this post was submitted on 07 Mar 2026
321 points (96.8% liked)
Technology
82363 readers
4371 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't agree that the government should be able to do what they're doing regarding the company, but I don't understand how it's a violation of free speech.
It seems they're trying to clarify that AI projects are a creative project used for expression of motion. And that seems like a stretch to me? I don't know, I don't fully understand it.
Like I agree that they were within their rights to refuse to do business with the US government, and I don't agree that the response to them refusing it should be the US government blacklist their company for contracts. But I don't see how those factors make it a violation of the First Amendment.
It's more of a 3rd Amendment violation than anything else.
I mean... you want to refuse business but you don't want to be refused business?
How does that work?
my apologies, apperently I need to clarify. It's because that's a big overstep. There is a big difference between telling the DoD we don't want to do buisness with you, to telling the DoT you don't want to do buisness with them. Refusing buisness from the DoD or the Pentagon shouldn't impact your ability to do buisness with the other branches. It's abuse of position.
This isn't "oh my company doesn't want to do buisness because you won't agree to give us the keys" this is a "ok so myself and my parent company along with any affiliates with us are not going to be doing buisness with you for not giving us the keys to the kingdom."
That's my mentality of it anyway, I don't think it violates the first amendment but, but I still don't think it's right.