Judge tears apart Texas social media law for violating First Amendment

Well yeah... they actually disabled his accounts while allowing the Taliban to post.... in the middle of an election. He was President of the U.S.A. at the time, of course he is the "driving force". There is no better example of Leftist overreach and desire to censor those they do not agree with. However, virtually every Republican has pointed out how bad social media has become and they would be right with what they did to The NY Post, Trump, Crowder, etc... the heavy had of oppression is a Leftist hand and every honest person knows it.

 

OR......they simply comply with the law that insulates them from being sued over the content by staying out of it.

 

If the majority of you guys wish to be honest you only support this censorship because it targets the right.

 

I support private property rights. I support the actual First Amendment. I've supported it when it was inconvenient for the left. I've supported it when it is inconvenient for the right. You are projecting your unwillingness to actually read the First Amendment onto imaginary boogey men.

 

The law protects all platforms and publishers from being legally responsible for unreviewed content. Same goes for the comments section on any news site. Take that away and online content will be WAY, WAY, WAY more regulated than it is now. You guys are literally fighting for more regulation while pretending that you are fighting for less.

 

You can tell yourself that if it makes you feel better.

Suddenly the left who is all about cancel culture supports this....

It is not free speech to stifle someone else's speech with censorship.

I'm not sure what's so difficult to understand about that.

It is logic that could not possibly be more backwards.

You are fighting against people being able to freely Express their opinion online.

 

so your saying Christian boards have to allow Muslims and Atheists to spread their message on their boards?

 

Yes. I prefer the truth.

Both sides enthusiastically support cancel culture. In this case, the right is at war with the First Amendment and with property rights.

Private owners have rights when it comes to their property. According to your logic, you hate free speech if you don't let me write your forum signature.

You are openly misrepresenting the facts. Let me know when you are okay with me writing your sig for you.

Not to any Constitutionally literate person.

 

I do not come to this form saying that other people can express my opinions in my signature line that little analogy falls flatter than stale beer.

Conservatives actually read the Constitution while liberals interpret it.

This is why they changed the definition of words when it's convenient to their agenda.

Let me know when the government holds Facebook accountable for the content of its posters.

Until then this is just straight political censorship.

And you are in full support of it giving whatever reasons you may but we know the real ones.

 

Then, according to your logic, you hate free speech.

No conservative claiming the First Amendment in this thread has read the First Amendment.

No need to "change the definition" of anything. Just read it.

Reality says you are wrong.

I appreciate you admitting this is all based on your imagination, rather than on facts. I'll keep sticking to the facts. You keep sticking to your imagination.

 

Well... the 1st amendment applies to government actions. The entity doing the "censoring" is private. Think of it this way. What if liberals passed a law that said Fox news must present the liberal perspective equally. Constitutionally Fox has the right to be as they are, even if they are largely responsible for how screwed up our politics are. The government telling a private entity they can't censor, constitutes government censorship because they are not allowing private entities to speak without government interference. Private entities have the right to censor as they see fit according to their own mission. That's what's going on here, you're just for it because it's promoting the conservative perspective where private entities are trying to censor it.

This sort of reflects how the world has changed since the constitution - they didn't anticipate that giant corporations would be more powerful than most countries and completely able to suppress just as governments do. And they allowed amendments to happen in anticipation of things like this, but we're too divided now to pass an amendment on anything.

 

“…They are setting a standard that no social media platform may not censor a user, a user's expression, or a user's ability to receive the expression of another person based on:….” Is there a typo in there?

 

Is this forum a publisher? Should it be legally required to allow things it otherwise would not?

 

There is no constitutional right to lie. Nor is there an inherent right to access of a private platform

The word "expression" is being used as a euphemism for incite. That "right" has also been summarily rejected constitutionally.

 

There is no constitutional right to lie

 

You say that as though 'attacks on social media' are a bad thing.

 

only if you are against unconstitutional laws like in the op

 

No they aren't

Their claim is that you dont have a right to lie on my platform.

I am amazed at the righties here who now are claiming that privately held enterprise has no rights now.......

 

Why don't the people that still support him and believe his BS not recognize that he is attempting to circumvent OTHER people's domains. Just like they did, he can pay for a domain, add some subforums and say whatever the hell he wants to say anytime he wants to say it. He claims to be so rich and so smart. He should have his own forum up and running as soon as we fired his dumb@ss.

And, the hypocrisy of his supporters is outrageous. There is no way they would think this was justified if anybody with a D dared to try this nonsense.

 

You did not state a fact in your entire post just gave your opinion and called it facts.

That's just magical thinking.

 

So is the government holding them accountable for the content of their posters yet yes or no?

 

The only thing I'm 'against' in this scenario, is social media.

 

So violating the 1st amendment doesn’t bother you.

 

Yes it struck me like a lightening bolt. Look we have censorship here and I agree with it. I've been on boards where flamers and jerks are there solely for the purpose of disrupting and attacking people they don't even know personally as some way of getting their jolley's. I don't see censorship here based on position on the issue, keep it civil and you will not be censored. It's why this is my main forum. What I have seen on the large social media IS biased and political censorship in order to drive the issues in a direction those at the platform want it driven.

Is there a role for the law, for the government to regulate that. No I can't imagine how at this point. The problem is FB almost has a monopoly on it, them and Twitter. Could it become a FTC thingy because they have almost total control? Remember when there was the start up that was going to insure conservative speech would not be censored and the others conspired to deny them the server access to get on the internet and shut them don't. Wasn't that anti-trust?

I don't do political debate on FB, I use that to keep in touch with friends and ignore those who do post political statements, well almost all . I just don't find it a good place to do it and you lose friends. Don't use any of the others.

 

Social media is garbage.

The world was better before it existed.

However, should it have to exist it should be fair and impartial as that is where the national conversation is taking place. If you are going to be a publisher, publish. If you are a platform, then be a platform.

We shouldn't allow them to be both.