Appeals Court Rules Texas Social Media Law Can Proceed (protocol.com) 232
A three-person panel of federal appeals court judges is letting a Texas law aimed at punishing social media companies for alleged anti-conservative bias go into effect for now. From a report: In a ruling late Wednesday, the panel stayed a district court injunction that had paused the law while the judges consider an appeal of the lower court's move. The decision, which was supported by two unnamed judges and was not immediately published with the court's reasoning, comes after a Monday hearing in which the jurists appeared to struggle with basic tech concepts, including whether Twitter counts as a website.
The decision is a win for conservative critics of the current interpretation of tech law, which underlies the operations of social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook. Two tech trade groups that count the Big Tech companies as members had sued Texas over the law. Until this week, industry observers widely expected the court to uphold a block on the law, which allows for lawsuits against social media services if they "censor" users. A different federal court also paused a similar Florida law, finding that it sought to punish private companies for their views and treatment of content in violation of the First Amendment. In court, Texas argued that it is merely trying to force platforms to carry all content the way phone companies are expected to carry all calls.
The decision is a win for conservative critics of the current interpretation of tech law, which underlies the operations of social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook. Two tech trade groups that count the Big Tech companies as members had sued Texas over the law. Until this week, industry observers widely expected the court to uphold a block on the law, which allows for lawsuits against social media services if they "censor" users. A different federal court also paused a similar Florida law, finding that it sought to punish private companies for their views and treatment of content in violation of the First Amendment. In court, Texas argued that it is merely trying to force platforms to carry all content the way phone companies are expected to carry all calls.
Good luck lol (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Good luck lol (Score:5, Interesting)
I guess Abbott will just inspect all packets going into Texas for anti-conservative bias.
I'm sure that'll go as well as his truck inspections: What did Greg Abbott’s border inspections turn up? Oil leaks, flat tires and zero drugs [texastribune.org]:
State troopers ordered by Gov. Greg Abbott to inspect every commercial truck coming from Mexico earlier this month — which clogged international trade with Mexico — found zero drugs, weapons or any other type of contraband, according to data released by the Department of Public Safety to The Texas Tribune.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection routinely inspects commercial cargo coming from Mexico for illegal drugs and people being smuggled as soon as truckers cross the international bridges. CBP called Texas’ inspections duplicative and “unnecessary.”
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Interesting attempt to separate out the political aspects, but I think the filtering should be based on the earned reputation of the identity spewing the "material". If the identity has a track record of spewing lies, then everyone should be able to know its worth ignoring. I tag it MEPR, and I'm still looking for a website with a good version...
The underlying problem is that finding the truth is difficult and usually expensive. Generating lies is really cheap. The free speech absolutists think you can over
"was supported by two unnamed judges" (Score:5, Insightful)
So, Republicans / Republican appointed judges then.
The companies should just cease operation in those states then. Bet conservatives would really start squealing then.
Re:"was supported by two unnamed judges" (Score:5, Insightful)
Secret Texas judges passing (so far) unexplained judgement -- sounds like a third-world authoritarian dictatorship, like Florida... :-)
Their names are on the front page (Score:5, Insightful)
The judges are Southwick, Oldham, and Jones. You see that listed on literally any document filed in the case, on the court web site, anywhere you care to look.
Just because one news story didn't list their names doesn't make them "secret judges". Geez.
Re: (Score:3)
Secret Texas judges passing (so far) unexplained judgement -- sounds like a third-world authoritarian dictatorship, like Florida... :-)
Look, there's no way things in Texas are going to improve that much.
Re: (Score:3)
Secret Texas judges
If the judges were named, there is absolutely no possibility that they would find a group of protestors hanging at their home address?
If they don't like protestors, they can just move somewhere that there are no protestors.
Re: (Score:2)
"I also forget to mention that I know what it's like to have been raised a minority while totally immersed in the most racist and xenophobic society on Earth."
You're kidding, right? There's no comparison. Most of China, India, and the large majority of southeast Asia has racism and xenophobia so ingrained in it that they don't bother calling it out as such. The reason it's so loud in America is that not everybody is on the same page. Racism isn't so endemic that it's universally accepted as "normal".
The me
Re: (Score:2)
On the bright side, we won't have to read/listen to the squealing.
Re: "was supported by two unnamed judges" (Score:2)
How do they do that? Companies that do business over the Internet tend to observe the laws of all states specifically because it's hard to tell where the end user is located.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not that hard.
