New Texas Law Tries Making it Illegal for Social Media Sites to Ban Users Over Political Viewpoints (bbc.com) 469
The U.S. state of Texas "has made it illegal for social media platforms to ban users 'based on their political viewpoints'," repots the BBC:
Prominent Republican politicians have accused Facebook, Twitter and others of censoring conservative views... The social networks have all denied stifling conservative views. However, they do enforce terms of service which prohibit content such as incitement to violence and co-ordinated disinformation. "Social media websites have become our modern-day public square," said Texas governor Greg Abbott, after signing the bill into law on Thursday. "They are a place for healthy public debate where information should be able to flow freely...."
The new law states social media platforms with more than 50 million users cannot ban people based on their political viewpoints. Facebook, Twitter and Google's YouTube are within its scope...
The law is due to come in to force in December, but may face legal challenges.
"Critics say the law does not respect the constitutional right of private businesses to decide what sort of content is allowed on their platforms," the BBC adds, with the president of NetChoice trade association arguing that the bill "would put the Texas government in charge of content policies."
The new law states social media platforms with more than 50 million users cannot ban people based on their political viewpoints. Facebook, Twitter and Google's YouTube are within its scope...
The law is due to come in to force in December, but may face legal challenges.
"Critics say the law does not respect the constitutional right of private businesses to decide what sort of content is allowed on their platforms," the BBC adds, with the president of NetChoice trade association arguing that the bill "would put the Texas government in charge of content policies."
rank hypocrisy (Score:5, Insightful)
rank hypocrisy has never stopped the party of small government before. They really have gone off the deep end, and i say that as an independent.
This is just pandering to the base (Score:5, Insightful)
They really have gone off the deep end, and i say that as an independent.
I say the same thing, as a conservative and a republican.
In an effort to "rally the base", the republican party has shifted their platform to focus on a few narrow, divisive hot button issues and are increasingly pushing for laws that are reactionary and meant to punish the other side. This is virtually unenforceable anyway, and can you imagine the backlash against the law if Facebook and others simply decide to block access to any user located in Texas rather than comply?
Re: (Score:2)
My dad is so conservative that he makes archie bunker look normal. HE even left the repubs back during Bush because of their new ways.
Re:This is just pandering to the base (Score:5, Insightful)
As someone who grew up conservative, and had been rather conservative well into my adulthood,. The Republican party had left me vs having left the Republican party.
The party had made everything political, even for things that are not. Talking to a modern conservative is a landmine of topics where every freaking topic gets twisted into politics, but it isn't political but just hate speech. Hating liberals, hating minorities,other religions...
Most social media doesn't kick off people for their political stance, but for spreading fake news and hate speech. Which the current politicians think it is a political stance.
Comment removed (Score:4)
Re:People leaving both parties (D&R) for Indep (Score:5, Informative)
Re:People leaving both parties (D&R) for Indep (Score:5, Interesting)
Wokeness proves the Dems have lost it too.
No if doesn't: on the Dem side you're comparing the most insane things you can find on twitter to what is mainstream politics espoused by congress and your most recent president on the Republican side. No one is claiming there aren't lunatics on both sides. On the Republican side however those lunatics are running the asylum.
Re:People leaving both parties (D&R) for Indep (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't get me wrong, I am no fan of the Dems, but they are certainly not a mirror image of the Repubs. The Repubs are way nuttier. On top of that, while the Dems have their share of kooks in the asylum, those kooks are not running the show, unlike the Repubs.
The older I get the more I think the first step back to normalcy around politics is to abandon this whole both-sideism stuff. Even if the "other" side is doing crazy shit, that does not excuse your own side's crazy shit. Oh, and also realize that there is more than one side.
Re: This is just pandering to the base (Score:4, Funny)
It's Shariapublican law.
Re:This is just pandering to the base (Score:5, Informative)
I don't think that Republicans have gone off the deep end. I think the rank and file have been down there for a very long time. It just took time for the rank and file to find the right "leaders" onto to which to project their paranoia. The R leaders themselves have changed into a bunch of sniveling grifters who hold their finger up to right wingnut radio to see which way the wind is blowing and then face that direction.
