[continued from previous message]

potential threat to critical U.S. infrastructure, citing FBI
warnings, in this case about an account that could imperil election
system integrity.

The Twitter user in question had 56 followers, along with a bio that
read "dm us your weed store locations (hoes be mad, but this is a
parody account)," under a banner image of Blucifer, the 32-foot-tall
demonic horse sculpture featured at the entrance of the Denver
International Airport.

"We are not sure if there's any action that can be taken, but we
wanted to flag them for consideration," wrote a state official on the
email thread, forwarding on other examples of accounts that could be
confused with official government entities. The Twitter
representative responded: "We will escalate. Thank you."

Each email in the chain carried a disclaimer that the agency "neither
has nor seeks the ability to remove or edit what information is made
available on social media platforms."

That tagline, however, concerns free speech advocates, who note that
the agency is attempting to make an end run around the First
Amendment by exerting continual pressure on private sector social
media firms. "When the government suggests things, it's not too hard
to pull off the velvet glove, and you get the mail fist," said Adam
Candeub, a professor of law at Michigan State University. "And I
would consider such actions, especially when it's bureaucratized, as essentially state action and government collusion with the platforms."

"If a foreign authoritarian government sent these messages," noted
Nadine Strossen, the former president of the American Civil Liberties
Union, "there is no doubt we would call it censorship."

From:
https://theintercept.com/2022/10/31/social-media-disinformation-dhs/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

[continued from previous message]

without any "coercive" influence from the government. On October 21,
the judge presiding over the case granted the attorneys general
permission to depose Fauci, CISA officials, and communication
specialists from the White House.

While the lawsuit has a definite partisan slant, pointing the finger
at the Biden administration for allegedly seeking to control private
speech, many of the subpoenas request information that spans into the
Trump era and provides a window into the absurdity of the ongoing
effort.

"There is growing evidence that the legislative and executive branch officials are using social media companies to engage in censorship by surrogate," said Jonathan Turley, a professor of law at George
Washington University, who has written about the lawsuit. "It is
axiomatic that the government cannot do indirectly what it is
prohibited from doing directly. If government officials are
directing or facilitating such censorship, it raises serious First
Amendment questions."

During the 2020 election, the Department of Homeland Security, in an
email to an official at Twitter, forwarded information about a
potential threat to critical U.S. infrastructure, citing FBI
warnings, in this case about an account that could imperil election
system integrity.

The Twitter user in question had 56 followers, along with a bio that
read "dm us your weed store locations (hoes be mad, but this is a
parody account)," under a banner image of Blucifer, the 32-foot-tall
demonic horse sculpture featured at the entrance of the Denver
International Airport.

"We are not sure if there's any action that can be taken, but we
wanted to flag them for consideration," wrote a state official on the
email thread, forwarding on other examples of accounts that could be
confused with official government entities. The Twitter
representative responded: "We will escalate. Thank you."

Each email in the chain carried a disclaimer that the agency "neither
has nor seeks the ability to remove or edit what information is made available on social media platforms."

That tagline, however, concerns free speech advocates, who note that
the agency is attempting to make an end run around the First
Amendment by exerting continual pressure on private sector social
media firms. "When the government suggests things, it's not too hard
to pull off the velvet glove, and you get the mail fist," said Adam
Candeub, a professor of law at Michigan State University. "And I
would consider such actions, especially when it's bureaucratized, as essentially state action and government collusion with the platforms."

"If a foreign authoritarian government sent these messages," noted
Nadine Strossen, the former president of the American Civil Liberties
Union, "there is no doubt we would call it censorship."

From:
https://theintercept.com/2022/10/31/social-media-disinformation-dhs/

These STASI information jannies are laughably easy to identify, and should
be bullied in the extreme. Inducing depression or psychosis ideally.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)