Federal Court Blocks Texas' Unconstitutional Social Media Law (eff.org) 292
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the Electronic Frontier Foundation: On December 1, hours before Texas' social media law, HB 20, was slated to go into effect, a federal court in Texas blocked it for violating the First Amendment. Like a similar law in Florida, which was blocked and is now pending before the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, the Texas law will go to the Fifth Circuit. These laws are retaliatory, obviously unconstitutional, and EFF will continue advocating that courts stop them. In October, EFF filed an amicus brief against HB 20 in Netchoice v. Paxton, a challenge to the law brought by two associations of tech companies. HB 20 prohibits large social media platforms from removing or moderating content based on the viewpoint of the user. We argued, and the federal court agreed, that the government cannot regulate the editorial decisions made by online platforms about what content they host. As the judge wrote, platforms' right under the First Amendment to moderate content "has repeatedly been recognized by courts." Social media platforms are not "common carriers" that transmit speech without curation.
Moreover, Texas explicitly passed HB 20 to stop social media companies' purported discrimination against conservative users. The court explained that this "announced purpose of balancing the discussion" is precisely the kind of government manipulation of public discourse that the First Amendment forbids. As EFF's brief explained, the government can't retaliate against disfavored speakers and promote favored ones. Moreover, HB 20 would destroy or prevent the emergence of even large conservative platforms, as they would have to accept user speech from across the political spectrum. HB 20 also imposed transparency requirements and user complaint procedures on large platforms. While these kinds of government mandates might be appropriate when carefully crafted -- and separated from editorial restrictions or government retaliation -- they are not here. The court noted that companies like YouTube and Facebook remove millions of pieces of user content a month. It further noted Facebook's declaration in the case that it would be "impossible" to establish a system by December 1 compliant with the bill's requirements for that many removals. Platforms would simply stop removing content to avoid violating HB 20 -- an impermissible chill of First Amendment rights.
Moreover, Texas explicitly passed HB 20 to stop social media companies' purported discrimination against conservative users. The court explained that this "announced purpose of balancing the discussion" is precisely the kind of government manipulation of public discourse that the First Amendment forbids. As EFF's brief explained, the government can't retaliate against disfavored speakers and promote favored ones. Moreover, HB 20 would destroy or prevent the emergence of even large conservative platforms, as they would have to accept user speech from across the political spectrum. HB 20 also imposed transparency requirements and user complaint procedures on large platforms. While these kinds of government mandates might be appropriate when carefully crafted -- and separated from editorial restrictions or government retaliation -- they are not here. The court noted that companies like YouTube and Facebook remove millions of pieces of user content a month. It further noted Facebook's declaration in the case that it would be "impossible" to establish a system by December 1 compliant with the bill's requirements for that many removals. Platforms would simply stop removing content to avoid violating HB 20 -- an impermissible chill of First Amendment rights.
Most speech is now on private platforms (Score:2, Interesting)
So there needs to be new guidance for when a private platform services so many people that it is now public utility.
Re:Most speech is now on private platforms (Score:5, Insightful)
So there needs to be new guidance for when a private platform services so many people that it is now public utility.
The vast majority of widely circulated speech has been on private platforms since the invention of the newspaper. If you don't like the speech on your current private platform, say, Facebook, find another private platform that has speech more to your liking like, say, Parler. That's the way it has been up until now and that's the way it should continue to be.
Re: (Score:2)
MySpace FTW! Tom Anderson forever!
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't like the speech on your current private platform, say, Facebook, find another private platform that has speech more to your liking like, say, Pravda
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
I think the American version is called "TRUTH Social".
Re: (Score:2)
I think the American version is called "TRUTH Social".
And if there is one thing that life has taught me, anything that bandies about words like "Truth" "Freedom" and other such words have an extremely strong tendency to be the opposite.
In other news, his vaporware company is already under investigation before launching. Seems there was some shady stuff going on back at it's formation.
Re: (Score:2)
Old joke from right after the fall of the USSR:
Well, it turns out the Communist part lied to us about communism, but what's even worse is they were telling the truth about capitalism.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That sounds like a good way to create more filter bubbles. Say, Facebook AKA Meta allows no conservative speech, then you get a sort of leftist filter bubble. Meanwhile, the right-wing wackos concentrate on a place like Parler, where no one will contradict their ideas.
