The law makes it possible for individuals or the Texas attorney general’s office to sue social media platforms with more than 50 million monthly users in the United States for taking down political viewpoints. The legislation is the product of conservative anger over posts that were taken down largely because they had violated the social media platforms’ rules....
September 17, 2022
"Today we reject the idea that corporations have a freewheeling First Amendment right to censor what people say."
Wrote Judge Andrew S. Oldham of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, "which is known to be conservative," quoted in "A federal court clears the way for a Texas social media law/The law, which had been blocked by a lower court, makes it possible to sue large social media platforms for taking down political viewpoints" (NYT).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
63 comments:
Plain language and common sense.
Thanks for blogging this, Ann. Major victory.
Now Nebraska and other states can just copy the TX law.
Uh.Oh. The progressives in charge aren't going to like this. Let's sit back and watch the legal legerdemain of progressive lawyers as they try and wiggle away from this. Ought to be fun.
how can fascist judges deny megacorporations' First Amendment right to censor what people say?
Isn't THE ENTIRE POINT of the First Amendment, the right of The Rich to dictate allowable speech?
Didn't we fight a WAR, to guarantee The Rich's overlordship over us peons?
If Mark Zuckerburg, and the other gazilionaires aren't our masters, what was the point of it all?
I find it hilarious that it is now considered "conservative" to be opposed to censorship and in favor of free speech.
How do lefties (with any historical sense) manage to explain this?
That's going to leave a mark.
Good.
And sad that this is where we are. But this is where we are. Behold the mind of a Speech Crime Youth leftist
Note the moron no idea how to form an argument. Dumb-shits want to muzzle everyone.
Big Tech work in concert with KGB-FBI-Democrat party - run by the nexus of insider family grifters named Pelosi-Biden and Clinton.
Time to break up the corruption.
Bonus - Fauci refuses to answer if he made Royalty money from vax drug makers.
This is great news, though I am somewhat flummoxed that it had to get this far. What happened to the distinction between publishers and platforms? Is that gone? Because the implication now is that, without a specific state law to the contrary, censoring is otherwise okay. And if that's okay, then it's okay for, say, T-Mobile to stop me from making calls or sending texts if it doesn't like my political stances. This crap needs to be flattened by a bigger hammer.
But if this is what it takes, then cool, I guess. Next law: illegal for credit card companies and payment processors to differentiate between customers based on what types of perfectly legal products they buy or establishments they patronize. Freedom of association.
I don't know where this is going to go. I have or had some sympathy for the old newspapers. They would make their biases clear on the editorial page. They would be tempted to continue that bias in "news" articles, but discerning readers could see what was going on. The bigger the city, the more likely it was that there would be competing and opposing newspapers, to some extent forced to be reasonable, or base their stories on evidence, in order to win over the great undecided or middle-ground. To say the least, the editor and/or owner controlled the content of a newspaper. Without waiting for any kind of censor, they would cut profanity and other things, I don't know, Communism.
I like the idea that Twitter can add "ideas," but can't cut them. If there is something that the woke mob at Twitter doesn't like, let them write their own pieces, or commission a real writer, or turn the bots loose if that's the best they can do. Trump's tweets, to take a non-random example, would still stand.
Especially when these corporations are censoring American citizens at the direction of the Federal Government.
It is a GROSS VIOLATION of our Constitutional rights and it's high time the federal courts put an end to it.
By the way, don't uncork the champagne just yet. The courts are ONLY ruling that Twitter and Facebook et al don't have a FIRST AMENDMENT right to censor.
They'll shortly claim they have other rights to censor, or be given those rights by their co-conspirators within the Federal government. Co-conspirators that they have contracts with. Contracts marked Top Secret which compel them to allow the federal government to spy on American citizens.
Jefferson's Revenge: "Plain language and common sense."
Plain language and common sense are like garlic; daylight and wooden crosses to the New Soviet Democratical.
For obvious reasons.
I had innocently shared a photo purported to be of Queen Elizabeth checking the oil on a classic Ferrari, which photo was circulating on Facebook. I then got a message stating:
"We added a notice to your post.
The post contains information that independent fact checkers said was false.
False information in a post that you shared
[Photo]
You shared a photo from the Cavern Rock'n'Roll Museum.
Independent fact-checkers reviewed a similar photo and determined it was false.
