the true issue at play is that your mental pathology cannot let you come to grips with the reality that you have no authority anywhere… you are a perpetual nobody in life and you cannot handle it.

It's not that you actually have a fundamental issue with authority... you have a problem not being the guy calling the shots.

Most folks grow out of this juvenile mindset after their teenage years, but not you… you’re riding that phase out until you die.

Conan Says:

"Artie, what you're describing not a reasonable restriction on free speech; it's depraved indifference on the part of the theater owner."

I'm just trying to set up some sensible guardrails here Conan.

I thought you liked those?

I think it is a quite reasonable stance to explore since public health has already been carved out as a space where rights to free speech may legitimately be curtailed.

I'm just someone who believes that rights come with responsibilities.

Conversations about rights that do not involve an associated discussion about responsibilities lack nuance.

Let's not be black and white thinkers here.

“So, which is it, am I submissive or intransigent?”

Both.

Trump really broke that man's mind, doesn't it?

Imagine a world in which Trump won re-election. Now imagine that he instructed Facebook, twitter, et al, to remove "disinformation".

Why do I suspect that they would suddenly find an unwavering commitment to "free speech"?

There's a form of government in which the great corporations are beholden to the government. The name of which was just on the tip of my tongue. Dammit...

Rights are individual-- held by individual human beings. Corporations/governments aren't individuals and have no rights. The concept doesn't even make sense.

If corporations censor speech, then they are liable for what they allow, just as if the CEO wrote it himself. If they don't censor, they can claim it wasn't them saying it and I wouldn't hold them liable.

And the old lie about not having a right to (falsely) yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater is very convenient for the censors. You do have that right, and there will be negative consequences for doing so.

"I think it is a quite reasonable stance to explore since public health has already been carved out as a space where rights to free speech may legitimately be curtailed."
Artemis at July 17, 2021 8:09 AM

Statutes or cases? FIRE disagrees with you:

"There is no clearly established public health exception among the 43 judicially recognized exceptions to the First Amendment."

https://www.thefire.org/first-amendment-news-251-public-health-and-the-first-amendment-in-the-age-of-covid-19/

You could benefit from Causticf's link.
Also, what statute or case does Facebook need to stop you from posting? Your points about exceptions to the law and rights/responsibilities is non-sequitur.

are non-sequitur

"a public health hazard "
What won't be called a public health hazard 5 min after this is made law. Just watch Democrats talk about 'infrastructure'
We already see it since some have declared guns a public health hazard, and being white, what next Christianity.
So censorship on everything auto banned from everywhere. Just add it to the no fly list.

Totally agree with Crid about #3. These people forget they are not "leaders," they are administrators, the janitors of the systems. The last thing I want to hear from them is their opinions about what is "right" or "wrong."

A more interesting question ought to be, given that these media platforms are going to censor in order to formulate the "right" public attitudes through propaganda, what should be the result when they turn out to have been wrong?

Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine have turned out to be a pretty good COVID treatment approach. Now what penalties should Google and Facebook suffer for having misled the public about this for over a year? They can pretend they did it because they thought it was "wrong" or "dangerous" but as it turned out, they were acting dangerously. And my suspicion is they did it for political reasons, not scientific ones. How many people died because Facebook had a weed up its ass and allowed idiot censors to remove posts? What price should they have to pay?

If it turns out the 2020 election was riddled with fraud, what price should be paid for suppressing and resisting the audits?

THe one thing I know is that they shouldn't get away with just an "my bad" apology.

> On the one hand you accuse
> me of

You're dishonest. You not from America, and it shows in your language, your 'opinions' and your neediness. Also, your thinking is Confucian. And Confused. And Childish… The three C's. Maybe you're Chang, another desperate, young, and undercooked young visitor here from years ago.

✔ Perry at July 17, 2021 8:13 AM'

✔ ruralcounsel at July 17, 2021 1:27 PM

> are non-sequitur

Consider this.

I'm just trying to set up some sensible guardrails here Conan.

I thought you liked those?

Artemis at July 17, 2021 8:09 AM

Guardrails. That word does not mean what you think it does. You are not setting up guardrails by imagining hypothetical situations that are almost the complete opposite of what you're trying to illustrate.

========================================

I despise #3 with the scorching fire of 10,000 undying suns. ~ Crid at July 17, 2021 5:17 AM

Anyone looking to politicians for leadership is looking in the wrong direction. Politics follows popular opinion; it does not, and should not, lead it. Politicians jockey for position in an arena of shifting sands.

"Politicians are the same the world over. They promise to build a bridge even where there is no river." ― Nikita Khrushchev

I think it is a quite reasonable stance to explore since public health has already been carved out as a space where rights to free speech may legitimately be curtailed. ~ Artemis at July 17, 2021 8:09 AM

Public health is an area in which rights of free speech have been curtailed, but not legitimately, and not with a widespread consent.

Free speech rights are almost never "legitimately" curtailed. That's the entire point of free speech.

Orion's comments often come off like shallow prosecution arguments in China's purges (as above): Absolutely inane; willful, obvious and erratic distortions of the words of other commenters, and desperate pandering to the needs of some supervising Party observer… A personage not present here, because its not a Commie courtroom. So he'll accuse you of being knock-kneed this week and bow-legged the next and think nothing of it, because that's how things work in his experience. He's not merely offended that Americans say whatever we want, and live by our principles… He can't comprehend the mechanism.

Amy is something of a 1A absolutist, which is why I'm here.

Perry Says:

"Both."

Well how very weak must Crid be then that he cannot manage to get a "submissive" person to do as he wishes?

Submissive people are by definition ready to conform... intransigent people are by definition unwilling to conform.

They are mutually exclusive character traits.

But hey... never let a little thing like logic or consistency get in the way of a stupid narrative.

Interestingly this is actually a hallmark of how fascists think.

The enemy is simultaneously strong and weak depending on the story that needs to be told at any given moment.

You shouldn't strive to have the same cognitive state as such people.

When a private entity does as the government directs, which is to say a positive action (not refraining from something) it may become a government agent for First Amendment purposes.
So. Is FB doing as the government directs--"flagging problematic" items and letting FB know?

ruralcounsel says:

"Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine have turned out to be a pretty good COVID treatment approach. Now what penalties should Google and Facebook suffer for having misled the public about this for over a year?"

Where exactly are you getting your information from?

The scientific literature is not in agreement with your claim. For example:

www.acpjournals.org/doi/full/10.7326/M20-4207

"Hydroxychloroquine did not substantially reduce symptom severity in outpatients with early, mild COVID-19."

Can you please provide primary sources that establish the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine when it comes to treating COVID-19?

We actually have pharmaceuticals that are actually effective at treating this illness... it just so happens that hydroxychloroquine isn't one of them.

As for Ivermectin, the literature suggests that to obtain efficacy the drug must be administered in a dose that is well beyond the standard for its presently approved uses. This means it *may* be suitable for compassionate use situations but certainly isn’t recommended for prime time use until we have a better understanding of it’s mechanism of action within the body as well as have reliable data from clinical trials.

I’m not really certain where you are getting your information from, but it doesn’t appear to be from the research literature on the subject.

Conan Says:

"Guardrails. That word does not mean what you think it does."

Well I certainly would never expect you to think that way.

In your view guardrails are just social systems set in place to prevent things that you personally do not like.

I'd be happy to have an objective discussion of what constitutes legitimate social guardrails... but I have the sense that you want to keep the criteria as subjective as possible.

That you don't believe any sensible guardrails should exist to prevent the spread of misinformation pertaining to a pandemic that has killed millions of people world wide and hundreds of thousands in the US is both disturbing and predictable.

But don't let one transgendered person set foot in a bathroom without letting you take a gander down their the front of their pants... that's where the real focus of society needs to be at the moment.

Conan Says:

"Public health is an area in which rights of free speech have been curtailed, but not legitimately, and not with a widespread consent.

Free speech rights are almost never "legitimately" curtailed. That's the entire point of free speech."

Just a few things to note:

1 - Just because you claim public health limitations are not legitimate does not make it so... you have to demonstrate this with evidence

2 - When you say free speech rights are *almost* never legitimately curtained the operative word there is "almost"... all rights have limitations... and these are imposed when one persons right infringes upon another. Right now we are seeing a conflict between one persons right to free speech and another persons right to life and health. In such situations a proper conversation is justified and warranted.

3 - We aren't even talking about free speech rights... no one has a "right" to post whatever nonsense they want on FB. Everyone agreed to the TOS of the platform and FB has no obligation to give anyone a megaphone for their nonsense. If someone wants to rant and rave about how the pandemic is a hoax in the middle of their living room more power to them.

As far as I can tell you aren't really making a legitimate argument pertaining to the topic at hand.

Some people say Singapore

"1 - Just because you claim public health limitations are not legitimate does not make it so... you have to demonstrate this with evidence."
Artemis at July 17, 2021 9:03 PM

No. Because you're attempting to infringe on a fundamental Constitutional right,YOU have to demonstrate that the limitation you propose will pass strict judicial scrutiny.

"Strict scrutiny is a form of judicial review that courts use to determine the constitutionality of certain laws. ... To pass strict scrutiny, the legislature must have passed the law to further a "compelling governmental interest," and must have narrowly tailored the law to achieve that interest."

Every 8th-Grader should know that.