Re: (Score:3)
Companies that do business from another state are engaging in interstate commerce, and Texas shouldn't mess with that.
Re: "was supported by two unnamed judges" (Score:3)
If by squirm you mean have better mental and physical health, then yeah, sure.
Social media is toxic to the people who use it and to society at large.
It would be a boon of deific proportions for Twitter, Facebook, and the rest of them to stop functioning within the Texas border.
or ya know, just be transparent about their policy (Score:2)
> The companies should just cease operation in those states then
They could do that. Or they could just do as the law requires:
a) Make their content policy available on the site (kinda like their privacy policy?)
b) Follow the policy they set
I find it fascinating that liberals are SO freaked out about the idea of requiring companies to tell the truth, to let consumers know what their policy is.
Re:"was supported by two unnamed judges" (Score:5, Insightful)
The court ruled that protesting outside the homes of abortion doctors is freedom of speech. So those judges can deal with it.
Re: "was supported by two unnamed judges" (Score:2)
SCOTUS has ruled previously that the first amendment doesn't allow you to unduly influence judicial proceedings:
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
Apparently it doesn't just apply to judges, but also juries and lawyers, and only if it's meant to influence the outcome of a particular proceeding. The idea is that the judiciary is supposed to decide based on the laws and on the evidence, not based on public opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
SCOTUS has ruled previously that the first amendment doesn't allow you to unduly influence judicial proceedings
Great, so whoever leaked Alito's draft opinion doesn't have a First Amendment defense, does she?
Re: (Score:3)
SCOTUS has ruled previously that the first amendment doesn't allow you to unduly influence judicial proceedings:
So what's undue about a protest? Protesting is an American tradition, AND an American right.
Re:"was supported by two unnamed judges" (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm going to try and keep my language as neutral as possible while laying this out (until the last sentence) but there's no denying that this addresses something that's probably going to turn fairly ugly.
Fact: the country is roughly 1/3 pro-life and 2/3 pro-choice. So, for the past 50 years, 2/3 of the country has imposed it's morality on the other 1/3. Understandably, the pro-lifers in this country have felt a bit oppressed, and they've been protesting. Most protests have been peaceful, but some have directly targeted individuals in a fairly nasty, personal manner, and occasionally a deranged pro-lifer guns down an abortion doctor.
Well, the upcoming supreme court decision is going to flip this. Moving forward, the 1/3 pro-life population is going to be able to impose it's morality on the other 2/3. The protests are going to flip now, as well. Except there are TWICE AS MANY PRO-CHOICERS. Which probably means twice as many people willing to volunteer for protests, twice as many people willing to target pro-choicers right where they live, work, or send their kids to school. And, unfortunately, twice as many deranged people willing to resort to violence.
I'm not justifying any of this. I'm simply laying out the numbers. I haven't read anything about this in the media : that conservatives, pro-lifer insitutitions and individuals need to be ready for some pretty intense protests, and a fair number of these protests are going to hit them directly where they live.
Now, for the personal part. There used to be an MD living right down my street that was somehow involved in womens reproductive health. Nice guy, good neighbor. Some anti-abortion group targeted him, camped out for a full week marching right up and down the sidewalk with signs. Drawing all sorts of attention, 20 feet from his front door. Abortion doctors get gunned down that way. Understandably, they moved a few months later.
For every pro-lifer willing to make it personal and nasty, there are probably TWO pro-choices willing to do the same. Conservatives and pro-lifers need to get ready for some similar treatment, but twice as intense.
And, now for my personal opinion - they deserve every second of it.
If so, the fight is over - the right way. Simple v (Score:2, Insightful)
> Fact: the country is roughly 1/3 pro-life and 2/3 pro-choice.
Supposing this is true, the "pro-life" folks can simply vote and pass a law. Done.
If you're in the majority, you don't NEED a dude in a robe to declare that "free from unreasonable searches" really means "you can't regulate abortion". You only need a judge to overrule the majority of citizens if you are in the minority and are trying to impose your will on the majority.
Re:If so, the fight is over - the right way. Simpl (Score:5, Informative)
>If you're in the majority, you don't NEED a dude in a robe to declare that "free from unreasonable searches" really means "you can't regulate abortion". Y
You do when your vote is gerrymandered out of existence.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I see just one sentence of that which I have to push back on:
> conservative Christian part of the base, who are also very Trumpist
Those who are obsessed with Mr. "Grab em by the pussy", who made his money building casinos, are in my experience NOT "conservative Christian part". It's awfully tough to be a follower of Christ and a follower of Donald Trump at the same time, since the two paths are about 150 degrees apart.