The rot started with the "moral majority" who decided that "social issues" were more important to the rank and file than economics or foreign policy. With the latter, one could not conjure up scary enough bogymen. With social issues, the sky is the limit for scares that they could personify with any leader who opposed them or was not Evangelically stupid enough to follow them. The net result is a party of whiners with no balls. And they get to thump the Bible for Divine Blessing of their behavior. If you don't believe then you are going to Hell. They have all the makings of a ruthless authoritarian government in their bones.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Are you really that dull?
The law is only enforceable in Texas. Are any social media companies based in Texas?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Except that FB is a private entity, and nobody has a god-given right to post there. Private entities absolutely do have a right to censorship.
If texas doesn't like it, too bad. They can set up their own site.
Re: (Score:3)
Afaik this kind of anti-platforming law was recently tried in Florida but is currently blocked by an injunction issued by a federal judge: https://netchoice.org/wp-conte... [netchoice.org] (link goes to the courts decision; netchoice is a lobbying group representing facebook, twitter and others).
Re:How so? (Score:5, Insightful)
> I could make a good-faith argument ... that Facebook has, very much, become a "town square"
It has been tried recently [washingtonpost.com]. It has been noted that your reading of Pruneyard is too strained to be credible [techdirt.com]. Certain lawmakers with an axe to grind do indeed label social media as "town squares" [reason.com], but political rhetoric does not make it so.
You might look to this podcast [legaltalknetwork.com] for a more in-depth discussion, by real lawyers.
Re: (Score:3)
So states could absolutely regulate FB operations in their territory
Unlikely. Almost definitionally, FB's operations fall under the "Interstate Commerce" sector.
Re:How so? (Score:5, Insightful)
You said it's unenforceable. How so?
Well sure the biggest and most obvious obstacle as I see it is who gets to define whether something is or is not a "political viewpoint"?
Wearing masks: not a political issue. Yet somehow...
The spherical nature of the Earth: not a political issue. Yet a few people consider it one. So is it?
Vaccines: not a political issue. Yet again...
Having six toes on the left foot: not a political issue. Until it is.
There is no logical or feasible way to define whether something is or isn't a political issue without making it a political issue. Thus everything is suddenly a political issue, and the law applies to the entire universe. This makes the law overly broad, and therefore unconstitutional.
The law is a sacrificial construct/showpiece/McGuffin. It has no purpose other than stirring the passions of the ignorant to try to muster donations and votes. If it survives even the first glance of a challenge in court, I will be massively surprised. I imagine it will die on the vine before the end of the year, which is far longer than its lifetime should have been to begin with.
Re: How so? (Score:3)
The law is a sacrificial construct/showpiece/McGuffin. It has no purpose other than stirring the passions of the ignorant to try to muster donations and votes.
Exactly, same as the anti abortion law IMO.
They can't possibly last, it's part of the show Abbott needs to prove how big dumb and Republican he can be before the TX gubernatorial election next year.
That election is everything everyone needs to know about why Texas is in the national news for new dumb shit every week in 2021, but you didn't hear a peep about Texas in all 2020. It's because Abbott wasn't in the news for doing stupid shit with COVID during 2020, that he's doubling down now, because his party
Re: (Score:3)
It does say they have to publish their content removal policies, then actually follow the policy they publish. Meaning if they want to remove flat-earther stupidity, they need to have a category in their *published* content policy that covers such things.
The thing is, they DO publish their terms-of-service and community standards.
For "conservatives" the problem is that if the social media companies actually followed their policies to the letter they'd see a lot MORE of their content removed, not less.
Re: How so? (Score:4, Informative)
Can you imagine the Rush Limbaugh Show being told to take calls from "all sides" so they don't "censor viewpoints"? And publish the criteria their call screeners have to use? It's flat out ridiculous.
It is so not going to happen. This law, like the anti-abortion law, like the "anti-CRT" law only need to last to next year's gubernatorial election.
They're all bumpers the GOP dog wasn't supposed catch. My god, if they stand, think of the sue your neighbor for having a gun with less than 20lb trigger weight laws, for not having a biometric gun safe, the AM talk show "censoring viewpoints" laws, umm... OH, a law that requires history teachers to spend a year on "both sides" of Native American history. Heh heh, Republicans would be so pissed.
Re: (Score:3)
And in true WWE fashion...
PLOT TWIST: The Marines are registered Independents, and hate partisanship! And you are their first victim!
