Judge tears apart Texas social media law for violating First Amendment

Why not let the free market decide if Twitter is in the right? Of users don't like Twitter, go to a different platform which will cause Twitter to crash and burn or change their ways.

 

You are using social media to post that message …

 

I believe they do it now.

 

Seems like the wrong call to me Texas isn't violating the First Amendment the social media websites are.

Censorship is the removal of free speech.

 

Yeah every Christian before am I ever participated in had atheists Muslims Jewish people and satanists. Why wouldn't they have that there they believe Christianity is the truth they don't believe they need the silence the falsehoods.

 

Like what?

 

Folks can see right through the falsehoods.

 

The specific bias regarding their policies are the driving force. Holy crap how do you make this about Trump?

 

Because it IS about him, Trump has taken the worst aspects of our society, the parts we rightly marginalized and kept hidden, and raised them to be equal to or better than the parts we find desirable and wish to encourage. It's as if you have a family of priests and cops and you find one who is a notorious crime boss and say he will be the one carving the turkey next Thanksgiving

 

what Christian board allows other religions to preach their message on their servers? link please....

 

Generally yes why wouldn't they?

 

What the hell has Trump done? And for the love of christ if you say "january 6th" I can't take you seriously.

Right now (predictably) the Biden administration is perpetuating allllllll the ****ed up and stupid socially divisive narratives created by fake news. If you think that isn't the current cause for concern you have lost the plot.

Democratic leaders have placated theft, rioting, destruction all over the country.

Most recently a black person, a BLM supporter and member of a radical black nationalist movement. Got into an SUV and plowed over a bunch of white people.

Every week there is a new riot under the name of antifa or blm. The weight of violence, anger, destruction and divide is so incredibly lopsided at the hands of democratic leaders it's laughable. If you honestly think we are on a bridge to peace under Biden...ya. You've lost the plot.

 

Correct. There is no such thing as a monopoly on the internet. A monopoly is impossible since everyone is allowed to launch a web site. I do e-commerce and I compete every day with with some of the largest web sites on the net and even the very largest one. I have made a living at it for 24 years.

 

And you did the same. There is no Freedom of Speech or Press between you and me.

Notwithstanding your incredibly poor reading comprehension, the 1st Amendment starts with "Congress shall make no....."

Notice how it says "Congress." Which part of "Congress" do you not understand?

Neither the several States nor the people are "Congress."

The people can make any freaking law, rule, or regulation infringing Free Speech or Press whenever they freaking feel like it and there ain't a ****** thing you can do about it.

The several States were allowed to ban or infringe on Free Speech until the Supreme Court bound the several States to the Free Speech Clause in Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925)

The several States were allowed to ban or infringe on the Freedom of the Press until the Supreme Court bound the several States to the Free Press Clause in Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931).

The several states were allowed to ban or infringe upon the free exercise of religion, until the Supreme Court bound the several States to the Freedom of Religion Clause in Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940).

The several States were allowed to declare a State religion until the Supreme Court bound the several States to the Establishment of Religion Clause in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)

Just in case you were wondering, the several States were allowed to ban, bar, or prohibit the Freedom to Peaceably Assemble until De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353 (1937).

And, seeing how your legal knowledge is substandard, the several States could ban you from petitioning for a redress of grievances until Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization, 307 U.S. 496 (1939)

While the Supreme Court has bound the several States to most -- but not all....meaning not 100% -- of the Bill of Rights, the Supreme Court has never bound the people to any part of the Bill of Rights.

You need to get all your crap in one sock.

 

That is one of the problems, when another platform attempted to start up the others worked to shut them down and did so.

 

Anything.

Besides, I don't think publishers are any less protected by the First Amendment than platforms are. Individuals and private entities (corporations and the like) are free to moderate content as they please.

It's kind of fascinating how Donald Trump of all people has supposed patriots and conservatives supporting an abridgement of the First Amendment. Trump is so ignorant, selfish and petty that he really doesn't understand or appreciate how unconstitutional his position is. It is also hypocritical in light of how controlled his new money-grabbing "Truth" Social Twitter-clone is..

 

Oh? What was that?

 

It's regulations that they are violating. Regulations that were put in place to protect "platform" owners from getting sued over content.

https://metrovoicenews.com/platforms-vs-publishers-the-big-tech-war-on-the-first-amendment/

 

Wouldn't it have been cool if your rant had anything to do with my post.

 

You need better sources of information. This one is absurdly biased and wrong. Just look at all the stupid language ranting about "leftists" and "censorship." The author has an obvious biased agenda.

There are no regulations that abridge the freedom of speech, and your source doesn't seem to mention any regulations anyway. More importantly, it seems to me that the author is drawing a false distinction in hopes of justifying an unjustifiable argument in favor of government control over the First Amendment rights of private entities, and doing so based on some conspiracy theory about "leftists" in Congress.

 

can you post on Trump's site? is he violating people's free speech

shoudl he be forced to let people use his web servers for free

 

Prove it.

 

Anybody that doesn't agree that social media platforms unfairly censor conservatives views is lying to themselves.

Can they do it? Sure. Should they do it. No.

But the only radicals I see, are those that defend the action.

 

It's is odd that some would celebrate social media platforms right to free speech, by limiting the free speech of others.

Lol.

Ironic.

 

Does his sight get the special protections Facebook and Twitter get?

If the government protects you from liability sure.