Besides, there is the problem that even the platform itself may have their tools thrown from app stores, which makes it more difficult to run it. See
https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/01/12/what-you-need-to-know-about-big-techs-crackdown-on-trum [dailysignal.com]
Re:Most speech is now on private platforms (Score:4, Insightful)
"Filter bubbles" fall within the protection of the First Amendment. The publisher of the Daily Worker did not have to carry columns by fascists; the publisher of the Deutscher Weckruf did not have to carry columns by communists. (But happily the latter did get shut down when the war broke out)
Re:Most speech is now on private platforms (Score:4, Informative)
Interesting that you would use Facebook as an example, when Facebook is actually very friendly to conservatives.
https://www.politico.com/news/... [politico.com]
Twitter is a bit more balanced, but also 1/10th the size of Facebook.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting that you would use Facebook as an example, when Facebook is actually very friendly to conservatives.
Not according to what passes for a conservative these days.
Re:Most speech is now on private platforms (Score:4, Insightful)
You know how they are constantly whining about people painting themselves as victims? It's projection.
Re: (Score:2)
You bring up a good point. Why isn't Ilhan Omar suing to have an account on Truth Social or Parler? Aren't they discriminating against liberal views?
Re:Most speech is now on private platforms (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I remember once upon a time that nerds were excited about filter bubbles. Like remember that company that made a dvd player that let you edit pieces out of movies? And you could download other people's edits? The whole idea was that instead of asking the world to mold itself to your preferences you'd control what you consumed and nobody else had to lose anything to make you happy. Hollywood had it destroyed because it was somehow a threat to their business model or something.
Re: (Score:2)
That sounds like a good way to create more filter bubbles. Say, Facebook AKA Meta allows no conservative speech, then you get a sort of leftist filter bubble. Meanwhile, the right-wing wackos concentrate on a place like Parler, where no one will contradict their ideas.
Besides, there is the problem that even the platform itself may have their tools thrown from app stores, which makes it more difficult to run it. See https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/01/12/what-you-need-to-know-about-big-techs-crackdown-on-trump-parler/ [dailysignal.com].
If that extends to ISPs, one might even be forced to go outside the US. And wouldn't that be fun if US conservatives end up hosting Parler somewhere in Russia?
Maybe it's because I grew up back in the days when there were still party rags, but what you are describing isn't all that new. I still remember lefties and fascist types coming to blows in the company canteen over politics and having to be physically and forcibly dragged apart by the centrists.
Re:Most speech is now on private platforms (Score:4, Interesting)
So there needs to be new guidance for when a private platform services so many people that it is now public utility.
The vast majority of widely circulated speech has been on private platforms since the invention of the newspaper. If you don't like the speech on your current private platform, say, Facebook, find another private platform that has speech more to your liking like, say, Parler. That's the way it has been up until now and that's the way it should continue to be.
But there in lies the problem. They've always known they could have their own platform but everyone else would ignore that platform. Essentially no-one would be forced to listen to them. What they want is the freedom to speak on whatever platform they like but for it to be forbidden for anyone to criticise them.
The problem with Parler and other such platforms isn't that they are an echo chamber, it's that they are a very small echo chamber... What they crave is a very large echo chamber where no-one can contradict them.
In other words... how are they supposed to "own the libs" when everyone is quite literally ignoring them.
On a more serious note, in British parlance we say "their gaff, their rules" which simply means the owner of the pub gets to set the rules. What is implied is, that if patrons do not like said rules we can go to another pub. This prevents the pub owner from becoming tyrannical and helps filter out the patrons who find simple courtesy too onerous. It's a win-win in my book.
Re: (Score:2)
So there needs to be new guidance for when a private platform services so many people that it is now public utility.
The vast majority of widely circulated speech has been on private platforms since the invention of the newspaper. If you don't like the speech on your current private platform, say, Facebook, find another private platform that has speech more to your liking like, say, Parler. That's the way it has been up until now and that's the way it should continue to be.
But there in lies the problem. They've always known they could have their own platform but everyone else would ignore that platform. Essentially no-one would be forced to listen to them. What they want is the freedom to speak on whatever platform they like but for it to be forbidden for anyone to criticise them. The problem with Parler and other such platforms isn't that they are an echo chamber, it's that they are a very small echo chamber... What they crave is a very large echo chamber where no-one can contradict them. In other words... how are they supposed to "own the libs" when everyone is quite literally ignoring them. On a more serious note, in British parlance we say "their gaff, their rules" which simply means the owner of the pub gets to set the rules. What is implied is, that if patrons do not like said rules we can go to another pub. This prevents the pub owner from becoming tyrannical and helps filter out the patrons who find simple courtesy too onerous. It's a win-win in my book.