I know plenty of Christians who held their nose and voted against Hillary and her support for partial birth abortion, despite the fact that meant voting for Trump. That doesn't mean they are "Trumpist", that means they think you shouldn't smash a baby's face into her brain while she's being born.
I would love to agree with everything you just said... and it's baffling to me that alleged Christians could be fierce supporters of Mr. "Grab 'em by the pussy". But I know way too many who are, and polling supports that the overlap between "conservative Christian" and "Trumpist" is extremely large, so much that just it's a reasonable approximation to reality to assume that "conservative Christian" => "Trumpist".
My own Trumpist conservative Christian friends and relatives originally reconciled the conf
Re: "was supported by two unnamed judges" (Score:2)
Oppression of the majority has become the norm in this country. It is the currency upon which the economy of politics is run.
If you do not want oppression then be a member of the right minority.
You will have to pick your opinions without respect to party lines. The parties have strategically divided up the minority positions that get political support to ensure a divided electorate.
Re: (Score:3)
For every pro-lifer willing to make it personal and nasty, there are probably TWO pro-choices willing to do the same.
I'm not sure that's the case. You don't often see anyone committing acts of terrorism in favour of the physics Standard Model. The problem is the pro-birthers (stop calling them pro-life, they don't give a fuck about life) represent extremism. Pro-choice people like atheists largely represent a normal status quo, the kind who would likely write angry letters than actually go camp somewhere.
To be clear I fully hope you are right and I am wrong. I would like nothing more than some religious conservative fuckw
Re: (Score:3)
Re: "was supported by two unnamed judges" (Score:5, Insightful)
Does this make all lawyers arguing before a judge felons?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Democrats are willing to hold their own accountable, Republicans aren't. It's literally that simple.
Re: "was supported by two unnamed judges" (Score:2)
As long as there is a majority against it, I see no reason that people cannot be robbed of their freedoms and "pursuit of happiness."
Rights aren't given by God, but enabled (or withheld) by Man. Good on ya for taking others rights away just because you believe they shouldn't have those rights.
Nothing more 'Murican than that.
Re: (Score:2)
I interpret the 9th Amendment to mean that "legislating from the bench" might be acceptable, but only in the cases where it expands rights to individuals.
I think this is a wise choice, as it helps prevent actual legislation of tyranny.
A business has the right... (Score:5, Insightful)
...to refuse service to a gay couple who want a wedding cake
But not the right to deny service to political misinformation!
If Musk wants to hang a "no gays allowed" sign.. (Score:3, Interesting)
..on Twitter, he can be my guest. Suing that stupid cesspool of a site isn't a hill I feel like dying on. Though, considering that there are a lot of us LGBTQ+ folks, I'll be looking forward to my $3.14 class action check.
Hell, I'll probably end up saving him the trouble and leave for whatever ends up replacing it after it starts sliding further down the alt-right rabbit hole. This is the thing conservatives fail to realize. Us "leftists" really don't give a fuck if we have to download a new app and sig
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...to refuse service to a gay couple who want a wedding cake
No they don't. You only have the right to refuse a request to make something custom (i.e. artistic expression). If you go into a Christian baker and say "I want that cake" pointing to the one with a price tag on it "and I will eat it while I my fucking my gay husband on a bed during a bible burning session" they can't refuse to sell it to you.
Re: (Score:2)
"they can't refuse to sell it to you"
Actually most places can refuse service to anyone at any time. The law doesn't compel regular businesses to transact with specific individuals.
There's an inherent flaw in the concept. "No shoes, no shirt, no service" and no one gets upset. Refuse someone on a more personal basis and it gets a lot more complicated really fast.
Re: (Score:2)
...to refuse service to a gay couple who want a wedding cake
But not the right to deny service to political misinformation!
Private Business = Your Own Rules it's not just a good idea, it's the Constitution
Re: A business has the right... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It isn't any kind of mental gymnastics: if they want immunity under section 320 then they need to remain neutral. If they are going to take a side then they need to have that immunity revoked.
FALSE.
They do not want immunity... they are not asking for protections. They have immunity under USC title 47 section 230.
There is nothing about neutrality in the law. The law was written specifically to encourage censorship of indecent, inappropriate, or objectionable materials as determined by the hosting site. It specifically says that it is OK to censor what would otherwise potentially be protected speech.
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected
Read it yourself [cornell.edu]
Re: (Score:3)
And so they soon enough become overwhelmed with shitposts and everyone (except the shit posters) leaves.