Facebook determined your post has the same false photo and added a notice to the post.
People who repeatedly share false information might have their posts moved lower in News Feed so that other people are less likely to see them."
I was given the option of deleting the post, or adding a disclaimer. I added a disclaimer, including a screen shot of Facebook's advisory, saying that as a Facebook user, I was expecting that their fact checkers would look to the original source rather than to me as an ordinary schmo, to screen posts, memes, etc. I said it felt like a 'gotcha' sting to use as a pretext for sanctioning users.
The United States granted websites immunity from liability for third-party communications, expecting they would serve the public good, the same way a phone company does as a common carrier. It is a concession worth billions of dollars. If these websites instead decide they wish to favor one point of view over another, they become editorial operations indistinguishable from traditional publications and should face the same liability for their content.
Weyland E. Yutani, Super Genius @ 9:17: "...Next law: illegal for credit card companies and payment processors to differentiate between customers based on what types of perfectly legal products they buy or establishments they patronize."
Why are these institutions not required on privacy grounds to limit their data collection/retention/analysis to a "need to know" standard? How does it help me, using a credit card, to have the issuer collect and retain and analyze data on what I buy, and where, and when? I know that data is pure sugar to them --they can develop profiles and sell them to vendors so that I get pestered to buy the next thing-- but what does it do for me? Besides pry into my life, and give them a central role in the Precrime Stasi Surveillance Unit?
Censorship is just the tip of the iceberg.
This isn't going to solve the problem.
The problem is structural.
This will not really be solved until our society starts suppressing the totalitarian/authoritarian impulses of individuals before they make their way into "government service" and working for giant corporations.
He who sups with the Devil must use a long spoon.
A victory for Ken Paxton, Attorney General of Texas.
Which I am sure will go uncredited in national media.
Imagine if 100 years ago Mark Zuckerberg owned all the printing presses. Some other alien from outer space owned all the ink. And another owned all the paper.
2022 Democrats would say...they don't have to sell you anything if they don't like what you say or publish. They are private companies. They can do what they want and don't have to adhere to the first amendment.
And if the government tells him not to sell you a printing press, ink, or paper, so you can't publish or distribute your opinions...that's ok too.
That's classic 20th Century Fascism as defined by Mussolini. It's also the Democrat Party and its supporters in 2022.
Thank Goodness. Of course, the DC Republicans led by Mitch and MIttens will probably go to work to undermine this. IMO, the civil rights act should be amended to forbid discrimination against a person based on their political beliefs.
This is a good decision. I can remember when an Obama Judge ruled Trump couldn't block people on twitter, because of the 1st admendmnent.
The fake cons like David French, and J. Goldberg will be upset because "Mah Free enterprise" but the Government already dictates/regulates almost every aspect of Corporate behavior.
The Speech Crime Youth demand censorship. Democrat elites and democrat media totalitarians agree.
Why 50 million? Where'd that number come from?
I bet Twitter can get under the limit by turning off the bots.
This is interesting.
I was surprised that the NYT article was so short; I was expecting a fair amount of bloviation on this one. Maybe they're still trying to figure it out.
Saw this yesterday. Major move in the right direction. It is quite clear that Free speech decisions have been handed to 25 year old engineers who know nothing and the results have been disastrous. The Bill of Rights is a pesky nuisance sometimes.
Safety is a legitimate concern, but that "safety" threshold, wherever it is, should not trump political speech. It was not accidental that the first amendment was put up first.
It's pretty much one, if not the fundamental bedrock on which the American enterprise rests.
I was going to say "democracy" instead of "the American enterprise" but I'm going to avoid using the word "democracy" for a while because the Biden administration is using it to demonize political opponents. Althouse is right to find it abhorrent.
So, does this mean that Facebook has to publish anything anyone produces that is not actually kiddie porn? Islamic Jihad? Nazi and Russian and Chinese propaganda? If not, then what does it mean?
'I find it hilarious that it is now considered "conservative" to be opposed to censorship and in favor of free speech.'
And they used to hate the rich as a class, and had a very skeptical view of big government and the CIA, etc.
But now they run the show and all of that is okey-dokey...