I'm not so sure about the echo chamber thing. Back in they days of yore, the Tory read the Times, went to Tory party events and talked about how the nation would perish if martial law was not imposed this instant so that the communist agitators could be shot for the good of the nation. Meanwhile the Socialist read the Daily Worker, went to Labour party events and talked about how the nation would perish if the revolution did not come instant so that the Imperialist oppressors could be shot for the good of t
Re: (Score:3)
But they both watched the same telly and listened to the same radio, which was bound by fairly effective impartiality rules and so told something approximating the truth. And they did this in huge numbers, too.
Re:Most speech is now on private platforms (Score:4)
The problem with Parler and other such platforms isn't that they are an echo chamber, it's that they are a very small echo chamber... What they crave is a very large echo chamber where no-one can contradict them.
You are 100% correct. And the idiots had their echo chamber until they got dangerous.
The problem with Parler and others that got them booted was that their users created dangerous situations and that was the straw that broke the camel's back. Idiots raided the Capitol partly because of what they heard on Parler. Parler users and their lies also have caused the AntiVaxxers to surge which is also dangerous. People have died because of their echo chamber.
Google/Apple didn't boot them because they didn't like what they said...they have been actually very tolerant. They got booted when things got dangerous and that is how a civil society should operate. Just like you can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre, danger to others trumps your right to spout lies.
I know the argument is "who should judge when things are dangerous?". At this moment the private entities are well suited to do that. Sorry you can't have your wedding cake (as you legislated) and eat it too.
Re: (Score:2)
This is what I was thinking as well. It's not that Conservatives don't have their own conservative social media, it's that they can't "own the libs". You can't troll your own kind, they already believe you. Where's the fun in that?
[John]
Re: Most speech is now on private platforms (Score:4, Insightful)
Lol, and you like free speech until other peoples free speech dont work for you. Now you want to remove peoples free speech rather than use a platform that is ok with your speech.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I think the moral of the story is that unregulated anything is impossible. The alternatives to facebook existed yet every news outlet and most senators publicly endorsed and invested their own money in facebook. And did this while attacking platforms like twitter and youtube. The result was anything of a private endeavour mentioned on the web was to be filtered through facebook. All in the name of free speech we were forced to make a mantra of "eat or be eaten" when talking about our own shareable ideas on
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I think the moral of the story is that unregulated anything is impossible.
None of these sites are unregulated, so in being totally wrong, you have failed to make a point.
The alternatives to facebook existed yet every news outlet and most senators publicly endorsed and invested their own money in facebook. And did this while attacking platforms like twitter and youtube. The result was anything of a private endeavour mentioned on the web was to be filtered through facebook.
Twitter and youtube are still there, still massively popular, and still reach audiences which won't use facebook at all. You have failed to make a point again, as you're just plain wrong again.
All in the name of free speech we were forced to make a mantra of "eat or be eaten" when talking about our own shareable ideas on the web.
You do not have a right to an audience. Build a bridge and get over yourself.
Re: Most speech is now on private platforms (Score:5, Insightful)
The communist wants everything to be a public good, unless itâ(TM)s a speech platform.
At which point, you need to admit you don't know what a communist is.
This is being pushed by the Texas Conservatives, to protect conservatives only from being banned for breaking the rules on private platforms. Are you saying that the Texas Conservative party is communist?
Re: Most speech is now on private platforms (Score:5, Insightful)
The communist wants everything to be a public good, unless itÃ(TM)s a speech platform.
The fascist calls everything communist, unless they stand to profit from it personally.
Re: Most speech is now on private platforms (Score:5, Funny)
The communist wants everything to be a public good, unless itâ(TM)s a speech platform.
Nice, so now one gets declared a 'COMMUNIST!!!' for bringing up a well known and thoroughly document fact from the history of the printing press? ... the bar for what constitutes communism keeps getting lowered by the day. I can just imagine you struggling with, and failing to open, a can of pickles, then slamming it on the table, and then yelling COMMUNIST!!! at it.
Re: Most speech is now on private platforms (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a meaningless epithet, like calling someone "fucktard". It sounds really nasty, but the word, at least in North American parlance, has lost any kind of attachment to Marxist political and economic theory. Or to put it another way, North Americans are fucking semi-illiterate almost completely ignorant morons.
Re: Most speech is now on private platforms (Score:4, Insightful)
Communist philosophy argues for a stateless society, so a communist doesn't have any basis to regulate speech, other than what members of your local community will tolerate.
Well good thing there's no communists in this here (Score:2, Insightful)
Well good thing there are practically no communists in America https://www.bbc.com/news/magaz... [bbc.com] .
Or are you one of the many conservative idiots who don't understand what that word means?
Re: (Score:2)
These have nothing to do with utilities. They are not a natural monopoly, they are not a governmental monopoly. They do not provide any service that tend to support a natural monopoly. You just want to remove their free speech.
