This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I've got some quibbles with your summaries, but as in above edit, I think they're distractions compared to the standard itself being nonsensical. That payment is dispositive one direction and never the others (and indeed, payment and command is not dispositive even for the entanglement and joint action tests!) makes a mockery of the system, as does the bit where you can not name the "exercising power" that was so clear in Beautiful Struggle that no one could even contest it.
Now you are making a completely different claim than you originally did. You are now saying that the standard is nonsensical. Maybe it is, but that was not your original claim. Your claim was that Leaders of the Beautiful Struggle shows that "far less direct entanglement has been treated as a violation of rights as a government actor in other environments." Yet, that case was not a "direct entanglement" case, so it does not show that at all.
I am unclear why you think payment should be dispositive for the public function test. The whole focus of the test is on what the private actor is doing. Are they paid to "exercise powers that are traditionally the exclusive prerogative of the state," or not? After all, if the private actor is "exercis[ing] powers that are traditionally the exclusive prerogative of the state," then it is state action even if it doesn’t get paid at all. Eg, if anything, the organization in Terry v Adams spent money to run elections rather than being paid to do so.
As for the "exercising power" that was at issue in Leaders of the Beautiful Struggle, note that I never said that it was correctly decided. Given that the BPD conceded the issue, there aren't a lot of details. But it does seem that the BPD offloaded their criminal surveillance to a private party, which is not remotely the same as cooperating with Twitter re Twitter's existing program re combating disinformation. That's what makes this an entanglement case, not a public function case.
Also, if as you note above, the state action case law is a mess, then that is a powerful rebuttal of people, on here or elsewhere, who claim that what the FBI did was "clearly illegal."
Finally, re your edit, if you think that it is all a distraction, you are missing the point. I have already said repeatedly that there might, or might not, have been state action under the proper test, and whether the actions of the FBI are "good" or not is a completely different issue (and one which, btw, is completely inappropriate for this site, since most who post here seem not to be particularly interested in such abstract principles, but rather only is what can plausibly (or often implausibly) spun to show that their outgroup is evil, or that their ingroup is being victimized somehow.
"Direct entanglement" is, as far as I know, only a First Amendment standard in the context of religion, as contrasted with the
threefourmumble mumble state actor doctrine tests. My point was not to use it as a legal term of art, but to use it in the colloquial sense.That's the neat thing! I don't! But it's interesting that the deputy sheriff's pay in Marsh v. Alabama vastly outweighs the (tbf, probably merely paper) org chart role, in that one case, in your mind.
((yes, the dicta makes clear that Marsh's public function wasn't even using the same theory as modern ones so much as being the fig leaf that later versions claimed their history from :
(citations omitted) This has almost nothing to do with the modern 'traditionally exclusive prerogative of the state' standard, and often is in direct contradiction with it, so yada yada. But if you think the company funding of the deputy proves that the corporation was doing the arrest, that seems like it would be the deeper ethical and philosophical question.))
This is the sort of thing that allows the courts to jump up and down in levels of specificity and connection to achieve the goal desired.
I didn't say I thought that it was or wasn't, or even particularly cared about that specific case. If you've got a more recent high-profile case where the courts were willing to find any of the state actor doctrine tests, I can go with that instead.
But I think the contrast is meaningful, and the fallback of an en banc at the Fourth Circuit just being incompetently argued or wrongly decided doesn't actually defend the standard or the norm. Not least of all given that we have in very recent memory a very incompetent federal administration that could have just as easily decided to absolutely crash a few dozen programs, and now the norm to defend the law is gone and has been gone for decades, he could even do it intentionally.
Didn't you just quote Chilcoat to me, where the dicta includes the phrase "While Chilcoat concedes that performing an arrest, investigating crimes, and interrogating witnesses are not functions exclusively reserved to the State..."? What level of specificity excludes the many other programs where a police department offloads criminal surveillance to a private party (including at Twitter!), nor the long history of private investigation.
More broadly, what principled distinction holds this level of reframing the argument from applying to Twitter? Not just in the trivial sense that Twitter changed their 'existing' programs and made new programs for the FBI, but that the FBI was pretty clearly offloading part of their (long-held-to-be-federal-jurisdiction!) anti-election-manipulation efforts onto Twitter.