"The legislation is the product of conservative anger over posts that were taken down largely because they had violated the social media platforms’ rules...." Where are the fact checkers on this whopper? I think the conservative anger is about rules being selectively enforced against those out of favor with our ruling bureaucracy and the billionaire owners of these platforms. The social media companies were given a sweetheart deal protecting them against libel and slander law suits because they supposedly have no control over what users say on their sites. To the extent that's true I don't have a problem with the protections offered, But now that they are actively policing the content, I think those protections should be repealed.
“ The legislation is the product of conservative anger over posts that were taken down largely because they had violated the social media platforms’ rules....”
Technically correct because the “rules” were used as the basis to take down conservative posts from conservative politicians.
If the rules were plainly stated and honestly enforced there wouldn’t be nearly as much anger over this. But they are not, they are enforced ( like most media ) to aid democrats.
Beginning today the JAORE site is limiting monthly comments to 49,999,999. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause.
Odd to put a numerical limit on constitutional rights.
Weyland E. Yutani, Super Genius if it's okay for, ...
say, T-Mobile to stop me from making calls or sending texts if it doesn't like my political stances??
Not quite yet. Though it's okay for the FBI to confiscate my phone if it doesn't like my political stances
Think for a little while about THAT! YOU SUPPORTED TRUMP. The FBI Stops you and takes your phone at gunpoint
So is this new enthusiasm for corporate censorship a product of Progressive Libertarianism or Libertarian Progressivism?
Earnest Prole: "The United States granted websites immunity from liability for third-party communications, expecting they would serve the public good, the same way a phone company does as a common carrier. It is a concession worth billions of dollars. If these websites instead decide they wish to favor one point of view over another, they become editorial operations indistinguishable from traditional publications and should face the same liability for their content."
Plain language and common sense. A winning argument every time.
does this mean that Facebook has to publish anything anyone produces that is not actually kiddie porn? Islamic Jihad? Nazi and Russian and Chinese propaganda? If not, then what does it mean?
The phone company is required to transport Nazi messages. Public utilities are required to provide water to the Islamic Jihadists buildings. Your cell provider isn't monitoring your SMS messages to see if you're disseminating "disinformation" before they send your text messages.
Do you see how it works now?
Why should Facebook have the power to regulate speech when none of these other companies have that power? Who the fuck elected Facebook?
The short answer to your question is NO. Facebook doesn't have to publish anything. It chooses to. It is not forced to. It can fucking leave the United States if it doesn't like our laws or our Constitution. But it can't control OUR speech here. Period.
The district court enjoined the Texas law. The court of appeals stayed the injunction. The US Supreme Court vacated the stay, 5-4. The court of appeals upheld the law and vacated the injunction, 2-1. What's next?
Gusty Winds at 9:48 am nails is with the exactly correct analogy to the past, one I have used myself. Twatter, Faceplant, and Goggle are the paper and ink of the modern speaker.
William wrote:
"I was surprised that the NYT article was so short; I was expecting a fair amount of bloviation on this one. Maybe they're still trying to figure it out."
Caught between a rock and a hard place, is my guess. It is important news, but news they would rather not have to let their readers know about.
The Texas law does not apply to Truth Social because not big and successful enough? So no anti-Trump stuff there.
They want to abort the baby, cannibalize her profitable parts, sequester her carbon pollutants, and "burdens" of evidence that die in darkness, and have her, too, in the traditional modern model.
Yancey Ward said...
William wrote:
"I was surprised that the NYT article was so short; I was expecting a fair amount of bloviation on this one. Maybe they're still trying to figure it out."
Caught between a rock and a hard place, is my guess. It is important news, but news they would rather not have to let their readers know about.
**********
As Boston Herald columnist and talk show host Howie Carr describes it, editors simply decide, "We need to give this story a good leaving alone."
Huh. I just now got banned from r/news for interrupting a trans circle jerk by calling out their insane use of suicide threats to bully parents.
Can I SUE?
Here we go....
"What's next?"
Full circuit appeal, then SCOTUS if the decision is upheld?
Bob Boyd up there, being a splitter, unnecessarily. The publication on social media of everyone's legal bloviations will better allow the progressive Left to identify those wrongthinkers and eliminate them, not just from public discourse, but from the public altogether.
Readering said...
"The Texas law does not apply to Truth Social because not big and successful enough? So no anti-Trump stuff there."
You whine to Althouse about they way you're treated here but you continue to post stupid shit like the above and demand respect. Ain't gonna happen, cupcake. Stupid doesn't get any respect.