Re: (Score:2)
Some speech has always been excluded from being restricted, such as slander, and things that are likely to cause harm. (Shouting "FIRE" in a theater is the common example.)
The company does have some safe harbor with regards to what users post, but first of all, there's no legal issue with being proactive and heading off troublemakers before somebody gets you into court over what some user said. Whether the company is protected or
Re: A business has the right... (Score:5, Insightful)
The company does have some safe harbor with regards to what users post, but first of all, there's no legal issue with being proactive and heading off troublemakers before somebody gets you into court over what some user said. Whether the company is protected or not, the court case can be rather expensive to win either way.
That's a piece of Section 230 of the CDA, basically. That is this law, for people wanting the actual legal text. [cornell.edu]
The difficulty is that the law already classifies them and specifically permits the behavior. For some purposes federal law says they are considered the publisher, meaning they are subject to all first amendment grounds of free speech. For other purposes federal law says they are treated as a common carrier but specifically with the Section 230 requirements.
It's clear why the argument is being used, but it seems to be contrary to current law. The article implies it is because of technical ineptitude (asking if Twitter counts as a website), which is probably a factor.
Ultimately other than potentially costing people time and money while it plays out, this doesn't particularly matter beyond taking the feel of the room. It isn't the final verdict on the case, but a ruling on a temporary injunction while the case plays out. This allows people to sue and attempt to sue while the law is still being challenged. Future lawsuits can still ask for a stay pending the results of this case.
The new Texas law [texas.gov] has plenty of likely unenforceable elements. 120.051 goes against many laws, including existing trade secret laws. 120.053.b ignores many other classifications, it is a false dichotomy; there are not just two options (1, rule violation, 2, illegal content) and they aren't mutually exclusive. Several of their definitions in 143A go against federal law definitions. Etc. There are lots of things to be challenged, including for violations of both the constitution's Commerce Clause and the federal Interstate Commerce Act. So while the ruling on the injunction is interesting, it is only one stop on a very long road.
Re:A business has the right... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:A business has the right... (Score:4, Informative)
They refused to create a custom cake but they were willing to sell them anything from the shelf. - See, when you shitty klanfucks lie like this, you reveal yourselves...
Those were undisputed facts from the very outset. At every level from the district court to the appeals court, both sides agreed as undisputed facts that the baker would make standard baked goods for the couple. Even more, record shows he even offered all the standard baked goods to the couple, and suggested they buy a standard cake and other baked goods off the rack.
But you don't have to take my word for it, read from the actual SCOTUS text: "Next, take the undisputed facts of Mr. Phillips’s case. ... Mr. Phillips explained that he could not prepare a cake celebrating a same-sex wedding consistent with his religious faith. Id., at 168-169 . But Mr. Phillips offered to make other baked goods for the couple, including cakes celebrating other occasions. Ibid." and that the shop has "premade baked
items, which he sells to everyone, no questions asked." [casetext.com]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
... shitty klanfucks lie like this, you reveal yourselves. ... shitty-ass klan bigotry trying to masquerade as "freedumb of screech" ... a shitty klanfuck tried to claim his religion ...
hate & anger seem to be the tools you are using to make your point. Got anything to offer other than a link to a case involving an obvious racist from 1968? Scream into a pillow for 10 seconds, then make a point please. You probably have a valid point to make, but it's getting lost in you feelings.
Re:A business has the right... (Score:5, Informative)
Phillips met Charlie Craig and Dave Mullins when they entered his shop in the summer of 2012. Craig and Mullins were planning to marry. At that time, Colorado did not recognize same-sex marriages, so the couple planned to wed legally in Massachusetts and afterwards to host a reception for their family and friends in Denver. To prepare for their celebration, Craig and Mullins visited the shop and told Phillips that they were interested in ordering a cake for âoeour wedding.â Id., at 152 (emphasis deleted). They did not mention the design of the cake they envisioned. Phillips informed the couple that he does not âoecreateâ wedding cakes for same-sex weddings. Ibid. He explained, âoeIâ(TM)ll make your birthday cakes, shower cakes, sell you cookies and brownies, I just donâ(TM)t make cakes for same sex weddings.â Ibid. The couple left the shop without further discussion.
The investigator also recounted that, according to affidavits submitted by Craig and Mullins, Phillipsâ(TM) shop had refused to sell cupcakes to a lesbian couple for their commitment celebration because the shop âoehad a policy of not selling baked goods to same-sex couples for this type of event.â
What is it with you conservatives and projection? Every fucking time. Here you are accusing someone else of misrepresenting the case, but that's what you're doing.