So you're in favor of nationalization? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Most speech is now on private platforms (Score:5, Interesting)
Public utilities, like common carriers, normally need a particular legal authority to refuse to do business with a potential customer. Other businesses do not have that restriction -- they can "reserve the right to refuse business", unless the refusal is for an illegal reason.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but are there any examples of say phone companies being forced to allow racists to call people and be racist to them, for lack of legal authority to disconnect them?
Re: (Score:2)
Probably, but you never hear about them because the telephone companies know they don't have the authority to disconnect those people.
But the better analogy would be the telephone company being allowed to disconnect a call or terminate the customer's service because the telco disliked what the customer said to, or heard from, someone else.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess. It would pretty much destroy Facebook overnight, which isn't a bad thing... I think it would be a shame for Twitter though.
Re: (Score:3)
Thought experiment time:
Suppose someone cold calls hundreds or thousands of people and spews nonsense to whoever answers (from the post above lets assume it is a racist calling people and being racist to them). The person that answers then call complains to the phone company to complain. After a few hundred/thousand complaints can the phone company disconnect the cold caller for abusing the phone system?
If the phone companies can do this to a person making a thousand calls to strangers why can't a platform
Re: (Score:2)
Telephone companies are not a good comparison to social media. Telephone conversations are, for the most part, one-to-one, whereas social media is mostly one-to-many.
Yes, you can make group calls and social media has direct messaging, but they aren't the point of complaint. Phone calls are more akin to e-mail than social media -- direct communication.
Re: (Score:2)
Common carriers just need a justifiable reason, not a legal authority to do so.
Re: (Score:3)
And, as the Texas opinion makes very clear, that would violate the free speech rights of the sites, which by the way, are precisely nothing like common carriers
From the opinion:
This Court starts from the premise that social media platforms are not common carriers. "Equal access obligations . . . have long been imposed on telephone companies, railroads, and postal services, without raising any First Amendment issue." United States Telecom Ass'n v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 825 F.3d 674, 740 (D.C. Cir. 2016). Little First Amendment concern exists because common carriers "merely facilitate the transmission of speech of others." Id. at 741. In United States Telecom, the Court added broadband providers to its list of common carriers. Id. Unlike broadband providers and telephone companies, social media platforms "are not engaged in indiscriminate, neutral transmission of any and all users' speech." Id. at 742. User-generated content on social media platforms is screened and sometimes moderated or curated. The State balks that the screening is done by an algorithm, not a person, but whatever the method, social media platforms are not mere conduits. According to the State, our inquiry could end here, with Plaintiffs not needing to prove more to show they engage in protected editorial discretion. . . . As appealing as the State's invitation is to stop the analysis here, the Court continues in order to make a determination about whether social media platforms exercise editorial discretion or occupy a purgatory between common carrier and editor.
Social media platforms "routinely manage . . . content, allowing most, banning some, arranging content in ways intended to make it more useful or desirable for users, sometimes adding their own content." NetChoice, 2021 WL 2690876, at *7. Making those decisions entails some level of editorial discretion, Id., even if portions of those tasks are carried out by software code. While this Court acknowledges that a social media platform's editorial discretion does not fit neatly with our 20th Century vision of a newspaper editor hand-selecting an article to publish, focusing on whether a human or AI makes those decisions is a distraction. It is indeed new and exciting â" or frightening, depending on who you ask â" that algorithms do some of the work that a newspaper publisher previously did, but the core question is still whether a private company exercises editorial discretion over the dissemination of content, not the exact process used. Plaintiffs' members also push back on the idea that content moderation does not involve judgment. For example, Facebook states that it makes decisions about "billions of pieces of content" and "[a]ll such decisions are unique and context-specific[] and involve some measure of judgment." (Facebook Decl., Dkt. 12-4, at 9).
This Court is convinced that social media platforms, or at least those covered by HB 20, curate both users and content to convey a message about the type of community the platform seeks to foster and, as such, exercise editorial discretion over their platform's content. Indeed, the text of HB 20 itself points to social media platforms doing more than transmitting communication. In Section 2, HB 20 recognizes that social media platforms "(1) curate[] and target[] content to users, (2) place[] and promote[] content, services, and products, including its own content, services, and products, (3) moderate[] content, and (4) use[] search, ranking, or other algorithms or procedures that determine results on the platform." Tex. Bus. & Com. Code s. 120.051(a)(1)â"(4). Finally, the State's own basis for enacting HB 20 acknowledges that social media platforms exercise editorial discretion.
That is to say, because the sites engage in editorial decision-making, which the law expressly and implicitly acknowledges (because it's trying to stop them from doing that), they cannot be common carriers, because common carriers don't engage in making editorial decisions in the first place.