(I couldn't give half a shite about Republicans or Democrats. Both parties are full to the gills with lying, evil politicians. But you are a cunt who wishes violence on others based solely on their political views, and so I wouldn't mind seeing the violence you propose visited on you first and foremost.)
Re:"The Beating of a Liberal" (Score:4, Informative)
Dear Anonymous KKKoward: thank you for that lovely reminder that all conservatives are just violent, sociopathic abusers who ought to be removed from society for the protection of the population, alongside rapists and child molesters. And that goes especially for any treasonous, white-supremacist KKK trailer trash "marines" who would sign up to be part of your terrorist masturbation show.
The republicans have become the Repugnant Klan Party, a party of terrorism and treason against America, as evidenced by the fantasies promoted by those like Anonymous KKKoward above.
Re:"The Beating of a Liberal" (Score:5, Interesting)
It should be no surprise that Texas, as governed by a fascist governor and legislature, would trample civil rights: the right to an open and fair election, the ability of businesses to make their own decisions and the right to individual health care autonomy.
And before all the libertarian/Republican/fascist asshats start screaming about how vaccination and mask mandates are "hurtin muh freedom", these are not about individual rights, but about insuring public safety. Personal rights sometimes must yeld to the good of society. The right to consume alcohol does not mean you can get blind drunk and drive as fast as you want the wrong way down the street.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh look, a DARVO post. What a surprise.
Meanwhile in the real world where I'm sitting; the republicans already took away my right marriage. We fought to get it back, and succeeded, of course. But that doesn't change the original fact. And it's not like they were good sports about Obergefell. They went on fighting tooth and nail on that same issue; trying (and succeeding in Pennsylvania and Colorado) to take away various trappings of marriage such as adoption rights and even the wedding cake. They've ju
Re: (Score:3)
Cuomo: run out of office:
Hastert: covered up for by Republicans for decades. As well as dozens of pedochurch leaders and other conservative abusers. Jim "Pedo Enabler" Jordan is still in office. Which tells me, Chas, that you're full of fucking shit... so fuck off, you gaslighting pedo-supporter.
Re: (Score:2)
I drew the Venn diagram and it turns out that the overlap between "conservative view" and "co-ordinated disinformation" was 99.8%.
That's again the TOS so banning is justified.
PS: The First amendment starts with this gem:
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
Another unconstitutional law out of Texas (Score:5, Insightful)
This law violates the First Amendment. The government is trying to abridge the rights of Facebook et. al. from expressing their opinions. Note that the Constitution does not protect people from having their expression curtailed by a company, but only by the government.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm curious, do you think it's unconstitutional to block the phone company from refusing service to Democrats?
Re:Another unconstitutional law out of Texas (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
> Phone company is a common carrier. FB is not.
You're responding to a statement about how things should be with a statement about how things are. That doesn't answer why it couldn't or shouldn't be that way.
> Absolutely nothing is stopping anyone from creating a republican FB.
Given that a ton of internet infrastructure companies are willing to block/deregister or outright attack such sites, I'm going to have to doubt this one.
> But for whatever reason, congress extended common carrier to cell and
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't answer why it couldn't or shouldn't be that way.
I don't know why it couldn't be that way but I will share my own opinions as to why it shouldn't.
Facebook and Twitter, despite the talking points, are not monopolies. The very fact that they cooexist while providing similar services makes such a claim an oxymoron by definition.
Further to the point, there are two types of monopolies that are possible: you have the so-called "natural monopoly" where a player is able to corner the market by providing a product or service that is so popular and valuable to the
It is now (Score:3)
> Phone company is a common carrier. FB is not.
It is now, in Texas. That's what the law actually says.
This "political" stuff is what the author of the article things about that. The author can no longer get posts removed because the post doesn't agree with the author's political opinion, unless such removal is in accord with Facebook's published policy, because FB is now a common carrier under Texas law.
Re: (Score:2)
Phone company is a common carrier. FB is not.
Neither the courts nor the legislature have taken that matter up as of yet. Phone companies weren't common carriers until legally defined as such. There's nothing preventing social media from being defined that way, either.
Re: (Score:2)
> Phone companies weren't common carriers until legally defined as such. There's nothing preventing social media from being defined that way, either.