Don't come here for respect from the likes of you, Rusty, since you don't comment on the issue, just insult those with different views.
Wut? Lol is the 5th Circuit Court fucking stupid?
I own a business. I let people write stuff on my wall. I have sign that says you can write on my wall but I can do anything I want to that wall including to whatever you write on it. The sign says if you don't agree with the sign you can't write on my wall.
End of fucking story.
If I defame you, fucking sue me. I'm a private business you don't like it don't use my wall. Start your own wall asshole!
They write in the opinion that they're not going to consider all these hypotheticals and then cite a dozen fucking cases in there! The morons! Nazis and Holocaust liars are a thing! The judge calls it hypothetical she's fucking deranged.
YW. En banc one route, but USSC has already shown sympathy to plaintiff, so I see cert petition. But will they seek another stay as well? And get it?
The next thing that needs to be ruled is that corporations are not persons, that is, a revocation of Citizens United.
I don't think the overturning the stay shows SCOTUS is favorable to the plaintiffs, Readering. It isn't an opinion on the merits of the case, but simply preserving the status quo until one was issued.
Readering said...
"Don't come here for respect from the likes of you, Rusty, since you don't comment on the issue, just insult those with different views."
Sure I do, sweetheart. You're just so caught up in your faux moral outrage you don't participate in any reasoned discussions.
Now. Do you want to discuss corporate censorship? Or do you want to lame ass sarcasm your way through it then run to mommy when you get caught out? I can play both ways so it's up to you.
Likelihood of success is a factor in stay analysis. Not the only factor, as Yeshiva case just indicated.
Rusty, I'll discuss the merits of the opinion. I already pointed out that what you call censorship is also practiced by social media platforms that don't fit within the threshold of the statute. What's your response besides calling me stupid?
PS what's with the sweetheart? Think it sounds better than Boo?
I'm thinking back before we had internet or social messaging. Didn't a newspaper have the right to decide, "We will not print any letters to the editor that support candidate X? Or to publish any oped pieces that promoted Party Y?" How is thes right different from the right of Youtube or Twitter or etc to decide not to publish an opinion that is pro-Trump, or anti-Climate change? It can't be "because youtube and twitter are too big". We have anti-trust to deal with that, right?
Robert Cook: "The next thing that needs to be ruled is that corporations are not persons, that is, a revocation of Citizens United."
Uh, no.
People, as individuals, do not lose their right to free speech simply because they choose to voluntarily come together and pool resources to create a corporation.
Pretty basic for all non-marxists. Marxists, now that's a different story of course.
And it appears from cookies other comments on this thread that he would be okay with corporate speech as long as the govt gets to specifically direct what that speech is.
You know, fascism.
Black Bellamy said...
If I defame you, fucking sue me.
You quite obviously don't understand the position of the The Platforms as various social media and other internet services are named in the opinion. As distinguished from companies who are considered publishers like newspapers and other legacy media, The Platforms have consistently claimed immunization from defamation suits based on Section 230 for the content posted by their users. They are quite literally in this case trying to have it both ways. They wish to be publishers and determine what user generated content is presented by their services, based on varying and subjective standards of suitability, while at the same time falling under section 230 protection so that they are not held liable if they elect to publish defamatory content.
Readering said...
Rusty, I'll discuss the merits of the opinion. I already pointed out that what you call censorship is also practiced by social media platforms that don't fit within the threshold of the statute. What's your response besides calling me stupid?
What I call censorship? What is your definition of censorship?
Something the government does.
How do you distinguish what Truth Social practices from larger social media platforms Texas seeks to regulate?
Readering said...
Something the government does.
Too narrow. How about any time anyone or any entity works to prevent you from voicing your opinion. Under your definition it would be OK to censor a comedian in anything but a public venue.
I don't know what Truth Social is but if it is acting like any other social media-Facebook, Twitter etc. the same rules apply. If it is a blog with a narrow focus like Althouse, then house rules apply.
More speech is better. Especially the speech you find offensive. But like on Althouse where there is debate bring your best game because there are a lot of people that can spot bullshit.
Guy talk for when you act like a snowflake.
Readering said...
"PS what's with the sweetheart? Think it sounds better than Boo?"
Guy talk for when you act like a snowflake.
Post a Comment