Further, that is protected activity under
Re: Most speech is now on private platforms (Score:4, Informative)
Nope!
Editorial decision-making is protected and encouraged by the CDA, which grants immunity from lawsuits to sites which engage in it.
The operative language is at 47 USC 230(c)(1):
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
That is to say, since liability is premised on being a publisher, and being a publisher is premised on making editorial decisions, by specifically stating that sites are NOT to be treated as publishers, sites can make editorial decisions, be a publisher, but enjoy the benefits of not being treated as one, which includes NO liability for third party speech they publish (minus a few exceptions specifically in the law, like for infringing copyrights and such)
I'm surprised you made it this far being so ignorant of a foundational element of the modern Internet that has been around for 25 years and gotten a lot of press, even when it first came out (I remember, I was there) but now your ignorance has been corrected so you couldn't possibly utter further untruths as you did without simply being a liar.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
... they are not protected by Section 230 of the CDA and can be held liable for both crimes and torts.
This is exactly why this should be a non-issue. Any platform that invokes Section 230 protection should not be able to edit, moderate, fact check, or in any way alter a post on its platform. They should not be allowed block or ban any member on what they post on the platform.
As long as that post does not violate established laws. For instant posting copy righted files, or slanders/liable speech, in the United States.
Any other behavior means the platform itself has taken upon itself to moderate its
Re:Most speech is now on private platforms (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you not see how this destroys any social site, large or small? Anybody that wants to host a forum about RC Cars, or Tennis, or whatever, has to allow their site to be flooded with garbage and hate (because "common carrier"). Or, they can try to clean up the place so they can have civil conversations ("editorialize", "moderate"), but if they miss something, well, they are legally liable for whatever some rando on the internet spews on their site. It allows trolls and spammers to effectively shut down speech. Or, if Joe Blow wants to moderate his site, he must do so perfectly, because if he misses something, well... he's now responsible, in your eyes.
Do you not see how that is just not workable? I don't get how people think this makes sense or is a good way to regulate the internet.
Re: (Score:3)
You may have a point but there are ways to take care of this. We would need to define what is a private carrier and what isn't. If you are running a small board based on one subject then you are clearly a private board.
If you are running large set up with several public forums, then you are not a private board. Facebook is clearly a public forum, but they let you create private boards and groups. Who gets admitted to these private groups should be entirely up to the group moderator, not facebook.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Any platform that invokes Section 230 protection should not be able to edit, moderate, fact check, or in any way alter a post on its platform. They should not be allowed block or ban any member on what they post on the platform.
So basically you've never read section 230, you have no idea what it says, or what the policy reasons behind it is, and you want to completely destroy this thing that you are utterly ignorant of.
Got it. I mean, you're a shitbag, but I definitely see what you're asking for and how stupid it is, and by extension, you are.
The entire purpose of section 230 is to encourage and enable editing, moderation, fact checking, altering posts, blocking, and banning people. That's the fucking intent of the law and has b
Re: (Score:3)
Fine, you have a point.
Re:Most speech is now on private platforms (Score:5, Interesting)
There is nothing about them that is common carrier. They are not even open to the general public, they require a contract for an account and limit accounts.
And just because you hate the first amendment does not mean they lose their right to it by owning a company.
There is no abuse of 230, the writers have stated repeatedly this is the intent of 230.
Re: (Score:2)
That is false. The only time you are required to have a contract or age limits is when it comes to things like financing stuff, which is outside of the common carrier status.
Peer to peer is nothing more than an industry term, it is not a legal term and has no bearing on what is a common carrier, that is defined by if they require a contract.
The owners of the company have those rights to and you want the state to infringe those rights. It is like you did not read your on statement. It protects from GOVERNMEN
Re: (Score:2)
You think social media is a common carrier? Fine. Let the FCC regulate it then, it falls under their jurisdiction.
Re: (Score:2)
They are not common carriers. They are closer to a newspaper that only prints letters to the editor, but prints all of them minus a few that violate its standards.
Plus, the court directly addressed this and said that common carriers merely facilitate others' speech, but these sites definitely are engaged in making editorial decisions, which means that they aren't common carriers at all. And that in fact, the Texas law claims that they're making editorial decisions, which further establishes how unlike com
Re: (Score:3)
They are common carriers.
No, they are not. They literally are not common carriers by definition. The rest of your comment can simply be discarded since you let us know up front that it's based on a lack of understanding, so thanks for that.
They are very much not common carrier (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They are common carriers.