> you have to demonstrate this
> with evidence."

While not subject to American law or social sanction, Orion loves to come to this blog and tell the rest of us exactly what we must do to comply with them… Which is a weird hobby for a foreigner to have.

Whatever his/her arrangements, it's hard to imagine why he/she's ashamed to let us know where it is, and how such matters are handled there.

… Unless it's not hard to imagine at all.

But no, Spidey, he/she doesn't understand our Constitutions or the burdens of its adherence.

Wow, there's a lot of nonsense to unpack in Artie's latest cavalcade of posts. This is gonna take some time.

For the uninitiated: Artie likes to deliberately misconstrue people's arguments to feign moral superiority over them.

In your view guardrails are just social systems set in place to prevent things that you personally do not like. ~ Artemis at July 17, 2021 8:55 PM

Well, thank you for telling my what my views are. Without you, how would I ever know what I think.

That was sarcasm, Artie. I've noticed you have a difficult time distinguishing it - at least you did in another thread when both Spidey and Gog lobbed some at you and it went right over your head.

Artie, the concept of guardrails is simple: laws should not be rushed into place in service of a tiny, but vocal, segment of the population. The rights of all individuals in a population should be respected and defended. Rights, Artie, not preferences.

The concept is pretty simple. Ta-Nehisi Coates talks about guardrails often. And, while I don't always agree with him, I often find him an interesting read.

"Power changes people. People yell things from behind the shielding of their automobiles which they would never yell if walking down a sidewalk. This does not mean that power should be shunned; it means that we should be aware of its effects. I believe very much in self-defense, and totally understand why someone would keep a gun in the home. If I lived somewhere else, I might keep one too.  | But I would not insist that I was the same person armed, with the power to take a life, that I was without it. I would insist on guard-rails."

The law provides those guardrails in the form of laws that govern self-defense without imposing upon the right of a person to defend himself, his loved ones, or his property from predators.

For instance, North Carolina law says one may shoot a person illegally entering or already in the house, but not one fleeing the house, even he's carrying off a brand new and very expensive TV. One can defend life and limb, but not property. Some states have implemented a legal burden to flee, is possible, in order to be able to claim self-defense.

The Wall Street Journal also discusses guardrails:

"These weaker or more vulnerable people, who in different ways must try to live along life's margins, are among the reasons that a society erects rules. They're guardrails. It's also true that we need to distinguish good rules from bad rules and periodically re-examine old rules. But the broad movement that gained force during the anti-war years consciously and systematically took down the guardrails. Incredibly, even judges pitched in. All of them did so to transform the country's institutions and its codes of personal behavior.... | In a sense, it has been a remarkable political and social achievement for them. But let's get something straight about the consequences. If as a society we want to live under conditions of constant challenge to institutions and limits on personal life, if we are going to march and fight and litigate over every conceivable grievance, then we should stop crying over all the individual casualties, because there are going to be a lot of them."

Artie, you don't want to establish guardrails to protect the vulnerable. You want to tear down any and all social conventions. And, like the editorial says, there will be a lot of casualties from your carelessness.

Legal guardrails often run counter to freedom and rights and, so, should only be established with great concern for the rights of the individuals affected by them. Spidey put it well with his post on strict judicial scrutiny.

I don't care what's down your pants, Artie. I do care that appeasing a tiny, but vocal, minority could carelessly put other people in danger. And your indifference to the casualties of such policies "is both disturbing and predictable."

========================================

We aren't even talking about free speech rights... no one has a "right" to post whatever nonsense they want on FB. Everyone agreed to the TOS of the platform and FB has no obligation to give anyone a megaphone for their nonsense. If someone wants to rant and rave about how the pandemic is a hoax in the middle of their living room more power to them. ~ Artemis at July 17, 2021 9:03 PM

In fact, everyone has a right to post whatever they want on Facebook. And Facebook has terms of service that govern what it finds acceptable and what it will remove.

The problem arises from the fact that Facebook and its social media cousins, while private sector companies, have become virtual monopoly platforms for the digital dissemination of ideas, both good and bad.

Government pressure on Facebook to censor viewpoints that the government deems "misinformation" is a violation of the free speech the government is charged with protecting.

I understand that you're okay with that. Most of your arguments favor government oversight, regulation, and control. Most of mine do not.

========================================

Right now we are seeing a conflict between one persons [sic] right to free speech and another persons [sic] right to life and health. In such situations a proper conversation is justified and warranted. ~ Artemis at July 17, 2021 9:03 PM

A "proper conversation?" And I suppose that you propose to be the arbiter of such "proper conversation." Always beware of the person who claims to know what constitutes "proper" in any environment. That person seeks power, not propriety.

Right now, there is no "conflict between one person's right to free speech and another person's right to life and health." One has zero impact on the other.

You're free to listen to the quack or the legitimate medical person. If your Aunt Sally insists that smashing her toes with a hammer cured her bunions, you're free to smash your own toes with a hammer to cure your bunions. You're also free to ignore her and go to a trained and licensed medical professional. It's the same with advice dispensed by "friends" on social media.

You shouldn't take medical (or psychological) advice from a stranger on the street. Likewise, you should not take the same bad advice from a stranger on social media.

Nor should you tout a YouTube huckster with dodgy credentials as an "expert on narcissism."

Spiderfall Says:

"No. Because you're attempting to infringe on a fundamental Constitutional right,YOU have to demonstrate that the limitation you propose will pass strict judicial scrutiny."

No Spiderfall... no one has a "fundamental Constitutional right" to spread misinformation on a social media site.

If you want to protest in the streets be my guest, but no one has the "right" to use a megaphone provided by a private enterprise with a TOS agreement.

Every 8th-Grader should know that.

Conan,

You're too wordy... brevity is the soul of wit after all.

The point remains that I have not misconstrued your words. You expressed a very strong opinion that social guardrails are absolutely necessary to prevent the scourge of transgendered folks using public rest rooms without somehow being "vetted" (i'm not sure exactly how that would occur without someone looking in their underwear).

At the same time you argue against any sensible guardrails for misinformation on privately owned social networks as it pertains to a pandemic that has already resulted in 600,000+ deaths.

The fundamental point is that nothing about this is logically consistent.

It only makes sense if we presume you just want society to function according to your subjective preferences.

No one is interested in having your subjective feelings dictate how we respond to issues.

"Artie, the concept of guardrails is simple: laws should not be rushed into place in service of a tiny, but vocal, segment of the population. The rights of all individuals in a population should be respected and defended. Rights, Artie, not preferences."

You have not demonstrated that you have any special insight into the views of the population at large.

To think that only a "tiny, but vocal, segment of the population" finds the spread of misinformation regarding a public health crisis to be a significant social malady indicated that you live in a sheltered thought bubble.

The reality is that the majority of Americans are sick and tired of this nonsense... it is actually less than 40% of the country that is in favor of this stupidity.

Despite your recently demonstrated difficulties with math, surely you recognize that less than 40% is the minority.

> Conan,
>
> You're too wordy...

This kid is insane.

> brevity is the soul of
> wit after all.

But he/she's got a great list of idioms! Crossing 'em off, one by one. Feels folksy! Almost like really being an English speaker! In America!

> That was sarcasm, Artie. I've
> noticed you have a difficult
> time distinguishing it

The language, the quibbling, the relentlessness— This person does not recognize the byways of the Western mind, but desperately wants to sit at the table.

Conan says:

"Most of your arguments favor government oversight, regulation, and control. Most of mine do not."

Nonsense... you want to try and classify our divergent views along the lines of one of us being in favor of "freedom" while the other is in favor of "control". That however isn't actually what occurs. We differ on the substance of the issues.

For example, I was against the governments response to the peaceful Lafayette Square protests last summer... you on the other hand didn't see much issue with peoples 1st amendment rights being trampled so that Trump could take a photo op with an upside bible in front of a church he doesn't attend.

Incidentally the priest who runs that church was driven out by gas canisters... but I suppose they were just a troublemaker huh Conan?

I am very much in favor of freedom... but I also focus on responsibilities associated with those freedoms.

That is something you almost never discuss.

What responsibilities do citizens have when it comes to their free speech rights?

Earlier I used an analogy when it comes to theaters, but let me expand upon it now.

If there was a fire in a theater and someone started going into around on a bull horn informing everyone that it was just a false alarm and to remain seated... that person would not be able to claim 1st amendment protections in relation to charges associated with the deaths of folks who listened to them.

1st amendment rights are not unlimited... spreading misinformation about others is already a limitation. This is the very foundation of defamation lawsuits.

That you see the wide spread misinformation regarding a viral pandemic as some kind of open and shut case of constitutionally protected form of free speech is very disturbing.

Don't be such a black and white thinker.

This is precisely the kind of issue that deserves a gray area conversation.

Crid,

It's just some good natured ribbing... as the saying goes, don't dish it out if you cannot take it :)

Exactly, just like that. You say these mundane things and let the mundane sentences just sit there in the sun going sour, as if everyone will feel comforted by familiar words. But the rhythms are always off, to say nothing of the weightless ideas they're intended to buttress.

Still going with Confucian, prolly Chinese. If you lived in Montana, you'd say so. And you'd be more interesting.

Also: "can't," not cannot. It's contextual.