Even more clear cut, Jack is back in court right now because he would agree to sell a blue and pink cake to a couple celebrating a boy and girl baby, but not an identical blue and pink cake to a trans person who said it represented their transition. So this bigoted fuck is going well beyond not writing messages himself.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Did you misrepresent that on purpose?
The bakery refused to make a cake with homosexual imagery on it, on religious grounds.
"Homosexual imagery?" Please elaborate.
I googled and found no details of what the baker refused to put on the cake. Perhaps doll-figures of two guys in tuxedos holding hands? That hardly seems to warrant the incendiary label "homosexual imagery."
But please do enlighten us. I would like to be disabused of the notion that you are the one misrepresenting here.
Asking for a friend (Score:5, Funny)
So if this is passed then can someone (my friend) post non stop bestiality porn and death threats after every tweet by ted cruz and not be blocked ?
Re: (Score:2)
I think you've got your political left and right the wrong way around, mate. What you described above would fall on the left, libertarian side of the spectrum. Conservative = right.
Re: (Score:2)
Sending death threats to Ted Cruz?
He'd be looking at that and thinking "Pfft, these lightweights haven't even strangled a backpacker yet or sent the cops a cryptic cypher puzzle. Who do they think they messing with?"
Re: Asking for a friend (Score:2)
It's not a random company. It's the company whose property a user has chosen to use to send a message.
Re: (Score:3)
Am I on the company's property? If so, yes, they should have the ability to decide what I'm allowed to say while there (with the consequence being required to leave if they so choose). If not, no.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's an experiment for you. First, try putting pictures of bestiality porn up on local community bulletin boards and sign posts. See how that goes for you.
When you get out, try sending bestiality porn and death threats to the politician of your choice by U.S. Mail. If/when you get out, report your experience here.
Re: (Score:3)
Here's an experiment for you. First, try putting pictures of bestiality porn up on local community bulletin boards and sign posts. See how that goes for you.
I'm trying to wrap my head around this whole concept that the bigger the forum, the less it should be able to moderate its content. But small and local is totally fine to lock down. So it's not even the principle of free speech that's important, it's the size of the forum for some reason. Like having more users somehow makes it a monopoly on free speech. That's asinine, it implies a right to an audience.
It's like crafting a law that says if you have as many people in your store as an average Costco or
Re: (Score:2)
When some fora increase in size, they gradually move closer to becoming monopolies, either real or socially de-facto. As in "Our book club has all its online member interactions through Facebook.". When you, at Facebooks discretion, are banned, you also lose out on the book club (and all the other social groupings you participate in there).
Having this power in the hands of a private party is a terrible idea. The books The Circle and The Every toy with the concept further than what is comfortable.
Re: (Score:2)
When you, at Facebooks discretion, are banned,
Banned for what? If you are going to put up a hypothetical scenario why something is bad you need to explain the whole scenario, just throwing in "banned" can mean you support the notion it's bad to ban pedophiles who have been posting pictures in a private group.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes (Score:5, Informative)
The party of small government and free speech strikes again. Help we're being oppressed! Says the most over represented political party.
Re: (Score:3)
There is nothing conservative about forcing users to sift through tons of BS content. /. used to have this problem in the early days until the moderation system was put in place. No idea why other social media platforms never adopted something similar.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So the “fuck your feelings” party is using the courts to infringe the speech of social media companies?
Just making sure we’re on the same page.
Being conservative is not a protected class.
Re: (Score:2)
Consequences (Score:5, Interesting)
So, are they going to force Parler and Truth Social to carry BLM messages and left-wing advocacy?
Re:Consequences (Score:5, Insightful)
Rules for Thee, but not for Me.
Re: Consequences (Score:2)
The law is invalid because of nonsense words. It allows. Even demands a clear TOS but then allows users to sue when it is enforced.
Then of course there is the matter of payment. The Texas governor got rich by suing some trees that fell on when when he was continently running through a wealthy neighborhood he
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Remember, rights for Republicans (and their minions) Guantanamo for all not Republican protesters
Re: (Score:3)
Bias Is Truth (Score:2)
So in order to counter bias they will force untruth as non biased.
Gotcha.
Flawed analogy is flawed (Score:2)
In court, Texas argued that it is merely trying to force platforms to carry all content the way phone companies are expected to carry all calls.
Way to misunderstand the difference between a conduit and a platform.