That would make slashdot a common carrier. How are the sites any different? Both have user generated comments that are moderated and sometimes even deleted by the site operators.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes it would... at the least the comments portion. The comments are not supposed to be moderated and deleted by site operators but by peers via what is supposed to be a neutral and automated system of point distribution based on participation. As you should know that is generally how it has worked in the past with abusers modded d
Re: (Score:2)
What it SAYS is that if a company editorializes - they lose protection and may be sued
Liar.
A lawsuit based on the editor deciding what third-party content to permit or block would be premised on them being a publisher. But the law says this:
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
So no matter what the site does with third-party content, they're not the publisher. Even if they would have been, had the same activity occurred offline as in a print newspaper or book.
The only thing they can get in trouble for is the content of their own, first-party speech.
Moving the companies to public utility status would have the effect the law in Texas was after
The court in this case actually pointed out that the sites aren't common carri
Re: (Score:2)
Right now the companies have their cake and are consuming same
This is a stupid saying and only stupid people use it for anything other than the situation where you can't consume a resource and still have the resource. That is not at all analogous to the situation at hand. Don't choose to be stupid.
What it SAYS is that if a company editorializes - they lose protection and may be sued
What it SAYS is that a company is responsible for what THEY write, but not for what others write, and explicitly that they may remove any content they want for any reason and still not be held responsible for what others write. You really are stupid if you can't understand i
Where is Florida in all of this? (Score:2)
We're about 3 really good "Texas Man" stories away from Florida just giving up t
Making up new laws (Score:2)
Private business: We want to require employees to wear masks.
DeSantis: I created a law saying you can't do that.
Private business: We want to fire anyone at any time.
DeSantis: Go right ahead!
Private business: We're firing people who aren't vaccinated.
DeSantis: *head explodes*
Re: (Score:2)
I vote that we just get Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana out of the way and let Texas and Florida have at it.
Whaddabout CDA section 230? (Score:2)
So how does Texas' legislature square this with proposed changes to section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to make social media platforms responsible for user content? It's one or the other, boys and girls.
Ha! (Score:2)
Companies are not human beings, so they do not innately gain constitutional protection merely be existing. If the ruling is based on "balancing" manipulating "public discourse" being bad, hasn't he court essentially arguing that these companies are public spaces? Which would protect individual speech on these platforms, which is what this law seeks to do. And anything that will move towards 230 being struck down or removed is a good outcome, as it would replace inflexible government regulations with nuan
There's a basic problem (Score:2)
While the true believers won't have their narrative spoiled by the libs, it turns out that even with the high threshold for boredom that modern crypto conservatives have, if they can't yell at the libs in all caps, ready to rumble mode, they lose interest.
Irony (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Irony (Score:5, Insightful)
I find it ironic that a ruling making it easier for social media companies to kick users off their platforms is hailed as a victory for free speech.
Yes it is, because the ability to moderate your private platform is an important aspect of free speech. Particularly when you're targeting things like harassment that make it difficult for other people to exercise their right to free speech.
What "conservatives" (actually trolls) are whining about here is the inability to force other people to host and amplify their speech. They're still free to make that speech as Gab, Parler, and Trump's new thing have demonstrated that there's no shortage of platforms willing to host that speech.
The problem is they don't like those platforms because no one uses them. Why doesn't anyone use them? Because users don't like using platforms filled with trolls. One of the reasons why Twitter and FB remain popular is they're making efforts to rid their platforms of these trolls who are now trying to force themselves back on through legislative action.
Re:Irony (Score:4, Insightful)
I find it ironic that a ruling making it easier for social media companies to kick users off their platforms is hailed as a victory for free speech.
You think forcing someone to publish something against their will is better? The fact you think this is ironic means you really don't fundamentally understand free speech at all.
Hint: It's the right to "freedom of speech" not "freedom of speech for me but fuck your rights".
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Guess what, Texas GOP? I've been in Fort Worth for the last two weeks and you know what? Plenty of people in your state don't share your views on any number of subjects, so how about you step off already? You're shoving your own bullshit worldview down the throats of the entire state and shitting all over the Constitution in
Re:Waaahhhhhh (Score:4, Interesting)
What's really funny is the governor of California using a model of the Texas abortion law against guns in their state.
https://www.vox.com/2021/12/12... [vox.com]
Shit is about to get real over this one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Critical race theory is also not taught in public schools, it's not even an undergraduate topic at colleges. But people freak out about it because the story is being told about it being taught in elementary schools. It's grandstanding and electioneering that's gotten out of hand to the point where many voters actually believe it. Gone are the days when the average voter assumes that politicians of all stripes are naturally lying, even the politicians they like, so you take it all with a grain of salt. N
Re: (Score:2)
If congress wasn't in session then there would have been no counting of the electoral votes for the protesters to try and stop so they wouldn't have stormed the Capital. If they didn't storm the Capital there would have been a LOT less arrests (i.e. none) and no jail time.