"no one has a "fundamental Constitutional right" to spread misinformation on a social media site."
Artemis at July 18, 2021 9:01 AM

American liberties can be disorienting to people used to living in fear of the state.

Certainly you have the right, in the U.S., to post whatever you like. And to take the consequences, if any. Get your own social media platform and see.

You are blind to your own behavior. On this social media thread you have posted three bits of misinformation.
1) "public health has already been carved out as a space where rights to free speech may legitimately be curtailed."
2) "Just because you claim public health limitations are not legitimate does not make it so... you have to demonstrate this with evidence"
3) "no one has a "fundamental Constitutional right" to spread misinformation on a social media site."

These are all misinformation. You can publish obscenities, political advertising, commercial exaggerations, race-baiting, or your own love letters, if any.
Here's a famous misinformation, widely disseminated. But allowed by the social media platforms.

"President Obama's oft-repeated promise that "if you like your health care plan, you can keep it" is 2013's "lie of the year," Politifact

Time to clear out that soggy, subordinated, bureautrashed mindset of yours so you can begin to think clearly about liberty and learn to soar with the eagles.

"Conan,

You're too wordy... "

Gotta go get another irony meter.

You have a pretty well-developed case of Reasoning Deficit Disorder, though it major presentation seems to be the adoption of wordiness as a virtue. Can you demonstrate any instance where you where both to the point and brief?
No, forget I asked. I won't read another novel about some minor thing.

This blog is not richer for your presence.

More misinformation posted to social media:
"1st amendment rights being trampled so that Trump could take a photo op with an upside bible in front of a church he doesn't attend."
Artemis at July 18, 2021 9:32 AM

Headline:

Police did not clear D.C.'s Lafayette Square of protesters so Trump could hold a photo op, new report says

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1270126

"This blog is not richer for your presence"
C'mon, Radwaste. Star Wars would be a lesser film without Darth Vader.

You're too wordy... brevity is the soul of wit after all. ~ Artemis at July 18, 2021 9:12 AM

With apologies to William Shakespeare:

Therefore, since brevity is the soul of wit,
And tediousness the limbs and outward flourishes,
I will be brief. Your [ignoble self] is mad…

You, Artie, are the last person on this forum, possibly on this planet, who should be giving advice on brevity in communication.

And Polonius is not the wise sage you imagine him to be in quoting him. He's a pompous windbag and generally wrong on every issue. As are you.

> You, Artie, are the last person
> on this forum, possibly on
> this planet, who…

Thank you guys. I didn't want to eat ALL the Halloween candy from the grocery sack.

Also, sorry about the mixed metaphor earlier. Sister Orion doesn't always summon our best work, as it's wasted there.

Spidey— "If any" was a nice touch.

"You're too wordy"

tl:dr

Crid Says:

"Also: "can't," not cannot. It's contextual."

You're the last person to be providing lessons in how to form contractions after you said this gem earlier in the thread:

"You not from America" - Crid at July 17, 2021 2:13 PM

It's "You're" Crid... as in "you are not from America".

You see, the difference between you and I is that I notice your errors and just don't bother to make an issue out of them for two reasons, the first being that it is just a blog and the second being that you are wrong on the substance.

You on the other hand will choose to correct things that aren't even grammatical errors because that's all you've got to go on.

Spiderfall Says:

"On this social media thread you have posted three bits of misinformation.
1) "public health has already been carved out as a space where rights to free speech may legitimately be curtailed."
2) "Just because you claim public health limitations are not legitimate does not make it so... you have to demonstrate this with evidence"
3) "no one has a "fundamental Constitutional right" to spread misinformation on a social media site.""

None of these points can be accurately characterized as "misinformation".

All 3 of them are accurate.

It is true that free speech can be and has been curtailed in the service of public health. Reckless and/or malicious speech resulting in a public health crisis has legal consequences that the 1st amendment cannot be counted on to protect you from in terms of liability and or criminal charges.

It is true that just because you claim something to be so doesn't make it so. This is in fact a weird one for you to claim is misinformation... what exactly are you trying to say here Spiderfall?... that you believe you are infallible and what you say should be taken as fact without supporting evidence?

It is also true that you have no constitutional protections in terms of what you can express on social media. It is a private business and they can kick you off or block your ability to post... what you can and cannot post on FB is not a constitutional issue baring some kind of discrimination you can prove I suppose... but misinformation wouldn't put you in a protected class.

Radwaste Says:

"Gotta go get another irony meter."

Apparently sarcasm isn't something you understand either... I'll add it to the list.

Since you don't seem to get it I'll make it simple... Conan likes to complain about wordy posts and then posts 1000+ word responses.

I actually don't mind long posts... but I do think it is worth while pointing out double standards.

Conan Says:

"You, Artie, are the last person on this forum, possibly on this planet, who should be giving advice on brevity in communication."

I'm just holding you to your own standards Conan.

I like for people to play by the same rules... any fair minded person would insist upon such a thing.

The things you say don't matter unless to answer:

Where do you live?

Artemis,

Perhaps you could explain why there is so little medical literature out there about heavily censored information? It's a mystery. Kind of why it was so hard to hear people's opinions about the Wuhan lab release hypothesis for almost a year, until suddenly, post-Trump, it reappears.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAHi3lX3oGM
(This one is still up, but who knows for how long)

Artemis,

BTW, the research literature is not where you should be looking. You do realize how long it takes research to be done, reviewed, and published? Not to mention pass by TPTB who decide what you should know and what you shouldn't.

What medical journals are going to publish something that destroys the case for emergency authorization for the vaccines, and cross the Pfizer's and Moderna's and J&j's? Let me tell you, the answer to that is none.

It's out among the practitioners. Where it's working.

Oh, and Artemis, one more thing.

The Trump photo-op at Lafayette Park story turned out to be total propaganda. The Park Service records verified that was total BS.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-photo-op-lafayette-park-protesters-report/

and

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/06/09/lafayette-park-not-cleared-donald-trump-photo-opp-report-says/7622478002/

Like so many of the original media stories over the past 5 years.

ruralcounsel Says:

"Perhaps you could explain why there is so little medical literature out there about heavily censored information?"

You are going to have to be more specific... conspiracy theories abound these days so it is unclear what so-called "heavily censored information" is missing from the medical literature that belongs there.

No matter how you slice it though, hydroxychloroquine hasn't been demonstrated to be a particularly good treatment COVID.

"BTW, the research literature is not where you should be looking. You do realize how long it takes research to be done, reviewed, and published?"

It is in fact where we should be looking and yes I do actually realize precisely how the peer review process works... I'm a professional scientist ruralcounsel.

"It's out among the practitioners. Where it's working."

No ruralcounsel... the research literature is clear that it doesn't really do anything for COVID.

It is a perfectly fine treatment for malaria, lupus and rheumatoid arthritis though.

"What medical journals are going to publish something that destroys the case for emergency authorization for the vaccines, and cross the Pfizer's and Moderna's and J&j's? Let me tell you, the answer to that is none."

Dear lord... you're one of those.

What country do you live in?

Crid,

Let's focus our attention on more important matters.

For example, why is it that rain drops and snow falls?

"All 3 of them are accurate."
Artemis at July 18, 2021 10:57 PM

You make assertions without references or citations, and seem too lazy or frightened to read the ones I have provided for you.
"that you believe you are infallible and what you say should be taken as fact without supporting evidence?"
My posts countering your misinformation do have a citations.
Get thee to the library.

Nobody cares what you think is important. Where do you live?

(That was for Orion, not Spidey)

Spiderfall Says,

"You make assertions without references or citations, and seem too lazy or frightened to read the ones I have provided for you."

Nonsense... I linked ruralcounsel to a published scientific article demonstrating that hydroxychloroquine does not have efficacy for COVID on July 17, 2021 8:48 PM.

When there is a fact that needs to be demonstrated I am happy to link to primary sources.

Other times the issue at hand is of a logical nature and the problem is one of fallacious reasoning. In such cases no citations are required.

"My posts countering your misinformation do have a citations."

You have a citation that makes the following statement false???:

"Just because you claim public health limitations are not legitimate does not make it so... you have to demonstrate this with evidence"

You are engaging in crazy talk at this point.

There is nothing erroneous about a statement that indicates that you need evidence to establish your claims.

If you have facts and evidence to bring to the table please do so... but I'm certainly not going to accept your claims based on fiat.

Crid Says:

"Nobody cares what you think is important."

You only speak for yourself... in that sense you don't care what I think is important.

In any event, I do agree that you are nobody.

Spiderfall,

Let's take a rational look at the article you presented the other day for example to "demonstrate" that "Police did not clear D.C.'s Lafayette Square of protesters so Trump could hold a photo op"

Did you bother to read beyond the headline?

Let me quote it for you directly:

"...Attorney General William Barr urged officials to speed up the clearing process once Trump had decided to walk through the area that evening."

So let's talk about the logic here by using an analogy.

Let's say that you were morbidly obese and your doctor had mentioned to you on several occasions that you needed to change your diet and get more exercise... then later on your end up being diagnosed with diabetes and as a result you implement the diet and exercise plan sooner than you had originally intended.

It would be fair to say in such a situation that you started dieting and exercising in response to your diabetic condition.

It would be fair to say this even knowing that previous medical advice had suggested you go on a diet and exercise for other reasons.

The same applies here. There was a plan in place to clear the square at a particular time associated with an established curfew. After the curfew they had a plan to install additional fencing.