Platforms aren't expected to carry all content. You may be familiar with this concept as it applies to more traditional mediums, such as print publishing, radio, and broadcast television.
Conduits consist of the companies that provide connectivity to platforms. Last I checked, Truth Social and various other right-wing platforms are still online.
...but definitely not net neutrality (Score:2)
Re:...but definitely not net neutrality (Score:5, Informative)
So they want websites classed as common carriers, but not the ISPs?
They want whatever helps them obtain and retain power and don't want whatever helps anyone else.
Re:...but definitely not net neutrality (Score:5, Funny)
So they want websites classed as common carriers, but not the ISPs?
Really seems like Texas should stick to fucking oil and pumping cows, or whatever it is they do these days in The Banana Republic of North Mexico.
So, they want a "fairness doctrine"? (Score:2)
Bears repeating that common carrier should be applied to the ISPs, not the gossipy web channels. Regulate service, not content
Re: (Score:2)
Inept, unqualified jurists (Score:2)
a Monday hearing in which the jurists appeared to struggle with basic tech concepts, including whether Twitter counts as a website
Once again, we see jurists ruling on shit about which they know nothing. Why does this happen? It's almost like ancient white men creating laws about womens' bodies - again, something about which they know nothing.
New popup (Score:5, Interesting)
"Unfortunately Texas has a law that we cannot comply with. By clicking "I'm not from Texas" you declare that you're not from Texas and hence that the law doesn't apply between us"
A victory for crybaby conservatism! (Score:2)
Scare quotes? (Score:2)
to uphold a block on the law, which allows for lawsuits against social media services if they "censor" users.
Why the scare quotes around "censor"?
You may like the censorship, you may think it's a great idea, you may think it intrinsically legal, useful, and good ... whatever ... but it still is in fact the act of censoring. Why not juts own it for what it is?
(And yes, I know that "quoting" one word that was actually written so that it's technically a quote instead of a scare quote is a thing ... but it doesn't change my question. You know perfectly well the intent.)
Re: (Score:2)
Anti-first amendment (Score:2)
The decision, which was supported by two unnamed judges
And here are two judges who like too many modern conservatives either don't understand or don't give a toss about the 1st amendment. Forcing companies to host content they don't want to is not protecting free speech.
Re: (Score:2)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Note: it reads Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; It does not distinguish between speech that originates from in
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile it has been incredibly well established in the courts that corporations have the same or similiar free speech rights as citizens. Conservatives have used this as a bludgeon to stop any form of campaign finance reform for decades now https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org], you can take up your problems with corporate personhood with them.
anti-conservative bias? (Score:2)
alleged anti-conservative bias
This is such nonsense.
These are the consistent top pages on Facebook, day after day -
- Breitbart
- Dan Bongino
- The Federalist Papers
- Ben Shapiro
- Franklin Graham
"Bias?" Really? When those pages rank highest?
Re: (Score:2)
That only proves that the USERS are biased to the right. As to how the management is biased, you need to look at what they censor or fact-check.
Imagine. (Score:2)
Common carriers (Score:2)
Twitter and other platforms that consist nearly 100% of user-provided content should be regulated as common carriers, like the landline telephone company. That would fix everything. This is a mistake that was made to keep AOL happy back in the day.
Re: (Score:2)
There are a few bright spots.
https://media.gab.com/system/m... [gab.com]
Re:Alleged my tail (Score:5, Insightful)
Next, did Xi violate Twitter's terms-of-service re: disinformation? If not, why would he be kicked off? I guess the question is: how is it that a communist dictator can behave better than Trump? What's that say about Trump?
Re: (Score:3)
Former President Trump fomented an insurrection [twitter.com] and persisted in doing so well after it would have been obvious to even a complete moron that continued whining about a "stolen election" (that wasn't) would continue to do so.
President Xi did not.
The RNC, Mitch McConnell, and a vast majority of conservative politicians have managed and continue to manage to use Twitter without inciting violence. Which means that the
Re: (Score:2)
The right wing invented cancel culture nearly 20 years ago.
In March 2003, the American country band the Dixie Chicks, now known as the Chicks, publicly criticized President George W. Bush and the imminent Allied invasion of Iraq, triggering a backlash. Singer Natalie Maines made the statement at a concert in London; she said the band were ashamed to be from the same state as Bush and that they did not support the war. At the time, the Dixie Chicks were one of the most popular American country acts.
After the
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe consider that forcing private companies to host content they don't want to is not protecting free speech at all. Quite the opposite in fact.