8^)
Re: Waaahhhhhh (Score:4, Interesting)
False. Courts haven't said anything about treason which can only occur during war time.
The attack on the capitol was borderline insurrectoin [thefreedictionary.com], but most definitely seditious [thefreedictionary.com].
Re: Waaahhhhhh (Score:4, Insightful)
Interestingly enough Roe v. Wade is actually the supreme Court ruling it is a right... despite your snide comments.
Re:Very smart move by Texas (Score:5, Insightful)
Conservatives loving big government coming in and regulating something? Oh only when it benefits them of course. Not things like clean air or workers rights.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Conservatives loving big government coming in and regulating something? Oh only when it benefits them of course. Not things like clean air or workers rights.
Leftists being against big government and suddenly screaming for deregulation? Oh only when it benefits them of course. Pot, meet kettle.
Re: (Score:3)
I dont think you understand what you are talking about lol
Re:Very smart move by Texas (Score:5, Insightful)
You are free to point out which "leftists" are screaming for deregulation or are you just stuck in an "Us vs Them" mindset and just have to make shit up?
Sane people understands that Section 230 just underscores the first amendment and makes it clear that forced association isn't a thing and the one speaking is liable for that speech.
The rest, well, they don't really understand 230 or they choose not to understand it because it fits their political agenda. Haven't you paid attention to what some Democrat and Republican senators have been saying about 230? They all want to change 230, but in different ways - none of them good.
Re: (Score:3)
Leftists being against big government and suddenly screaming for deregulation? Oh only when it benefits them of course. Pot, meet kettle.
What is this in regards to? What leftists are calling for deregulation? You're literally parroting the Pee Wee Herman I know you are but what am I line for lack of actual thoughts.
Re: (Score:2)
If only you knew what any of the words you are using meant.
Social media is explicitly not deregulated. If it did, we wouldn't be arguing about the effects of the CDA, which regulates social media networks just as much as anything else on the internets.
They're not conservative (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They are fighting to restrict speech of some people to give other people rights over the firsts property. They are not defending free speech, free speech outside of government action is a zero sum game.
Re:Very smart move by Texas (Score:4, Informative)
What conversation?
Sites are definitely making editorial decisions, but section 230 clearly states that it is irrelevant whether or not they do so. Indeed, the law is meant to encourage them to do so without fear of liability.
As it says in 47 USC 230(c)(1):
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
So they are never to be treated as publishers of third-party information, no matter how much editorial decision-making they engage in.
Re: (Score:2)
Section 230 explicitly states that companies can make decisions about what kind of content is allowed on their platform, and still retain all the protections.
Re: (Score:2)
230 was created directly to allow companies to make editorial decisions to without being liable for other peoples comments.
Re: (Score:2)
And Ronald Reagan is a leftist compared to the modern day party.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, in that he's dead, and they're extremely conservative. Being dead can be seen as a kind of neutral or centrist position.
But Reagan was a wet dream for the so-called conservatives, because he was hugely beneficial to corporate interests. There wasn't another president so grossly dedicated to promoting corporate control of America until Bill Clinton. (The republican presidents since Reagan were mostly warmongers who fed the MIC specifically.)
Re: (Score:3)
True. He was the one who said people shouldn't be allowed to open carry firearms, but only after the Black Panthers peacefully stood on the capitol steps with guns drawn. And he got help from the NRA as well who fully supported the Mulford Act [wikipedia.org].
"There's no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons,"
So when people point to California's restrictive gun laws as proof of the "left's" wating to get rid of guns, you can thank Republicans and the NRA.
Re:Regressive left does not believe in free speech (Score:4, Insightful)
You clearly don't understand the First Amendment and its implication for free speech.
The link you posted refers to a government supported entity (University of California school system) which was denying students their speech. The key word here is 'government'.
Social Media platforms are NOT government. If you believe that these platforms must allow anybody to say anything they want, then you must also believe that I should be able to park a Biden sign in YOUR front yard and there is nothing you can do about it. I doubt you support my right to plant a sign in your front yard....just as you should NOT require that Social Media platforms allow any idiot to plant their misbegotten thoughts on their 'front yard'.
If the US government creates a Tax Payer supported social media platform then they indeed would be required to allow all speech. But I am not aware of ANY Taxpayer supported social media platform and as such, First Amendment rights do not apply to the existing Social Media platforms.
Indeed the Right Wing platforms are also engaged in keeping speech they don't like off their platform which is OK.