That's fair, with perhaps some caveats for those people who separate "illegal" as a descriptive and "illegal" as a normative position.
And I've gone further to point out that every alternative test is likewise a squishy mess that overlooks the realities of government encouragement and by their strict text would allow even the most aggressive violations of rights at the direction of state power with the correct weaseling, and on top of that, no such test will ever occur thanks to the near-impossibility of bringing meaningful suit.
... I'm going to try to be polite as I can about this, but I think this sort of aside is a better demonstration of its proclaimed evils than the actual behavior of your political opponents that you're trying to vaguely reference.
ffs, "completely inappropriate"?
You said the exact opposite earlier in the quote included in what you purport to be responding to: "far less direct entanglement has been treated as a violation of rights as a government actor in other environments." If you think that entanglement is not a standard re state action, why did you mention it?
"[T]he instances where private parties have been found to be state actors fall into 'two broad categories: the "public function exception," and the "entanglement exception."' Osler ex rel. Osler v. Huron Valley Ambulance Inc., 671 F.Supp.2d 938, 942 (E.D. Mich. 2009) (citing Chemerinsky, Constitutional Law at 517 (3d ed. 2009)).'" Cahoo v. SAS Institute Inc., 322 F. Supp. 3d 772, 792 (ED Michigan 2018). Honestly, if you truly did not know that, despite it being the dominant grounds for finding state action, don't you think you should be a little less sure of your claim that what the FBI and Twitter did, in fact, = state action?
This seems to be an argument that Leaders of the Beautiful Struggle was wrongly decided, which it might well be -- as I said, I never said otherwise. But if it was wrongly decided, why did you rely on it in the first place? And, if it was wrongly decided, how do you figure that Twitter is a state action.
More broadly, the language from Chilcoat just emphasizes the extent to which the public function test is extremely narrow, which demonstrates even more strongly that it does not apply to Twitter. But, once again, other tests might well apply.
Whether it was "federal jurisdiction" is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether it is an exclusive government function. You just quoted Chilcoat re performing an arrest not being a public function. That is because: "Although all of these powers have been traditionally exercised by the sovereign via the police, none has been exclusively reserved to the police. See, e.g., 725 ILCS 5/107-3 (providing for citizens' arrests); Spencer, 864 F.2d at 1380 (noting that powers of arrest and self-defense are not exclusively governmental functions); Carey v. Continental Airlines, Inc., 823 F.2d 1402, 1404 (10th Cir. 1987) (holding citizen's arrest does not constitute state action)." Wade v. Byles, 83 F. 3d 902, 906 (7th Cir. 1996). Social media companies, as well as other private actors, are free to combat election manipulation, and have long done so of their own accord. Again, you are grossly overstating the scope of public function doctrine: "Despite the rulings in Terry and Marsh, the public function doctrine is very narrow and has very rarely been applied to find state action[.]" Niles, John Dorsett, Lauren E. Tribble, and Jennifer N. Wimsatt. "Making Sense of State Action." Santa Clara L. Rev. 51 (2011): 885, 906; Rodriguez, Audriana. "Will the Players Union Take an L or Take a Knee?: The First Amendment Legal Issues Surrounding the NFL National Anthem Controversy." FIU L. Rev. 14 (2020): 397, 400 ["This test is extremely narrow"]
And I have gone out of my way to make clear that I don't disagree with you, but, as I said before, if the case law is indeed a squishy mess, then it is absurd to say that what the FBI did was clearly illegal.
Sorry I really meant "misplaced"
And that reference to my supposed political opponents illustrates my point. I can assure you, I have had similar conversations with people on the left, who completely misconstrue legal decisions when it is convenient to do so, whether it be Citizens United or Bush v Gore or Masterpiece Cakeshop or you name it. Intellectual dishonesty and a lack of concern for any sort of outcome-independent principle is hardly the exclusive province of those who frequent this site.
Because I think it's the best way to describe an environment where the FBI was paying Twitter to do something, telling them to do something, highly integrated with their employees, and talking about the importance of the thing as a matter of national security while providing classified briefings. And, similarly:
Because I think it's important to notice when things happen to get wrongly decided in a very coincidental way.
((Tbf, I think there are reasonable standards where the behavior in Beautiful Struggle would count as state action. I just can't see a principled one to avoid including the behavior for Twitter here.))
