Depends on what things you think are likely to be true in secret or judicially determined in the future without an intervening legislative change. My impression of the law in most Western countries is that the courts would overturn any requirement to compel a company to affirmatively lie to the public through explicit speech of some kind, even in the national security context. Orders compelling silence or non-removal of past statements are a very different constitutional and human rights balance than compelled false speech.
>My impression of the law in most Western countries
Apparently you still didn't get it, so let me spell it out: Your entire point hinges on your own impression that your government won't abuse its power. An impression that will always be heavily influenced by PR and propaganda, no matter where you live - and one that seems eerily off considering the fact how often surveillance programs and attempts at destroying what privacy we have left make it to the surface. This kind of blind trust in your superiors is the straightest way to a 1984-esque dystopia.
You’re assuming a lot of inaccurate things about my beliefs. I do not have blind trust in my government or other Western governments. In, fact, I expect them to actively abuse their power in myriad ways, many of which try to destroy privacy. I didn’t say otherwise; indeed, if I were to assume that the government would never try to compel affirmative lies, I would have never needed to discuss how the courts would react to such an attempt.
I don’t think it will be productive to continue this subthread if doing so would be as focused on clarifying misunderstandings as this exchange was, so do not be surprised if this ends up as my last reply in this subthread.
