← Back to context

Comment by verdverm

4 months ago

I would think to stopping doing something is equally an action as to do something, in regards to warrant canaries and gag orders. You had to take make some change to your process, or if automated take an actual action to disable. In either case, there was a cognizant choice that was made

The legal theory is that in the US the first amendment prevents the government from forcing you to make a false update. I don’t know if it’s ever been tested.

As I understand, this theory wouldn’t even hold up in other countries where you could be compelled to make such a false update.

  • What if I, sometimes, annually paint a canvas with an artistic interpretation of a canary bird? Can a government compel me to make an artistic expression with specific content, at my own expense? What if I'm just not in the right kind of creative mood to make it a good painting?

    Or maybe I can bill the government for the compelled artwork -- I'm afraid I'm tremendously expensive as an artist.

Yes but the theory, at least in the US, is that the government cannot compel you to say something. That is, they can't make you put up a notice.

  • More specifically, the theory is that cannot compel you to lie, there are all kinds of cases where businesses are compelled to share specific messages.

    • As far as I've seen, the examples of that have always been things like health warnings and ingredients lists, where showing that message is a condition of being in that (licensed) business, and applies equally to any company.

      Do you have a more custom example in mind?

      4 replies →

  • yea, I get that, but my gut tells me this doesn't pass the sniff test

    It's a choice you make and action you take either way, be it not updating a canary or sending a covert financial transaction

    That it has not been tested in court is why it's still a "theory" (hypothesis?)

    My hope is that a jury of our peers would stay closer to the spirit than the letter of the law