... I notice that this Dominant Legal Standard is not mentioned in the CRS report you linked, or in common literature reviews, or among any of the higher court cases I can easily find (or, tbf, wikipedia's summary of the state actor doctrine). I confess to not doing a LexusNexus search for every district court or law book paraphrase ever.
((Looking through the citations, did Chemerinsky use it as a byword for the older "entwined" standard actually used in the SCOTUS or higher appeals cases? Fair, that's an awful word choice, but come on.))
Again, if your point is that there's some nitpicking Frenchian room for lawyers to defend the behavior, we can scroll all the way back up to my first post where, right after the link, I said :
The strict legal question can be interesting! And if you want to find randos and tell them no one at the FBI is going to be arrested, feel free. But I don't think it's reasonable to jump to "a big deal" meaning something other than FBI agents being arrested.
Dude, the CRS report talks about coercion, which if you read the cited decision is evidence of entanglement though not conclusive evidence. See Texas Law Review article here ["One exception is the public function doctrine, which holds that when a private entity is engaged in a public function, it can be treated as a “state actor” and thus subject to the requirements of the Constitution.5 Another exception is the “entanglement” or “nexus” doctrine, in which a private entity that is overly entangled,6 or “entwined,”7 with the government can be subject to the requirements of the Constitution. . . .
And the CRS report says:
That bolded part is a reference to entanglement. But, again, you knew that, because that is what you claimed the Leaders case stands for. I feel like at this point you are just arguing for the sake of arguing.
Yes, things that are evidence of bad behaviors are a lot like things that are class of bad behaviors. But that is such a wide category as to cover almost any term I could use to describe the behavior. I can understand some confusion if your recent CLE was hammering the new Chemerinsky terminology, but short of requiring me to stick 'this is a normative statement and not a descriptive one' at the front of every post I'm not sure how much clearer I could get.
Now is "entanglement" as a legal term of art supposed to be pointing to the "coercion" test instead of the "public function" one that Leaders used, or can we notice that I'm pointing to the differing results for the broader state actor doctrine, despite worse behavior here, or the near-arbitrary pose of specific cases making up the doctrine?
And I feel like you're burst into the topic aggressively misreading whatever terms you can find from the most arbitrary of references, rather than notice the several posts in a row specifically disclaiming the very argument that you're trying to thrust at me, while also complaining about people who are only interested in tools "to show that their outgroup is evil, or that their ingroup is being victimized somehow."
EDIT: Seriously, if you wanted to have a conversation about what the current state actor doctrine is, where its limitations leave serious vulnerabilities, or what a more appropriate state actor doctrine would be, I'd enjoy those specific conversations individually! There are some fun and delightful thought experiments about exactly how far a state could abuse the existing doctrine.
But this constant jump where any minimal recognition of the messy ad-hoc nature of the doctrine is a terrible admission that must absolve the FBI from charges that I'm not bringing, while simultaneously my criticisms of the doctrine are met with repetition of the facts I've just described is a muddled mix that makes discussion on any one of these perspectives less than useful.
Dude, I made a very simple point: You said: "far less direct entanglement has been treated as a violation of rights as a government actor in other environments," and I simply pointed out that the case you cited for that argument is actually authority for a different theory of state action, i.e., public function, not entanglement. I even included a link to the CRS report, which discusses the correct theory. You are the one who wants to go on and on about the nature of the state action doctrine, etc, etc, etc.
And why would I possibly want to have that conversation with you, when you make statements like "can we notice that I'm pointing to the differing results for the broader state actor doctrine, despite worse behavior," when whether something is "worse" is not a relevant analytical category? That is the type of argument that laymen or dilettantes make about legal issues. Why would I want to waste my time having a discussion with someone like that?
You're having this discussion instead? So I guess there's a values-signals question.
More broadly, though, because the law can not be the source of ethics, nor can explaining it at sufficient length but without a strong and consistent foundation change anyone's minds regarding just action. "Worse" may be the domain of dilettantes on legal issues (and, I'll admit, under-specified and vague for ethical or norms-based ones), but ignoring problems like it doesn't just elevate everyone else to an ivory tower of endless continuing legal education; it undermines trust in an important institution.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link