That plan was accelerated by the presidents decision to take a previously unplanned walk through the protest area for a photo op in front of a church.

The POTUS could have delayed his walk by ~30 minutes until AFTER the area was already cleared in accordance with the established curfew. Instead he threw everything into disarray and peaceful protestors were shot and brutalized.

""Are these people still going to be here when POTUS comes out?" Barr is quoted as saying, using an acronym for President of the United States.

The commander said he not known until then that Trump would be coming out of the White House and into Lafayette Square.

He said he replied to the attorney general, "Are you freaking kidding me?""

For someone who claims to be a staunch advocate of the 1st amendment all of this should bother you... but apparently not... you need to focus on facebook.

Peaceful protestors were shot Spiderfall... and they were shot because no one from the white house bothered to properly coordinate with law enforcement.

There is no way around that even if we all agree that Trump's photo op wasn't the *only* reason the protestors were disbursed. The accelerated timing of the disbursement in advance of the established curfew was in fact Trump's fault.

Those add up to 682 words.

Where do you live?

Crid,

Conan already wrote more than 1000 words in a previous post and you had nothing to say... that established a precedent for the thread... you'll have to take it up with him.

Conan's comments are built from principled meaning, and always worth reading: He lives (give or take) on the Eastern Seaboard.

Where do you live?

Crid,

I'm not the least bit interested in catering to your subjective preferences.

Principles of any sort have no merit or meaning when they are subjective in nature... they must have their foundation in objective criteria that can be described and shared with others.

This is your most fundamental problem. You never managed to learn that the world doesn't revolve around you.

Too bad... so sad.

Artie, the thing I don't think you get is that the government's charge is protecting free speech, not regulating it. Our Founding Fathers did not insist that the federal government should be able to regulate speech, but that it should be constrained from doing so.

========================================

1st amendment rights are not unlimited... spreading misinformation about others is already a limitation. This is the very foundation of defamation lawsuits. ~ Artemis at July 18, 2021 9:32 AM

Lawsuits, Artie. Not laws. Defamation is a tort, a civil wrong.

As Spidey put it, lawmakers must today prove a compelling government interest when imposing laws the restrict a citizen's freedoms. The opaque standards you keep insisting upon and that the administration is pushing would not stand up to strict judicial scrutiny and serve no compelling government interest except the acquisition of power, the very thing the Constitution was devised to limit.

========================================

The administration is now suggesting that social media companies cooperate to make sure that anyone banned on one platform is banned on the others based solely on what it says is misinformation. Essentially, the Biden administration wants to impose censorship on its political opponents without leaving a government footprint on it - i.e., leaving nothing for the courts to overturn.

We on this blog are sure you are busy preparing a vigorous defense of free speech in response to that, you being so "very much in favor of freedom."

No wonder the left has a persecution complex. They're continually in need of correction.

[You have a citation that makes the following statement false???:
"Just because you claim public health limitations are not legitimate does not make it so... you have to demonstrate this with evidence"]
Artemis at July 19, 2021 9:13 AM

1) "There is no clearly established public health exception among the 43 judicially recognized exceptions to the First Amendment."

https://www.thefire.org/first-amendment-news-251-public-health-and-the-first-amendment-in-the-age-of-covid-19/

2) "A false statement may be impermissible under regulations or statutes, but there are limitations on government’s authority to restrict false speech. The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that falsity alone is not enough to warrant regulation and that there must be some extenuated circumstance attached to the falsity—like malice or perjury, for example—for government sanction of false speech to be valid."

(AMA Journal of Ethics, "Constitutional Regulation of Speech (and False Beliefs) in Health Care," Nov. 2018

3) Justice John. Paul Stevens said for a unanimous Court in Meyer v. Grant -
"The First Amendment is a value-free provision whose protection is not
dependent on the truth, popularity, or social utility of the ideas and
beliefs which are offered."

4) "The First Amendment
also prevents the government from suppressing speech by private citi-
zens even when the subject matter is incorrect or offensive. While the
government may, consistent with the First Amendment, control some
of the speech’s physical and temporal attributes it generally may not prohibit communications based on their content.
This general prohibition on restricting speech based on its content ap-
plies equally to speech on matters of public health. Thus the government
may not prohibit a citizen from posting signs stating, for example, that cigarettes do not cause lung cancer or that AIDS is not caused by the human immunodeficiency virus,"
(Health Promotion and the First Amendment: Government Control of the Informational Environment
LAWRENCE O. GOSTIN and
GAIL H. JAVITT
Georgetown University; Johns Hopkins University
PubMed(.)gov 2001

I await your defense of valid, state-sponsored limitations on the dissemination of information regarding Covid-19. A statute, a case, even an FDA regulation.

Conan Says:

"Artie, the thing I don't think you get is that the government's charge is protecting free speech, not regulating it. Our Founding Fathers did not insist that the federal government should be able to regulate speech, but that it should be constrained from doing so."

Our Founding Fathers weren't black and white thinkers are you are.

They fully understood that there were times when various rights came into conflict and as a result judgment calls would need to be made in various instances.

The government's charge is *also* to promote the general welfare... it's states right in the preamble:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The Founding Fathers fully understood that rights came with responsibilities and that when various rights came into conflict we would need to have vigorous debate and robust discourse to address those conflicts.

You however are choosing to forgo any nuance to your perspective and take an absolutist stance... a stance you do not appear to hold when it comes to 1st amendment rights you happen not to agree with.

For example... they just instituted a law in Florida providing immunity to individuals who run over protestors on highways.

Do you agree with this law?

If so how can you presuming you actually believe the 1st amendment is sacrosanct and beyond conflict?... it seems to me the legislature of Florida at least believes the convenience of driving on the highway is *more* important than the 1st amendment.

"Lawsuits, Artie. Not laws. Defamation is a tort, a civil wrong."

Lawsuits are based on laws Conan... we have defamation laws on the books.

Who said that people spreading misinformation on social media should be walked away in handcuffs?

Spiderfall Says:

"2) "A false statement may be impermissible under regulations or statutes, but there are limitations on government’s authority to restrict false speech. The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that falsity alone is not enough to warrant regulation and that there must be some extenuated circumstance attached to the falsity—like malice or perjury, for example—for government sanction of false speech to be valid.""

Great... and this statement doesn't contradict anything I said earlier. Let's remind you what I said:

"I think it is a quite reasonable stance to explore since public health has already been carved out as a space where rights to free speech may legitimately be curtailed."

I am arguing that the rampant spread of misinformation during a viral pandemic that has already killed 600,000+ American citizens has the potential to meet the "extenuated circumstance" standard necessary to justify government involvement to promote the general welfare as enshrined within the constitution.

You are welcome to disagree of course... but that is just your opinion Spiderfall.

My argument remains well-grounded in reason regardless of your personal feelings on the matter.

In order to just summarily toss out my position you would somehow need to argue that a public health emergency cannot be classified as an "extenuated circumstance"... but that is going to be a tough sell considering we have already completely overhauled the economy in response. In addition we've spent billions of dollars in economic stimulus to respond to the crisis.

If this isn't an "extenuated circumstance" then none of those things were necessary.

As a result, as far as I'm concerned the government has already established that we find ourselves in a very unusual and unique situation at the moment.

You're welcome to disagree, Spidey!

Orion, what country do you live in?

Crid,

What about this statement is confusing for you:

"As a result, as far as I'm concerned the government has already established that we find ourselves in a very unusual and unique situation at the moment."

Apparently you don't speak the language... the word "we" is a clue.

For example... they just instituted a law in Florida providing immunity to individuals who run over protestors on highways. Do you agree with this law? ~ Artemis at July 19, 2021 1:19 PM

Again, you deliberately mischaracterize things, Artie.

There's a bit more nuance to it than that. Of course, you ignored that in your zeal to condemn politicians for whom you have an animus. Also, Vox, Slate, and other left-wing media ignored the nuance, so you did, too.

If the driver is afraid for his or her life, he or she may flee the scene and, if the people he or she believes are menacing him or her are injured or killed in the act of fleeing, the driver is could be granted immunity. That is far from carte blanche to run over protesters, Artie.

I do not support anyone injuring legitimate protestors. I also do not support protestors shutting down access to roads and other transit means. Artie, I've been kept from getting on the train for a 55-minute ride home by protestors shutting down the transit stations. I understand how it can drive some people to violence. I don't support or condone that violence, but, after walking 12 blocks after dark in a dodgy neighborhood to get to the only open train station, this after a 10-hour day at work, I do understand it.

...it seems to me the legislature of Florida at least believes the convenience of driving on the highway is *more* important than the 1st amendment. ~ Artemis at July 19, 2021 1:19 PM

With this law, the Florida legislature has not in any way constrained the rights of protestors to peacefully protest.

Maybe protestors shouldn't try to scare passersby by blocking the roadway, pounding on passing cars, breaking car windows, and making threatening gestures at the occupants (including pointing guns at them), but stick to holding a peaceful protest, as is their right.

========================================

...we have defamation laws on the books. ~ Artemis at July 19, 2021 1:19 PM

Not at the federal level, we don't.

Some states still have specific laws on the books providing criminal penalties for defamation. The ACLU opposes these laws, as any organization (or person) claiming to support civil liberties should.