And in fact THAT is what this law does..it doesn't have the word "political" in it at all. It says that social media sites with millions of users:
A) are common carriers under Texas law
B) Must disclose their policies re blocking and removing content
Re: (Score:3)
Oh yes I forgot that the Republican president fully backed by the Republican Congress doesn't count as the Republican when you get your ass handed to you and need to back pedal. That's weak even by your low standards.
And no I'm not thinking of Trump trying to undo what Obama did, I'm thinking of the Republicans trying to prevent California from setting its own rules. If there's one thing states righters hate it's Democrat states marching rights. Hypocrites.
Re:Another unconstitutional law out of Texas (Score:5, Insightful)
Disingenuous and straw man rhetoric. The people that have been suspended and/or expelled by FB/Twitter/etc are not being targeted for BEING something, they're being targeted for DOING something specific, i.e., violating the EULA that they voluntarily agreed to.
And even if you wanted to set aside the fact that phone service providers are actually public utilities and social media companies don't even remotely approach qualifying as a public utility there is the simple fact that yes if you use your phone service to commit fraud, harass people, etc, your service can most definitely be canceled.
Re: (Score:2)
> violating the EULA that they voluntarily agreed to.
Then what's the issue with the Texas law, which requires Facebook to publish a EULA and then *follow it*?
What does the phone company have to do with FB? (Score:2)
New tech requires new laws, but those laws (Section 230 in this case) are perfectly consistent with our Constitution. And in the case of S230 you want this, because without that law a handful of powerful people can shut down speech with DMCA style take down notices. Is that what you want?
Re: (Score:2)
Are you under the impression that 230 doesn't apply to phone companies?
Re:Another unconstitutional law out of Texas (Score:4, Insightful)
I say no.
Re: (Score:2)
It's relevant because we do have such laws for phone companies and we all pretty much agree on them in that case. But we generally would not consider such regulation appropriate on other companies. But phone companies are a regulated monopoly and a common carrier. So I think raymorris is trying to tease-out where dskoll draws the line.
Re: Another unconstitutional law out of Texas (Score:2)
The government is trying to abridge the rights of Facebook et. al. from expressing their opinions.
Not really. Zuckerberg can open his own account and post anything he likes. A person's right to speak doesn't extend to them shutting someone else up. Note that the Constitution does not protect people from having their expression curtailed by a company, but only by the government.
It actually does if thr government takes thr position that speech is protected (it is) and speaking on a subject makes one a member of a protected class.
Re: (Score:2)
Thus it's the company that decides how they use their resources, and which customers they want to serve. And a customer that constantly trolls other people, which are also customers of Facebook or at least possible customers, is bad for business, so Facebook has a contract in place with each user where both agrees under which conditions Facebook offers its services to the customer. A
From a strictly legal standpoint, you're correct. (Score:3)
Re:Another unconstitutional law out of Texas (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Another unconstitutional law out of Texas (Score:5, Interesting)
the 14th Amendment. That was the basis for declaring businesses that offer services to the general public like a lunch counter or gas station cannot discriminate on basis of race.
You are completely correct.
So, in order to have that logic/ruling apply to this case, are you suggesting that "political viewpoints" have the protected class status as race, or that they should have the same status, but do not?
As a business owner, I am not allowed to discriminate against someone based on their race. I am, however, allowed to discriminate against anyone based on their lack of shoes... or masks... or even their political affiliation. None of those are classes protected by the Constitution. (And none of them should be.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I see it from the opposite perspective, Facebook is trying to violate First Amendment rights of people.
Er, no. That's not the "opposite perspective", it's a "made up perspective". The first amendment doesn't grant anyone free speech, it states that free speech is a right that exists and that the government cannot curtail that right. It mentions nothing about non-government entities.
Facebook should not be considered a Private entity - it has far too much Public influence.
Thankfully, reality doesn't care how much influence you think something does or doesn't have nor what type of entity you think something "should" be. Facebook is not the government.
That's two different things (Score:3)
> it states that free speech is a right that exists and that the government cannot curtail that right.
That's correct. It says those two different things.
A) We have the inalienable right to free speech
B) The government created by Constitution may not infringe that right
As you said, it doesn't GIVE the right to free speech - it recognizes the pre-existing dignities of mankind. Anything given by the government can be taken away by that same government, so it wouldn't be a right if it were created by law.