Bottom line is that as far as I can tell, the 'left' does support free speech. You can say what you want and I won't try to prevent you from saying it. Scream it from your front yard or from any public street corner. But I won't permit you to scream it from my front yard, you can't force me to listen to you, and if I own a private platform I don't need to allow you to speak on it....just like you can keep me off your front yard.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's interesting that the private-property-now-belongs-to-the-people communists such as yourself are criticising "the left". You are not just left but loony whackjob far left.
Everyone wants freedom for himself. (Score:2)
The Free Speech Movement's noodly appendages haven't gone anywhere.
Re:Regressive left does not believe in free speech (Score:4, Insightful)
Right, protesting on publicly owned property is the same as posting on a privately owned website. You must have graduated from genius school.
On the other hand if you actually somehow get your blatantly unconstitutional way I'll get to have fun forcing church websites to host pro choice ads in their site's ad bars. Probably not worth the hit to our most valuable constitutional right (right to vote is meaningless without free speech) but I'd have a blast doing it.
Re: (Score:2)
"Social media platforms are not "common carriers" that transmit speech without curation." All peer to peer communications platforms are common carriers and at the least the monopoly communications platforms need to be maintained as neutral common carriers.
The problem that leads to the multiple misunderstanding is that free speech is not absolute. That's been decided long ago, and the "shouting FIRE! in a crowded theater" is the illustrative example. One is not allowed to use speech as a way to incite panic or revolution.
Freedom od speech gets really weird when you are forced to print the screeds of your enemy.
The second misunderstanding is that everyone has the first amendment rights. Not just far right Republicans. We are allowed to react. Their "free spe
Re: (Score:2)
Shouting fire in a crowded theater is outdated, and that case was overturned in Brandenburg V Ohio, the standard is currently causing imminent lawlessness.. Otherwise good.
Re: (Score:2)
All peer to peer communications platforms are common carriers
Who told you this bullshit, and why are you repeating it when it is obviously wrong? I really genuinely want to know who gave you this spectacularly, obviously wrong idea. I'll bet a dollar you won't tell me, though.
Re: (Score:2)
The notion of the common carrier isn't rooted in telecoms as people thing but in mail carriers. US Mail, the pony express, telecommunications, and the latest iteration of peer-to-peer communication in the form of social media. Any platform which transits communications directly from one user
Re: (Score:2)
The distinction is obvious.
So you're not going to tell me who put this idea into your head? Just as I knew you would not. It's like I'm psychic, or maybe you're psycho.
You will fall back on the current morally and ethically incorrect definition and misinterpretation of common carrier
I will utilize the legally accepted and current definition of common carrier. Nobody is interested in your bullshit imagination of what morality looks like. You wouldn't recognize it if it crawled up your ass and gave birth to a litter of actual morals.
The notion of the common carrier isn't rooted in telecoms as people thing but in mail carriers
Right, and faceboot looks nothing like one of those. We regulated telecoms like mail carriers because the similarities
Re: (Score:2)
The notion of common carriers in this regard (forced to be common carrier by law) is rooted in telecoms. The previous iterations were CHOICES.
There is a major difference between social media is doing an phone companies. With phone companies there is no attempt to force them to host youd data for eternity, and they are not associated with your calls.
Re: (Score:3)
Anyone remember when the people who called themselves "conservatives" where right of center, instead of the kind of people who push far left-wing Stalinist policies?
Me do! As a Goldwater conservative, the modern Republican party is for lack of a better term, suffering a psychotic break. They have gone so far right they look more like commies than anything that should be in a modern country. I remember when the Stasi in east Germany had people spying on their own families and we thought that was horrific. That's because it was horrific.
Now the Republicans apparently are going to enact a party endorsed policy to pay people to squeal on other Americans spearheaded by t
"Fire in ..." was coined to suppress anti-draft. (Score:4, Interesting)
And don't give me that crap about yelling MOVIE in a crowded fire house.
B-)
Interestingly, the "Shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater" saw was a paraphrase of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s majority opinion in Schenck v. United States, which ruled that it was a violation of the Espionage Act of 1917 (amended by the Sedition Act of 1918) to distribute flyers opposing the draft during World War I. (This allowed the government to continue jailing protesters who distributed such leaflets.)
Note that the original phrasing was falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic", i.e. speech that is dangerous but also true IS still protected, even under this decision (which was later partially reversed).
===
My favorite story on the subject (which may be distorted) involves an Abby Hoffman interview, on a TV show before a large studio audience:
I: So you believe in absolute free speech?
H: Yes.
I: But surely you don't believe in the freedom to shout "fire" in a crowded theatre?
H: FIRE!