- Регистрация
- 17 Февраль 2018
- Сообщения
- 22 703
- Лучшие ответы
- 0
- Баллы
- 2 093
Offline
Enlarge (credit: Justin Sullivan / Staff | Getty Images North America)
On Monday, the Supreme Court declined to review an appeal from X (formerly Twitter), alleging that the US government's censorship of X transparency reports served as a prior restraint on the platform's speech and was unconstitutional.
This free speech battle predates Elon Musk's ownership of the platform. Since 2014, the social media company has "sought to accurately inform the public about the extent to which the US government is surveilling its users," X's petition said, while the government has spent years effectively blocking precise information from becoming public knowledge.
Current law requires that platforms instead only share generalized statistics regarding government information requests—using government-approved reporting bands such as "between 0 and 99 times"—so that people posing as national security threats can never gauge exactly how active the feds are on any given platform.
Read 22 remaining paragraphs | Comments