The
Re:That's two different things (Score:5, Insightful)
So it's entirely possible for Facebook to infringe on the right of free speech. It's not an unconstitutional infringement because the Constitution says what the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT can and cannot do, but it's an infringement nonetheless.
Fair point, and not something I'd considered
It's similar to me putting a soapbox in my front yard, and letting people borrow my bullhorn and stand on it. I can deny anyone from using it for any reason. This would be a comparable infringement, but not unconstitutional in any way. People don't have a right to use my box and bullhorn, nor do they have a right to post on Facebook.
Re:That's two different things (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep, thats exactly the point. You can do what you want on your own turf, but when you're on someone else's turf you do what they say or GTFO. So FB etc. are completely within their rights here, and this won't even make it through the Supreme Court.
Re: (Score:2)
xThat's correct. It says those two different things.
A) We have the inalienable right to free speech
Wrong, there has always been certain types of speech that is illegal under the Common Law. Fraud, libel, perjury certain types of incitement etc.
B) The government created by Constitution may not infringe that right
Wrong, it just stops Congress from legislating restrictions on speech. The courts are free to limit speech and a Judge can lock you up for speech by finding you in contempt and issue injunctions and other orders limiting speech.
Re: (Score:2)
Anything given by the government can be taken away by that same government
Yes, and things not given by the government can *also* be taken away by that same government, as the history of the world amply demonstrates. Hence the attempts to distinguish these two things have always been a folly.
I disagree. Governments DO violate rights (Score:2)
Your argument leads to the conclusion that no government ever violates anyone's rights.
They just take your rights away, then your rights aren't being violated (because you don't have any rights).
I disagree. I think governments can and do violate people's rights. I think that *every time* the government tells you what you must think, they have violated your rights again. Your rights don't disappear, they get infringed.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, our right to free speech is technically *alienable [merriam-webster.com]* in the sense Thomas Jefferson would have understood the word to mean. We as individuals are *free* to trade it for something else, e.g. sign a non-disclosure agreement or an employment contract in which we agree not to say bad things about the company. We are even *free* to agree to a web site's TOS in return for (monetarily) free service.
To prevent us from doing such things would be, in a very real sense, just another kind of abridgment of our l
Re: (Score:2)
Second: Facebook can not be compelled to carry speech they don't agree to, as they are not a common carrier. That would be a violation of Facebook's right to free speech.
Re:Another unconstitutional law out of Texas (Score:5, Insightful)
Facebook should not be considered a Private entity - it has far too much Public influence.
Fox News should not be considered a Private entity - it has far too much Public influence.
Re:Another unconstitutional law out of Texas (Score:4, Insightful)
Yet it's ok to Not bake a cake ?
Well yes, because that's what Christianity is all about. Their little book tells them they are allowed to refuse to help anyone who's not a Christian, that they should look down on the less fortunate because it's their fault they're poor, that being kind toward others is a weakness, and in general, be dicks to everyone around them.
It's funny, whenever we hear about such cases it's inevitably a Christian saying their fantasy religion tells them to be discriminatory. I have yet to hear a Jew or Muslim or Hindu business person claim the same. Maybe some have and I've missed it, but it sure is interesting that for a religion which supposedly revolves around a lich which prothelitized about treating others as you would like to be treated and helping your fellow man, it's amazing how many Christians have never heard of such things.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes...all those jews from Saudi Arabia named Muhammad, they did it. Riiiight.
Texas is the American Taliban (Score:2, Interesting)
Texas is the American Taliban. You can't pay me to move to that third-world shithole.
Re:Texas is the American Taliban (Score:5, Informative)
Companies are moving to Texas because California has stronger workers rights protections.
Re:Texas is the American Taliban (Score:5, Interesting)
... it's unfortunate that these social media businesses are attempting to put their thumb on the scales of public discourse and elections by selectively censoring content they don't like.
It's unfortunate that The Wall Street Journal and Fox News are attempting to put their thumb on the scales of public discourse and elections by selectively censoring content they don't like.
Correlation is not causation (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because a disproportionate number of selfish assholes who think that the rules don't apply to them happen to be Republicans doesn't mean companies like Twitter and Facebook are "censoring" them because their Republicans.