Many of those states with laws still on the books do not enforce the criminal penalties for defamation, as defamation is generally held to be a civil matter and many of those laws are holdovers from the last century and the one before it. Since the 1960s, SCOTUS has generally struck down criminal defamation laws in cases brought before it.

So, again Artie, defamation is a tort, a civil wrong. Claims of defamation are properly handled in civil court.

"My argument remains well-grounded in reason" Artemis
But not in law, Art. You're invited to try again.

Apologies. I went all "America First" for a bit. Other countries have different laws.

"At least 83 governments worldwide have used the Covid-19 pandemic to justify violating the exercise of free speech and peaceful assembly, Human Rights Watch said today. Authorities have attacked, detained, prosecuted, and in some cases killed critics, broken up peaceful protests, closed media outlets, and enacted vague laws criminalizing speech that they claim threatens public health. The victims include journalists, activists, healthcare workers, political opposition groups, and others who have criticized government responses to the coronavirus."

https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/02/11/covid-19-triggers-wave-free-speech-abuse

Conan Says:

"There's a bit more nuance to it than that."

lol... it appears as if your nuance switch has been turned on again... where was the nuance for a private business like FB having nothing to do with 1st amendment rights?

"If the driver is afraid for his or her life, he or she may flee the scene and, if the people he or she believes are menacing him or her are injured or killed in the act of fleeing, the driver is could be granted immunity. That is far from carte blanche to run over protesters, Artie."

Not in practice Conan.

Any law that relies upon the subjective feelings of a person to determine whether or not something is a crime is rife with problems.

We've seen this play out again and again.

In any event, here is what has been reported by the Orlando Sentinel:

www.orlandosentinel.com/politics/os-ne-desantis-signs-anti-riot-bill-20210419-iltp27x5mzcbheeqvyhclhz2xq-story.html

"The bill, pushed by the Republican governor, has been criticized by Democrats and civil rights groups as unconstitutional for infringing on the First Amendment’s right to peacefully protest."

See how quickly things change for you?

When it comes to misinformation being spread on facebook (a private company) you are outraged on behalf of the 1st amendment.

When it comes to flesh and blood people protesting out in the world you are suddenly at odds with civil rights groups who decry the new law as unconstitutional.

This isn't logic or reason at work Conan... and "nuance" cannot help you here.

The Founding Fathers had no intention of preserving your ability to communicate electronically... they were very much concerned with preserving your right to protest in the streets though.

"I do not support anyone injuring legitimate protestors. I also do not support protestors shutting down access to roads and other transit means. Artie, I've been kept from getting on the train for a 55-minute ride home by protestors shutting down the transit stations. I understand how it can drive some people to violence."

That you can understand being driven to violence over people inconveniencing you while using their constitutionally protected 1st amendment rights does not convince me you actually care about the constitution.

Your ability to spread misinformation on social media is *not* a first amendment issue... your constitutional right to protest peacefully in the streets even if it inconveniences others is a first amendment issue.

That is what the Founding Fathers stood for... not your ability to sit at home and scream misinformation into the electronic wind on a privately owned companies digital platform.

Pyongyang?

Conan Says:

"So, again Artie, defamation is a tort, a civil wrong. Claims of defamation are properly handled in civil court."

You say "again" as if I've expressed an opinion in favor of handling defamation in criminal court.

Are you at all familiar with the concept of a strawman argument?

I'll repeat myself so maybe this time you read for comprehension:

"Who said that people spreading misinformation on social media should be walked away in handcuffs?"

You've somehow gotten it in your head that you are arguing against someone who wants to see folks dragged away and imprisoned for spreading misinformation on social media... this couldn't be further from the truth.

I don't want anyone criminally charged for spreading misinformation.

That being said, nothing in the constitution guarantees they have access to social media through a private enterprise.

This isn't a first amendment issue. FB could determine tomorrow that spreading misinformation on it's platform was against it's TOS and I think you would be hard pressed to make a 1st amendment case out of that.

The government has no place compelling a private business to let you use their services presuming they have a rational basis for preventing you from doing so.

Do you realize how many children have been banned from online video games for using foul language?... the courts aren't going to do anything for them either.

You are not entitled to social media provided by a private company no matter how loudly you stamp your feet.

Spiderfall,

Go and peacefully assemble and protest all you like... I'll support you.

Spreading misinformation using a megaphone that belongs to someone else isn't a right you have.

Let me try to explain this via analogy.

Let's say I am walking down the street with a megaphone that belongs to me.

I then pass you by and you ask to borrow it for a moment and I agree. I then see you use the megaphone to spread messages I do not personally agree with... I am well within my rights to ask for my megaphone back and that request does not infringe upon your free speech rights in the slightest.

You are not entitled to a social media megaphone that belongs to a private entity.

Your right to free speech does not include commandeering property that belongs to someone else.

Hanoi?

Artemis
We're agreement on Facebook. This is where you lost me:

"I think it is a quite reasonable stance to explore since public health has already been carved out as a space where rights to free speech may legitimately be curtailed. ~ Artemis at July 17, 2021 8:09 AM"

Was your country on the Human Rights Watch list? Over here we get donuts and prizes. That's the beauty of Constitutional law.

Who said that people spreading misinformation on social media should be walked away in handcuffs? ~ Artemis at July 19, 2021 1:19 PM

No one. You made that up.

Artie, this is where your lack of reading comprehension fails you. No one said "people spreading misinformation on social media should be walked away in handcuffs."

You tried to use defamation as an example of a legitimate legal constraint in free speech, claiming that "Lawsuits are based on laws Conan... we have defamation laws on the books."

What was said in response to that is that there are actually very few laws dealing with defamation, none at the federal level. Defamation is generally dealt with as a tort, not an illegal act. Torts are civil wrongs and are handled in civil court. Where laws are applicable to a particular case, they are applied - i.e., landlord-tenant disputes or contract disputes.

That lack of laws legitimately constraining free speech is one reason the government is seeking the assistance and cooperation of the social media companies in defending its message.

Likewise no one is arguing that social media companies don't have the right to moderate content. What is being decried here is the collusion between the government and private companies in shutting down dissent on what have become, for all intents and purposes, public fora for the exchange of ideas.

> You made that up.

Orion does that a lot. In Orion's country, it's probably a heroically clever tactic of argumentation. He or she doesn't understand that Western reasoning isn't about winning points at all (ethical) costs; that our discourse allows for immediate review, evacuation, and intellectual dismissal of red herrings; and that our rhetors, jurists and voters aren't so twitchingly small-minded as to have doubts permanently entrenched in their comprehension by such transparent & infantile gamesmanship.

But we know that there are other cultures where such techniques are deployed desperately and shamelessly. And we feel bad for them.

That is what the Founding Fathers stood for... not your ability to sit at home and scream misinformation into the electronic wind on a privately owned companies digital platform. ~ Artemis at July 19, 2021 4:45 PM

Actually, that's exactly what they stood for: your ability to scream into whatever wind blows any message you want to scream, the truth of which is irrelevant. They also supported the private company's freedom to moderate the messages it publishes; the private company's, not the government's.

When the government claims the power to moderate your message, that's censorship. And that's what they were against.

Orion's tone-deafness in these matters is perhaps the brightest evidence of his distant heritage.

Artemis,

Yes, I'm one of "those."

Crying "conspiracy theory" to try to demonize someone from pointing out the obvious contradictions, conflicts of interest, and lack of curiosity by those who should be curious, is no longer effective in trying to shut down a debate. Like the "race card," it has been overused to the point of being a red flag that actually proves the opposite. So much for your attempts to refute by citing evidence. And you claim to be a professional scientist. Apparently not a very good one.

"I need some new conspiracy theories, because all of my old ones have come true."

Or her distant heritage, whatever.

Spiderfall Says:

"We're agreement on Facebook."

Great... common ground.

"This is where you lost me:

"I think it is a quite reasonable stance to explore since public health has already been carved out as a space where rights to free speech may legitimately be curtailed. ~ Artemis at July 17, 2021 8:09 AM""

I'm not sure why you are lost on the idea that this is an issue that should be explored... considered... thought about.

What is your objection to *thinking* about something?

Conan Says:

"No one. You made that up."

Not really Conan.

I keep talking about people not having a right to social media and that we should be thinking about what to do about the spread of misinformation and how to combat it... you then keep talking about tort law and civil procedure as a contrast to my position.

This implies that my position *isn't* about civil matters and is about something more... that something more would have to be a criminal statute of some kind.

However I've never advocated for such a thing.

The only one lacking reading comprehension here and making things up is you.

My position is quite reasonable.

You apparently have an issue with "thinking" about things.

In your zeal for what you call freedom you've become the freaking thought police.

Conan Says:

"Actually, that's exactly what they stood for: your ability to scream into whatever wind blows any message you want to scream, the truth of which is irrelevant. They also supported the private company's freedom to moderate the messages it publishes; the private company's, not the government's."

So then you are actually in agreement that the Founding Fathers are on my side on this issue... because you aren't paying attention to this key element of what I said:

"on a privately owned companies digital platform."

You have no more "right" to spread misinformation on social media than you have a "right" to post a political sign on my lawn that I don't agree with.

None of this is a rights issue... and yes, the government does have a reasonable interest to talk with companies on how to handle the spread of misinformation as it pertains to a national health crisis.

