Trump violated First Amendment by forcing Facebook, Apple to remove ICE-tracking(lawandcrime.com)
lawandcrime.com
Trump violated First Amendment by forcing Facebook, Apple to remove ICE-tracking
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/government-coerced-enforcement-trump-admin-violated-first-amendment-by-forcing-facebook-and-apple-to-remove-ice-tracking-apps-district-court-issues-injunction/
4 comments
The world is complicated. That's why there is a legal system.
In this case, the judge explicitly considered and rejected the applicability of every one of your points, writing at https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.49... :
"The Court finds that Plaintiffs have shown that their injuries are likely traceable to government-coerced enforcement for the following reasons. First, Facebook had previously reviewed the Chicagoland group, and Apple had previously reviewed Eyes Up. In both cases, Facebook and Apple had determined that the content met their requirements. Second, Facebook and Apple changed their positions and removed the content immediately after Defendants contacted them about it. And third, Defendants made public statements taking credit for the fact that Facebook and Apple had removed the content."
"Regarding the third element, and as alleged, Defendants’ actions can be reasonably understood to convey a threat of adverse government action against Facebook and Apple in order to suppress Plaintiffs’ speech" ...
"As the Seventh Circuit found in Backpage, although the defendant lacked “authority to take any official action” and did not “directly threaten the [third parties] with an investigation or prosecution,” the defendant still engaged in coercion where he “demand[ed]” rather than “request[ed],” and where he “intimat[ed]” that the third parties “may be criminal accomplices” if they failed to comply. Id. at 232, 236. Here, Bondi and Noem did exactly that. They reached out to Facebook and Apple and demanded, rather than requested, that Facebook and Apple censor Plaintiff’s speech."
In this case, the judge explicitly considered and rejected the applicability of every one of your points, writing at https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.49... :
"The Court finds that Plaintiffs have shown that their injuries are likely traceable to government-coerced enforcement for the following reasons. First, Facebook had previously reviewed the Chicagoland group, and Apple had previously reviewed Eyes Up. In both cases, Facebook and Apple had determined that the content met their requirements. Second, Facebook and Apple changed their positions and removed the content immediately after Defendants contacted them about it. And third, Defendants made public statements taking credit for the fact that Facebook and Apple had removed the content."
"Regarding the third element, and as alleged, Defendants’ actions can be reasonably understood to convey a threat of adverse government action against Facebook and Apple in order to suppress Plaintiffs’ speech" ...
"As the Seventh Circuit found in Backpage, although the defendant lacked “authority to take any official action” and did not “directly threaten the [third parties] with an investigation or prosecution,” the defendant still engaged in coercion where he “demand[ed]” rather than “request[ed],” and where he “intimat[ed]” that the third parties “may be criminal accomplices” if they failed to comply. Id. at 232, 236. Here, Bondi and Noem did exactly that. They reached out to Facebook and Apple and demanded, rather than requested, that Facebook and Apple censor Plaintiff’s speech."
>defendants made public statements taking credit for the fact that Facebook and Apple had removed the content
It feels if they were a slightly smarter and not had made an announcement that about such fact they would have gotten away with it hell, this probably happens all the time, but other administrations maybe were more discreet. Be that as it may, regardless of this decision, which can be appealed by the way, there is that saying: there is nothing more coward than money – and would argue power as well. A single discreet Trump meting with Tim Cook, and Trump saying "I would be really happy if you removed that app, and not tell anyone that I asked you for it", could have been enough.
It seems these sort decisions are fundamentally useless:
* It doesn't even force companies to reinstate such apps.
* It doesn't give any constitutional right for apps to be on the app stores.
* It doesn't force companies to allow people to install apps from whatever they want, which would be by far the best solution
It feels if they were a slightly smarter and not had made an announcement that about such fact they would have gotten away with it hell, this probably happens all the time, but other administrations maybe were more discreet. Be that as it may, regardless of this decision, which can be appealed by the way, there is that saying: there is nothing more coward than money – and would argue power as well. A single discreet Trump meting with Tim Cook, and Trump saying "I would be really happy if you removed that app, and not tell anyone that I asked you for it", could have been enough.
It seems these sort decisions are fundamentally useless:
* It doesn't even force companies to reinstate such apps.
* It doesn't give any constitutional right for apps to be on the app stores.
* It doesn't force companies to allow people to install apps from whatever they want, which would be by far the best solution
The reason people are so shocked about the administration isn't the horrible things they do, but how they are so bad at it.
You can look at the financial blockade of Wikileaks as an example of how to get away with it.
It is impossible for the judge to change #2 as the 1st amendment freedom of association gives broad powers to Apple and Facebook to decide who to associate with. Also note there's no constitutional right to have phone service, so why should there be a constitutional right for an app to be in the app store?
You can look at the financial blockade of Wikileaks as an example of how to get away with it.
It is impossible for the judge to change #2 as the 1st amendment freedom of association gives broad powers to Apple and Facebook to decide who to associate with. Also note there's no constitutional right to have phone service, so why should there be a constitutional right for an app to be in the app store?
Hell, even if there were a public register of Trump asking them to remove an app, you could always argue, "Well, anyone, regardless of them being president of the United States or not, is free to ask for an app to be removed; anyone could theoretically demand and protest anything, and Trump, as any citizen, has this right" (not saying I agree with that thesis, to be clear).
But I do believe the whole point highlights a bigger problem: a negative relation between big corporations and the government. I'm not sure how anyone would solve it. Maybe by sidelining the whole issue by making it easier for people to install apps from whatever the fuck they want, without the app stores gatekeeping what software one installs on their device.
But if anything, we are moving far away from that, even on Android