Re:Correlation is not causation (Score:4, Funny)
Obligatory XKCD
https://xkcd.com/1357/ [xkcd.com]
Everything can be made political (Score:3)
I don't mind that websites like 4chan exist where you can be as unfiltered as you want up to violating actual laws, but I wouldn't want every website to be 4chan either.
The word "political" appears nowhere in the law (Score:3)
That would certainly be a problem, if the law mentioned the word "political" even once.
The author of the article apparently noticed that they can no longer report content bases on their political views and get it removed without notice.
The law does, however, require social media companies to publish their content policies. So if a site decides to promote all posts supportive of Biden, they'd need to say so in the required disclosure of policies.
Re: (Score:2)
How long until someone claims their spam is a political view?
Judging by YouTube and Prager U, that time is minus two years. That ship sailed a long time ago.
Let's define POLITICAL VIEWPOINT (Score:2)
Order what another human being must or must not do with their own vagina IS NOT a "political viewpoint". It is SEXISM.
Denying another human being the same rights (marrying, adoption, etc.) because you don't like with whom they sleep IS NOT a "political viewpoint". It is VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS.
Denigrating another human being for their skin color, native language, etc. IS NOT a "politica viewpoint". It's DISCRIMINATION.
Etc.
So... after the complete list (which of course I won't write), what's a "political
Re: (Score:3)
oh, so forbidding women teachers using their vaginas to have sex with students is sexism? Having Underage women showing their vaginas on internet is sexism? Having prostitutes spreading disease with vaginas?
Nonsense, we can and do make laws about sex organs and marriage and adoption and rightly so, deal with it.
Could someone give those idiots a clue? (Score:2)
They may be able to dictate what their people can do with their body, but if you don't like what I do with my webpage you can suck my cock, governor.
Oh, sorry, you only do that if I first own a large corporation. Sorry, my bad.
Biggest hypocrites ever (Score:5, Insightful)
Leave government out of business!
Stores require masks for shopping
You're violating our rights and freedoms!
Which ones exactly?
You know my rights and freedumz! 'MURICA! *unintelligible gibberish*
My body my choice! The government can't tell me what to do with my own body!
I'd like an abortion
Oh no we can't allow that. Government do something to stop this person!
Define... (Score:2)
Going all-in (Score:3)
It would seem that the Texas lege has basically adopted the strategy of completely ignoring any constitutional values and drafting and passing any legislation they want to please their Trumpist/right-wing evangelical base.
The next step is to let Trump-appointed judges protect those laws by refusing to overturn them. I recall reading a number of times comments like "we will see then if Kavanaugh was 'worth it'." If the law doesn't hold muster in court and gets thrown out, their base isn't going to blame them. They will just vote hard right more in order to make it work next time. And if it sticks it isn't like the congress can do anything about it. Manchin will make sure of that.
In short there seems to be no downside for the crazy-right politician in Texas as long as they keep pushing crazy-right laws.
Re: (Score:2)
HOW IS TEXAS PASSING LAWS? (Score:2)
I thought they lacked a quorum because the dems left the state to prevent them from rigging the elections?
Some positive (Score:2)
At least people will be forced to say it's their actual viewpoint and not a joke.
Just remember (Score:2)
In Texas, it is legal for a private company to refuse service to someone because of how they're born, while at the same time it is illegal for a private company to refuse service to someone who violates the terms of service.
Just like it's "My body, my choice" when it comes to wearing a mask, but there is no "My body, my choice" when a woman's been raped and is forced to have the rapist's child.
Re: (Score:2)
Just like it's "My body, my choice" when it comes to wearing a mask, but there is no "My body, my choice" when a woman's been raped and is forced to have the rapist's child.
Haven't you heard? Texas is going to eliminate rape. https://www.usatoday.com/story... [usatoday.com]
Apparently they've had this power all along and only waited until now to apply it...
Tankies and Taliban... (Score:2)
Tankies and other often suppressed political groups benefiting from greater freedom to post about their ideologies may be one of those interesting "unintended consequences" ;). Well, I suppose the Church of Satan should already benefit from religious liberty laws... Incidentally I actually don't see that necessarily as a negative consequence at all, but I am sure people like Texas senator Eddie Klanster would, which is what makes it so funny to me.