The government is allowed to have conversations with people in private enterprise.

If we cant to set up a wall between government and private enterprise then lobbying of all sorts would be out the window.

I'm not necessarily against doing away with lobbying... but as it stands these back and forth conversations between government and the private sector is standard operating procedure.

Loquacious.

Where do you live?

ruralcounsel,

The scientific journals are not owned or operated by pharmaceutical companies.

The researchers in academia publishing on the topic of COVID-19 are not beholden to the pharmaceutical companies either.

The following charges you've made have no merit:

"obvious contradictions, conflicts of interest, and lack of curiosity by those who should be curious"

You haven't highlighted any "contradictions"... all you've mentioned is your own imagined conflicts... no one is actively trying to sink hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for COVID... it just doesn't show efficacy for this disease.

There is nothing more complicated to it than that.

Furthermore the only one lacking curiosity here is you because while you've been beating the drum for a treatment that doesn't work, researchers have identified other treatments that do work.

This is why what you are saying is pure conspiracy theory and nothing more.

We don't establish medical treatments based on the non-expert opinions of blog posters... we establish them based on statistical analysis of clinical data.

"public health has already been carved out as a space where rights to free speech may legitimately be curtailed"

That, in English, is a declarative statement. You've been asked three times if you have any source besides your own "reason" to support it. You've been provided with black letter law, case law, and learned commentary by medical ethicists refuting your assertion.
It's been fun playing Pickle-in-a-Dish with you on this thread. But, wherever you're from, let me discourage you from attempting to migrate here. You wouldn't even qualify for a green card as a Masshole.
Aloha.

Artie, your original argument ai that the government has the power, right, and duty to restrict what it says is misinformation.

I'm arguing the government is restricted by the Constitution from constraining anyone's right to free speech, even if that person is disseminating falsehoods; that giving the government the power to declare what is "misinformation" is flirting with totalitarianism.

This has nothing to do with the medium on which that information was disseminated. The government colluding with those private media companies, or directing them as to what it says is "misinformation," is also flirting with totalitarianism.

Giving the government the power to arbitrate what is "misinformation" and thus subject to censorship is a very bad idea, but one your argument supports.

You're using the convenient fact that the means of dissemination was social media owned by private companies to argue in favor of censorship, if carried out by those private companies. I'm concerned about the long-term implications of government censorship, even if, perhaps especially if, carried out by private companies, as are others on this thread.

If Facebook wants to declare it will censor any information it finds objectionable, that is Facebook's right. But to bow to pressure from a government by a one party led government and enact the government's censorship is to go down a path that could lead to authoritarianism.

The government's main objection to this "misinformation" is primarily to shift blame for failing to meet its stated goal of having 70% of the population fully vaccinated by July 4th.

That "misinformation" and it purveyors can be declared dangerous and criminal - as the president came close to saying when he declared that Facebook was "killing people" - should be of concern to all citizens.

This is far too reminiscent of the Nazis singling out portions of the German population to be declared into enemies of the state.

This is from the US Holocaust Memorial Museum Web site:

Through hundreds of legal measures, the Nazi-led German government gradually excluded Jews from public life, the professions, and public education. The goal of Nazi propaganda was to demonize Jews and to create a climate of hostility and indifference toward their plight.

That sounds an awful lot like one-party led government declaring dissenting views "misinformation" and urging the purveyors of such to be banned from all social media - in other words, having them "gradually excluded from public life."

Youse guys are going to have to teach Orion the lyrics to America The Beautiful, The Star-Spangled Banner, and Back Home Again In Indiana if you're going to school him/her on the scope of American intellection.

Whoops! Scrap that last part… Asians can't deal with black people.

Artemis,

How old are you, 19? The naivete in your last post is breathtakingly stupid. You really have no conception on how the real world works, do you? I guess that warnings on plastic bags and buckets were made for people like you.

But this last one is priceless...

"We don't establish medical treatments based on the non-expert opinions of blog posters... we establish them based on statistical analysis of clinical data."

So how do you explain the vaccines? Which are experimental and have yet to pass their FDA trials, whose developers admit don't prevent the disease, for which there was no significant statistical data until it was shoved down the public's throat as the big savior. (And we know that last part because they are still being surprised at the extent of the adverse reactions and fatality rate caused by the vaccines.)

Spiderfall Says:

"That, in English, is a declarative statement. You've been asked three times if you have any source besides your own "reason" to support it."

You'll have to forgive me because I thought it was somewhat obvious.

You for example do not have 1st amendment protections to misrepresent the health claims of a product you sell... you also cannot provide misinformation regarding ingredients that can cause health impacts on others.

As I said earlier "public health has already been carved out as a space where rights to free speech may legitimately be curtailed".

You are not a completely free agent when it comes to spreading misinformation as it pertains to health impacts on other people... such things are frequently regulated by federal and state governments.

Did you not realize this?

Conan Says:

"Artie, your original argument ai that the government has the power, right, and duty to restrict what it says is misinformation."

No... Conan... try reading again.

I pointed out that all rights have sensible limitations (this even includes the 1st amendment).

It is amazing to me that in the same thread where we've got ruralcounsel talking about the FDA none of you actually recognize what it does.

The FDA is an organization whose charter is to prevent the spread of misinformation.

They are the ones that regulate medical claims made by individuals and companies for the products they sell to other people.

That is a free speech limitation.

You would have a difficult time asserting 1st amendment protections if you started marketing toilet bowl cleaner as a cure for COVID-19... sold it to people... and then tried to escape responsibility for medical issues they suffered as a direct result of your misrepresentation.

The government is already in the business of limiting misinformation as it pertains to public health concerns.

Apparently this is news to the folks of this blog.

> You really have no conception
> on how the real world works

It's been a problem since his/her/Orion's first appearance in Amy's venue.

ruralcounsel Says:

"You really have no conception on how the real world works, do you?"

One of us has published peer reviewed science articles... the other has not.

Have you considered the possibility that the professional scientist talking to you might have deeper insight and more personal experience with how research is performed and published?

You have an active imagination about how all this works... but I can assure you that your take on things doesn't reflect reality.

"So how do you explain the vaccines? Which are experimental and have yet to pass their FDA trials, whose developers admit don't prevent the disease, for which there was no significant statistical data until it was shoved down the public's throat as the big savior."

What on earth are you talking about ruralcounsel?

The vaccines went through initial testing long before it was deployed to the public... and even then approvals have been limited (for example, children under 12 still do not have an approved dosing amount as those trial are still ongoing).

All of this has been happening in stages.

You're problem is that you aren't getting real information... let's try the following:

www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/experimental-coronavirus-vaccine-safe-produces-immune-response

That is from the National Institutes of Health... here is a direct quote:

"Scientists began Phase 1 trials of an experimental vaccine for COVID-19 in mid-March. The vaccine, called mRNA-1273, is being co-developed by researchers at NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and the biotech company Moderna, Inc."

That was mid-March of 2020, which is over a year ago.

There have been numerous publications on the results of the various vaccine trials.

This wasn't some fly by night operation of an unscrupulous lunatic with a needle fetish.

Crid,

That you are aligning yourself with an antivax conspiracy theorist as if they have a concept of how the world works explains a great deal about you.

Let's be clear... flat earthers wouldn't believe I know how the world works either... I know it's a sphere and they hold an erroneous belief that it is a disc.

They are also utterly convinced they are correct and think everyone else is deeply confused.

Artie, you might want to brush up on the FDA yourself. The FDA regulates commerce, not speech.

The FDA regulates food, drugs, and other products within its regulatory scope that involve or could "affect" interstate commerce, as well as claims made about such products.

In addition, the FDA does not conduct its own tests on the safety, efficacy, and security of the drugs and other items for which it has oversight responsibility. FDA approval means only that the FDA has determined the benefits of using the drug for a particular use outweigh the potential risks, based on tests conducted and reported by the manufacturer.

Healthcare providers can choose to prescribe an FDA-regulated drug for an off-label use. That's perfectly legal. The entire debate about hydroxychloroquine was about its off-label use as a palliative for COVID.

As for FDA regulated speech, I can run around personally claiming aspirin cured my male pattern baldness all I want, but if I try to make money selling aspirin for that purpose across state lines, or buy my ingredients or packaging from another state, I could run afoul of the FDA - for commerce, not speech.

Conan Says:

"Artie, you might want to brush up on the FDA yourself. The FDA regulates commerce, not speech."

Let's review my statement once more since you have difficulty with comprehension:

"The FDA is an organization whose charter is to prevent the spread of misinformation."

We are talking about the spread of misinformation here Conan as it pertains to public health.

Neither you nor any company have any constitutionally protected "right" to advertise or promote a product or service however you please.

Misrepresent that product or service or spread misinformation about it's health benefits and the 1st amendment will not help you in court.

"The FDA regulates food, drugs, and other products within its regulatory scope that involve or could "affect" interstate commerce, as well as claims made about such products."

Yes Conan... claims are speech... they are words of communication between you and someone else.

You can dance and twist all you like but the government is already in the business of regulating misinformation being spread as it pertains to public health.

This is what I've been asked to demonstrate... the FDA is just one organization within the government that does things like this.

Fraud is another area where the 1st amendment will not help you in court... and what is fraud?... it is spreading misinformation to another that has a materially negative impact on them (usually this is in the context of a contract but not always).

You can pretend all you like that the government has no interest in maintaining public health by regulating the spread of misinformation, but that's all it is... it's just pretend.

"Healthcare providers can choose to prescribe an FDA-regulated drug for an off-label use. That's perfectly legal. The entire debate about hydroxychloroquine was about its off-label use as a palliative for COVID."

Healthcare providers are not free agents when it comes to off-label use either.

A physician who proscribes chemotherapy drugs to treat your male pattern baldness is likely going to get themselves into hot water with the medical board and depending on what happens might lose their medical license.

Off-label use requires some reasonable medical inference that could be explained and/or justified to other medical experts.

The reality is that hydroxychloroquine has not been demonstrated to have efficacy when it comes to COVID-19.

If someone wants to try a Hail Mary because a patient is on deaths door that is between them and their physician... but even the proposed mechanism of action wouldn't apply in this case. Even for palliative care we have better options. People are dying because some orange moron held a press conference.

"As for FDA regulated speech, I can run around personally claiming aspirin cured my male pattern baldness all I want, but if I try to make money selling aspirin for that purpose across state lines, or buy my ingredients or packaging from another state, I could run afoul of the FDA - for commerce, not speech."

That is called a limitation Conan... and yes, it is a limitation on what you can say to other people... hence it is speech limitation (it is *also* a limitation on commerce).

The fact that the FDA regulates claims means they are regulating what you are and are not permitted to say about a product... that's speech.

Conan,

Here is some case law backing up my point:

Valentine v. Chrestensen - Supreme Court case in 1942

mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/212/valentine-v-chrestensen

"In Valentine v. Chrestensen, 316 U.S. 52 (1942), the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that commercial speech is not protected by the First Amendment."

The Supreme Court itself acknowledged that misinformation in commercial speech is *not* protected.

As I said from the start... we've already carved out speech limitations for the purposes of protecting public health.

What I said was accurate.

That is called a limitation Conan... and yes, it is a limitation on what you can say to other people... hence it is speech limitation (it is *also* a limitation on commerce). ~ Artemis at July 20, 2021 12:34 PM

It is most definitely not a limitation on what I can say to other people. I can go to a party and tell everyone that aspirin is a hair restorer and there's nothing the FDA can do about it. The FDA has absolutely no authority over private conversations, even health-related ones.

Artie, the FDA gets involved when the manufacture, packaging, or marketing of the a food, drug, biologic, cosmetic, or medical device involve or "affect" interstate commerce. That broad scope of "affects" gives the FDA wide latitude to claim authority, but does not give it carte blanche to limit speech.

The Interstate Commerce clause of the Constitution limits what the federal government can do in the commercial arena, and that limitation was intentional on the part of our Founding Fathers. Civics 101, Artie.

As for commercial speech limitations in Valentine v. Chrestensen, 316 U.S. 52 (1942), let's put in the part of the paragraph you left out:

However, because the Court cited neither any reason nor any precedent for this conclusion, Valentine has served as an impediment to rather than as a precedent for assessing the relationship between commercial speech and the First Amendment.

And, Artie, the article goes on to say that the Court has identified types of commercial expression that are protected speech, in spite of Valentine. In fact, "In Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc. (1976), the Court concluded that 'the free flow of commercial information is indispensable' to effective decision making in 'a free enterprise system' and 'to the formation of intelligent opinions as to how that system ought to be regulated or altered.'"

Conan,

"It is most definitely not a limitation on what I can say to other people. I can go to a party and tell everyone that aspirin is a hair restorer and there's nothing the FDA can do about it. The FDA has absolutely no authority over private conversations, even health-related ones."

I'm not sure you are following what a limitation on speech entails.

I was asked by Spiderfall to show an example of where 1st amendment rights are limited as it pertains to public health.

The FDA is an example of that regardless of what you can say in the privacy of your home.

I've got news for you... you can also scream your head off in the privacy of your own bathroom about how you intend to murder someone... and if no one is around to hear you then you aren't guilty of making threats either.

If on the other hand you threaten to murder someone in the middle of a crowded restaurant you could find yourself in a heap of trouble... in this case it would be criminal trouble and not civil.

Context matters for these things.

So yes, your speech is in fact limited by the FDA... just not in your home when you are having a casual conversation with a friend.

"And, Artie, the article goes on to say that the Court has identified types of commercial expression that are protected speech, in spite of Valentine."

Yes... I am aware... this is a complicated and nuanced topic... welcome to the conversation.

You're a needy fraud, is all.

Crid,

You need to learn healthy and productive ways to manage your emotional states when it comes to dealing with different perspectives.

Get out in the world... talk to people... have conversations with folks you wouldn't normally chat with and pay attention to what they have to say.

It will do wonders for enriching your life experience.

"Valentine v. Chrestensen is often cited as evidence that for two hundred years the prevailing understanding was that the First Amendment did not apply to ‘‘commercial speech.’’ In 1976, that understanding was definitively, and perhaps permanently, changed with the Supreme Court’s decision in Virginia Pharmacy, that ‘‘commercial speech’’ was entitled to limited First Amendment protection."

https://uscivilliberties.org/cases/4658-valentine-v-chrestensen-316-us-52-1942.html

The case was brought under New York's Sanitary Code. It had nothing to do with misinformation. It was back when they could use the Sanitary Code to keep the sidewalks clear of stalkers and prowlers. Fucking left ruined that too.
With that case as a reference, it's possible you're working out of one of the old Chiang Kai-shek libraries in rural Taiwan.

Spiderfall,

I've noticed that when people on this blog realize the facts aren't in their favor they start to rant and rave.

It's time for you to calm down and think rationally here because you need to do a bit more background reading in this area.

Let's go back to where you got lost:

"This is where you lost me:

"I think it is a quite reasonable stance to explore since public health has already been carved out as a space where rights to free speech may legitimately be curtailed. ~ Artemis at July 17, 2021 8:09 AM""

My claim was that public health issues was an area where we have already determined that rights to free speech may legitimately curtailed.

You now object because the case I provided was about violations of the sanitary code... sanitation is an area of public health.

Misinformation surrounding a viral pandemic is *also* an area of public health.

My point is that case law already exists where we have curtailed freedom of speech in the service of maintaining health codes.

The problem isn't with my reference... the problem is that you are still lost.

Spiderfall,

If you absolutely *NEED* a case whose decision highlights the limitations of speech as it pertains to misinformation you can always reference:

Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission (1980)

mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/198/central-hudson-gas-and-electric-corp-v-public-service-commission

"Part one flatly denies constitutional protection to “communication more likely to deceive the public than to inform it” and to “commercial speech relating to illegal activity.” This constitutes a threshold for identifying types of commercial speech that merit First Amendment protection. The burden of proof resides with the communicator to demonstrate that speech does not fall into one of these categories. Any commercial speech that satisfies the threshold requirement is presumed to be protected, and the burden of proof shifts to the state to justify regulation by satisfying parts two through four."

In other words... misinformation is *not* protected and the burden of proof resides on the commercial entity to demonstrate it is not deceptive.

Communication that is more likely to deceive the public than to inform it fails the test... such speech is not protected by the 1st amendment.

Maybe I am the only US citizen on this blog...

No, you're not American. But if you were, you'd be the only one here I was so ashamed of your location that you refused to mention it.

Fucking voice transcription. Oh well...

Orion, where do you live? If you're in the United States, I'm sure we would all like to share stories with you.

You now object because the case I provided was about violations of the sanitary code... sanitation is an area of public health. ~ Artemis at July 20, 2021 4:05 PM

Valentine was about leaflet distribution, not public health.

No worries, Art. Always glad to help someone understand the American system. It's something to be proud of.

It's useful to go back to the source of the confusion:
"public health has already been carved out as a space where rights to free speech may legitimately be curtailed. ~ Artemis at July 17, 2021 8:09 AM"

Two points:
1) Your claim above says nothing about commercial speech. I think you're dodging.

2) The finding in Central Hudson is considered content neutral.
"Content neutral refers to laws that apply to all expression without regard to the substance or message of the expression. Such laws generally regulate only the time, place, and manner of speech in contrast to content-based laws, which regulate speech based on content."
Your statement above assumes content regulation - a specific carve-out for information public health. And we just don't have that here

> No worries, Art. Always glad to
> help someone understand the
> American system. It's something
> to be proud of.

My work here is done.

Crid Says:

"No, you're not American."

Why... because you say so?

I seem to recall a recent president that folks started an entire birther movement to insist he wasn't American.

This is the fundamental problem with morons like you... you cannot handle the reality that other Americans have different opinions than you do.

"I was so ashamed"

You should be.

Conan Says:

"Valentine was about leaflet distribution, not public health."

The violation in question was a provision of New York City’s Sanitary Code.

The Sanitary Code is a public health ordinance.

codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/newyorkcity/latest/NYCrules/0-0-0-97808

"From the very earliest time of the Code (known before the 1959 recodification as the Sanitary Code)"

In other words... it was a health code violation.

Spiderfall Says,

"1) Your claim above says nothing about commercial speech. I think you're dodging."

No... actually you're the one dodging because you don't seem to get it.

Let's try again.

"public health has already been carved out as a space where rights to free speech may legitimately be curtailed." - Artemis at July 17, 2021 8:09 AM

The part of free speech that was "carved out" is commercial speech.