As I wonder how this will work out over time, I am reminde
No one has ever been banned for political reasons (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that the Republican party considers these behaviours as part of their identity, speaks volumes about their condition.
This means you, echo chamber automaton. (Score:2)
California is one of a few states that includes political beliefs as a protected class. This was to protect ultra-leftists.
Now the other side tries it. But because power has shifted, it's bad. How dare they protect their viewpoints!
I would like to invite both sides to get into a bus and drive off a cliff.
GDPR... Texas style! (Score:2)
Because FREEDUMB!!!
The Law Itsself (Score:3)
https://legiscan.com/TX/text/H... [legiscan.com]
It's long, but the bit most people want to focus on is here:
Sec. 143A.002. CENSORSHIP PROHIBITED. (a) A social media
platform or interactive computer service may not censor a user, a
user's expression, or a user's ability to receive the expression of
another person based on:
(1) the viewpoint of the user or another person;
(2) the viewpoint represented in the user's expression
or another person's expression; or
(3) a user's geographic location in this state or any
part of this state.
There's an exception further down for "expression that the social media platform or interactive computer service is specifically authorized to censor by federal law" (ie, porn) and "unlawful expression, including expression that unlawfully harasses individuals or unlawfully incites violence."
Lies, misinformation and disinformation are not (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What about the bakers? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a losing issue for one simple reason. Ask anyone to openly state the unavoidable implication: "Yes, I'm saying you can refuse service to black people and/or interracial couples based on religion."
It may be still acceptable to discriminate against LGBT, but a win allows racial discrimination too. There's no way around that. Courts can't rule on what is or isn't a valid religious belief, and historically such discrimination was absolutely defended on religious grounds as well; it's not new, novel, or unsupportable. You're asking them to rule that racial discrimination is legal as long as you call it religion. It's not going to happen, not even with this court.
Re: What about the bakers? (Score:2)
wouldn't that apply to the baker that did not want to make a custom cake for a homosexual customer?
No. The baker did not take issue with the customer's orientation, but with the theme of the cake.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Is there a way to forcefully remove a state from the union?
I mean, at this point, even Mississippi is probably embarrassed to be in the same country as these idiots.
Re: (Score:2)
Texas threatens to leave the Union?
Could someone tell them a threat should be done with something that others do not want you to do?
Re: (Score:2)
I think Mexico's military could take out the Texas national guard.
TX could mount its own defense, but would probably find it more cost-effective to just buy them off.
Re: (Score:2)
If this law sticks, and spreads national, then you won't have to post AC to say that.
Re: (Score:3)
...yet fourth amendment protections still protect you from warrantless searches on the internet.
Poor Edward Snowden. He tried so hard, yet no one listened.
No they don't. The Fourth Amendment has done fuck all to protect you from warrantless searches "on the internet." Your phone records, your social media postings, all were plastered with the label of "public record" by a conservative Supreme Court myopically determined to "fight terrorists" at any cost. The cost they paid on your behalf was the destruction of Fourth Amendment protections for any data that you (and literally everyone else) consid
Re: (Score:2)
Consider the argument of 99% of free speech flowing through 3 companies.
Marsh v. Alabama (1946) set a good precedent. When private property becomes de facto the public square, it has to be treated like so.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, let them argue that. Ignore it, block it, or never see it because of the filter algo bubble of every major social media platform. Because one of the people who say that, one day, may be true because they understood atmospheric mechanics and the see a tornado forming, thus the sky does indeed turn pink.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't you need electricity to run a web server?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They've tried to create several. The problem is always the same: When you create a new social media service that is expressly aimed at people who have been banned from other social media, it tends to attract a lot of... well, arseholes. Conspiracy theory nuts, racists, fringe religious groups, calls for violence. The site inevitably becomes toxic - and worse, no-one will pay to advertise on it.
Re: (Score:3)
So what if Taliban on social media? Have you got it through your skull yet that the Taliban didn't attack us? That Afghanistan isn't really a country but a patchwork of warlord territories, who subscribe to a political and religious view called "Taliban"? A bunch of saudis and a yememese in some warlord's patch attacked us, then they fled, bin Laden chilling at his pad watching porn with his squeezes while we went to install a fake government and fake military, wasting trillions of dollars for nothing as