That is the entire reason for these Supreme Court cases... people were trying to argue that their 1st amendment rights were being violated and the decisions in these specific cases "carved out" commercial speech as an exception.

That is the entire point.

You've become so used to this part being carved out you don't even realize this was a point of contention at one time.

In other words... there is a legal foundation for looking at specific scenarios and identifying situations where 1st amendment protections do not apply.

That is precisely the point I was getting at that *you* are trying to dodge.

We have in fact carved out sections of speech that are not protected by the 1st amendment as it pertains to public health issues (amongst others).

We have legal tests for this.

You can pretend all you like that they do not exist but it doesn't alter the facts.

The point is, this ain't you're party, so it's hard to care how you feel about the bean dip. Where you from?

If you tell us where you live, we can all share our experiences about that place!!

And ask you a couple questions.

The violation in question was a provision of New York City’s Sanitary Code.

The Sanitary Code is a public health ordinance.

~ Artemis at July 20, 2021 8:12 PM

Chrestensen was distributing leaflets in the street advertising his WWI submarine tour business. Distributing advertising leaflets in the street was a violation of New York's Sanitary Code § 318. Protest or informational leaflets were allowed, but commercial ones were banned.

Valentine v. Chrestensen - 316 U.S. 52, 62 S. Ct. 920 (1942) was about leaflet distribution, not public health.

And because "the Court cited neither any reason nor any precedent for this conclusion, Valentine has served as an impediment to rather than as a precedent for assessing the relationship between commercial speech and the First Amendment." As such, it's not even a good precedent for the commercial speech point you tried to make to buttress your public health one.

Conan,

It seems to me that your nuance switch has turned itself off again... go figure... it always seems to happen when facts and evidence do not support your position.

To assert that Valentine v. Chrestensen - 316 U.S. 52, 62 S. Ct. 920 (1942) is just about leaflet distribution is analogous to saying that Marbury v. Madison was just about an election and not the establishment of the establishment of the core checks and balance powers of the Supreme Court via the concept of judicial review.

Valentine v. Chrestensen was a case that involved the distribution of leaflets that was in violation of the Sanitation Code (what would later be called the Health Code)... the decision related to that case was *not* narrowly defined around leaflets... the decision was quite broad in terms of establishing the power of the government to regulate certain types of speech.

The decision established that the 1st amendment did not apply to certain types of speech and that included information directly related to public health presented on products in the market place as well as advertising related to those products.

That speech remains tightly regulated to this day.

Don't be the moron who insists that Jeffrey Dahmer was imprisoned due to being a bad dinner host.

Let's follow your sequence.

(In Valentine) "the part of free speech that was "carved out" is commercial speech." True. Commercial speech was not given much First Amendment protection in 1940.

(from Central Hudson) "in order for the commercial speech to be considered as protected speech under the First Amendment, the speech must concern lawful activity, and the speech must not be misleading." True. And Central Hudson won the case and was allowed to continue using its promotional materials.
So now you see corporations have First Amendment protection, rather than being excluded. Good trick, yes?

As Conan mentions above, most corporate misinformation is best dealt with using consumer protection regulations and fraud statutes.
[Most recently, the Citizen's United case has solidified corporate First Amendment rights in the arena of political speech; our system of individual rights is continually expanding to provide broad protections across the culture.]

The argument for limits on sharing or debating public health information is not strong, nor is it law. It is content based and it is not viewpoint neutral. See this as an example of good intentions but bad law:

"Because (U.S. 18, § 48, a statute banning depictions of animal cruelty) explicitly regulates expression based on content, it is “ ‘presumptively invalid,’ . . . and the Government bears the burden to rebut that presumption.”
Since its enactment, the First Amendment has permitted restrictions on a few historic categories of speech—including obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement, and speech integral to criminal conduct that “have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem,”
U.S. v. R.J. Roberts, USSC 2010

"We have in fact carved out sections of speech that are not protected by the 1st amendment as it pertains to public health issues"
Artemis at July 20, 2021 8:19 PM

Again, you are invited to show your work. What you are proposing is more akin to "Hate Crime" laws and you may find some support in that particular rhetoric.

Spiderfall,

I am not sure what the disconnect is for you here.

"most corporate misinformation is best dealt with using consumer protection regulations and fraud statutes."

Those regulations are only valid if we all agree that a carve out exists for freedom of speech in those areas.

There are numerous carve outs for 1st amendment protections. That list includes but is not limited to the following:

1 - Fraud
2 - Misinformation presented on regulated items (usually this is related to health and safety)
3 - Defamation
4 - Perjury

I feel like when you guys talk about freedom of speech you imagine that to not have it means someone has literally stapled your mouth closed.

That isn't what we are talking about here.

Nothing physically prevents you from lying under oath... nothing physically prevents you from defaming someone.

These items are carved out from 1st amendment protections in the sense that you citing the 1st amendment as a defense in either criminal or civil procedures will not help you.

You cannot perjure yourself and expect to get off the hook by later claiming you were just expressing your right to free speech… you’ll still be guilty.

Consumer protections regulations exist precisely because we have carved out certain types of speech that are related to public health that if violated the party being sued cannot claim the 1st amendment protects them from liability.

Why is this so challenging for you to recognize?

Artie, you're the one insisting Valentine was about public health. Even law sites don't recognize Valentine as a public health case.

As for your fallback position, the corporate speech aspect of Valentine, I'll repeat: "the Court cited neither any reason nor any precedent for this conclusion, Valentine has served as an impediment to rather than as a precedent for assessing the relationship between commercial speech and the First Amendment."

An "...impediment to rather than a precedent for...." As such, your citation of it as a corporate speech precedent is fallacious, since the courts don't recognize it as such.

As for Dahmer, he once invited me to his place for drinks; told me he'd make me a Zombie.

Since I'd heard many say they were going to dine tonight with the Dahmers, but very few say they dined last night with the Dahmers, I declined. (with apologies to Max Beerbohn)

Why is this so challenging for you to recognize?

Artemis at July 21, 2021 10:42 AM

Because, among other things, you are confusing a civil remedy with unconstitutional prior restraint on non commercial free speech.

Atterbury Says:

"Because, among other things, you are confusing a civil remedy with unconstitutional prior restraint on non commercial free speech."

Not really.

I haven't said one word about prior restraint.

I have pointed out that the 1st amendment already has sensible limitations and that amongst these are issues pertaining to public health.

None of this precludes civil remedy after the fact.

This is what I mean by folks here setting up strawman arguments.

My actual statements are not being addressed... instead some other argument is being addressed that I never made.

I am not responsible for the fact that when certain folks here see the word "limitation" they cannot fathom anything other than something extreme.

It also doesn't make any sense in light of what we are talking about. This started as a conversation about misinformation on social media.

How exactly would anyone enact a "prior restraint" on social media posts?

Wouldn't the post have to take place first and then there would be some kind of response?

Nothing about that can happen prior.

Conan Says:

"Artie, you're the one insisting Valentine was about public health. Even law sites don't recognize Valentine as a public health case."

Of course it isn't a "public health case" Conan... it is a freedom of speech case. That is how law sites are going to classify it because that is the relevant conclusion of the case.

That is the case that established that freedom the press and of speech does not apply to certain forms of speech.

What is really amazing about all of this is that you keep jumping around.

First you claimed the case was not about speech... but was about commerce... now you are linking to LexisNexis where it clearly establishes that it was about speech and you're just going to forget about how you got it all wrong earlier?

"Under the circumstances, was the application of New York City, N.Y., Sanitary Code § 318 to the respondent’s activity an unconstitutional abridgment of the freedom of the press and of speech?"

Please stop pretending you know anything about this when you got is so very wrong from the get go.

It is a speech case... that case happened to involve a violation of a public health ordinance.

The Sanitary Code of NY in 1942 is what is now called the Health Code.

It is extremely reasonable to refer to a violation of the Sanitary code as having to do with a public health ordinance.

This is independent of the fact that the case itself was a free speech case.

"How exactly would anyone enact a "prior restraint" on social media posts?"
Artemis at July 21, 2021 11:44 AM

Through the censorious laws you seem unable to locate regarding public health information sharing.

Under what statute or code would you charge these lawmakers, many of whom, unlike yourself, have law degrees? From the NYT:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/virus-resurges-gop-lawmakers-allow-122225187.html

It is extremely reasonable to refer to a violation of the Sanitary code as having to do with a public health ordinance. ~ Artemis at July 21, 2021 12:01 PM

No, Artie, it is disingenuous, as are you.

"Having to do with?" Sure, you can have that one. Leaflet distribution did "have to do with" the New York Sanitary Code, since the code explicitly forbade the distribution of leaflets that advertised or promoted a commercial endeavor. Calling it a matter of pubic health because it fell under the Sanitary Code, however, is highly dubious.

This is independent of the fact that the case itself was a free speech case. ~ Artemis at July 21, 2021 12:01 PM

Nor, Artie, Valentine is not the free speech precedent you insist it is.

In fact, legal commentators, Alex Kozinski and Stuart Banner point out that, in Valentine, "the Court wasn't facing a case about commercial speech; it was facing a case about advertising [a kind of business]." In other words, Artie, the Court didn't view Valentine as a speech case. [1]

[1] Maye, Moore, and Collins - Advertising and Public Relations Law, Third Edition, 2020

China