२९ सप्टेंबर, २०२३
"The Supreme Court on Friday said it would... decide whether laws passed in Texas and Florida can restrict social media companies from removing certain political posts or accounts."
"Tech industry groups, whose members include Facebook and Google’s YouTube, asked the court to block Texas and Florida laws passed in 2021 that regulate companies’ content-moderation policies. The companies say the measures are unconstitutional and conflict with the First Amendment by stripping private companies of the right to choose what to publish on their platforms.... 'The act of culling and curating the content that users see is inherently expressive, even if the speech that is collected is almost wholly provided by users,' Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar told the justices. 'And especially because the covered platforms’ only products are displays of expressive content, a government requirement that they display different content—for example, by including content they wish to exclude or organizing content in a different way—plainly implicates the First Amendment.'"
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
६९ टिप्पण्या:
Offhand, sounds like the states are wrong?
So they admit they are publishers and not public squares…
As I understand it, the infamous Section 230 shields the platforms from liable and slander suits because they are not 'publishers'. The claim supporting that is the individual users are responsible for the content and not facebook, twitter, etc. It seems to me that this argument directly contradicts this and as 'And especially because the covered platforms’ only products are displays of expressive content, a government requirement that they display different content—for example, by including content they wish to exclude or organizing content in a different way—plainly implicates the First Amendment.' they are clearly claiming to be responsible for what show up on their platforms. Repeal Section 230 and let the lawsuits begin!
try to find any negative info on a D on Youtube.
They removed all the videos of Bernie Sanders saying "millionaires and billionaires."
Try to find Rachel Maddow saying 'RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA."
Big Tech = Protection racket for The Party.
Doesn’t curating posts remove section 230 protections as the providers would become publishers?
'The act of culling and curating the content that users see is inherently expressive, even if the speech that is collected is almost wholly provided by users,'
Didn't these companies once argue that they are not legally responsible for anything users post because the companies don't do any curating?
Whose First amendment are we protecting? When I post something to Facebook is it my content or Facebook's? Are they a platform or a publisher?
In this case we are talking about censorship. Is the right to censor a First Amendment right? Or is it a right to speak in opposition?
I don't recall the Framers mentioning the Internet in the Constitution. I expect the current Supreme Court to therefore massively overreach and abolish the entire thing. /s
If I allow any passerby to write whatever they want on the walls of my house using paint and brushes I provide for free, I have the absolute right to be unfair and remove any writing I want for any reason or no reason at all. Displaying Nazi swastikas is legal in the US and I still don't want them on my house, if I don't like your handwriting or the colors you used I have the right to remove your message too. If you disagree with that you're free to go to my neighbor's house who has more relaxed rules, you don't have a right to write on my wall.
They don't curate, they cancel, they comment on information, disinformation, misinformation , and articles of hate with political ambition. Google et al use advanced algorithms (e.g. "ai") to steer understanding and influemce perception.
"'The act of culling and curating the content that users see is inherently expressive, even if the speech that is collected is almost wholly provided by users,' Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar told the justices."
Fine, but then you're responsible for what you publish.
Hahaha, I'm mightily entertained by the use of the First Amendment to limit speech!
Keep talking, guys. We already know what side you're on, but keep talking.
What SCOTUS needs to do is reiterate how wrong it is for Government agencies to dictate or even suggest that social media skew content in partisan way.
I've been YouTube posting IR night-sight videos of foxes, raccoons and cats that visit my yard in the wee hours, mostly for my adult kids to see. They think the old guy is adopting a suitable hobby for my age. What I'm really doing is going for the endorsement deals in future product placements in my videos, should they ever become popular. Let the censors make of that what they will. I for one, look forward to the AI censors trying to figure out what the Trump/Biden imagery is, when a feral cat drives a fox away from a bowl of pear slices, then won't even eat any fruit.
As to the Supremes deciding who gets to say what, where, and who can censor it, did Let's Go Brandon" and "Dark Brandon" not teach anyone anything about how censorship is a useless activity?
The court should rule against FL and TX formally, but for them through the backdoor of classifying social media companies as common carriers. Or declare the DMCA unconstitutional and expose them to ruinous lawsuits.
Either one.
It is a win win. If the states win, then they show government can intervene to protect free speech of individuals from being controlled by the companies. If the states lose, then the government can’t intervene, and so the threats at the national level are moot, thus company intervention becomes a publication. The thread the needle to protect Dem control is to say only the feds can do what the states are doing via commerce clause and thus it isn’t a free speech issue.
At a time when everything is political, if not potentially political, wokeism can only awake people so fast, this is the conversation we should all be having.
Don't confuse statutes and constitutions.
There is an easy solution: if you want Section 230 immunity from defamation and copyright lawsuits then establish some free speech protections. The whole premise of 230 immunity is that online platforms are not "speakers." Now we are hearing the exact opposite: online platform monitoring is "expression." They shouldn't get it both ways. If you want to engage in expressive content, that is your prerogative, but you don't get immunity anymore.
The companies want their Section 230 cake and eat it, too.
The court will likely strike down the two states' legislation, but what the court really needs to do is to invalidate the section 230 protection they all enjoy, but that will require the court to take up a slander/libel case at some point.
There has never been any “Section 230 should be removed/modified” argument that was not built on false claims about what 230 does and how. What I want to know is what do the anti-230 people think the internet is going to look like if those liability protections are removed?
If they are picking and choosing content, doesn't that make them publishers?
Worst case they are editors.
Oh.....so they are publishers, after all. Looks like the corporate lawyers are moving to Plan B. Now into the arena of libel and defamation lawsuits
And I bwt there are Defense arguments ready & on the shelf.
Seems to me that they want to have it both ways. If you are the "public square" then everything said in the square should be published. If you're "curating", i.e. editing, then you are a publisher, no different than a newspaper, magazine, or book. And, as such, should be bound by the same rules. Now to see if scotus has the same view point.
yes only we can censor,
Blogger Rich said..."What I want to know is what do the anti-230 people think the internet is going to look like if those liability protections are removed?"
If the likes of Facebok and Twitter go under, it will be a vast improvement. They do not provide a societal good. They service only one side of the political spectrum.
When I post something to Facebook is it my content or Facebook's? Are they a platform or a publisher?
Read the terms of service. It is explicitly THEIR content once you publish it. Non-exclusively theirs but their nonetheless. They can do what they want with it.
Posted some pictures of your kids? You gave Facebook permission to sell them to JC Penney or anyone else to use in ads. Or any other purpose.
At one point, 15 years ago or so, they not only owned what you published, the TOS gave them permission to rummage around on your hard drive and use anything they found. It became theirs and you, dear Facebook user, had no recourse whatever because you had given them permission. (I think this was changed but am not sure and would not trust Facebook not to change it back)
It is why I do not permit anyone to access any Facebook site or app on any device that I own.
I had a Facebook account for a month or 2 perhaps 20 years ago. When I realized what they were doing, I removed it. It was not easy. I kept finding Facebook droppings all over my hard drive. I finally had to scrub and reformat the drive just to get rid of them.
The Apple store did something similar to my computer when I signed up for them. I had to reformat my drive to be sure of severing all connection with Apple. It is one of the reasons I would go back to tin cans and string before I will own an Iphone or any other device from Apple.
John Henry
Blogger Rich said...
What I want to know is what do the anti-230 people think the internet is going to look like if those liability protections are removed?
Like Usenet back in the 80s and early 90s? Sounds good to me and I hope that comes to pass.
No restrictions whatever and no way to restrict even if people wanted to. Individual Usegroups were moderated, or not, if the owner so desired. But anyone could set up a Usegroup so if you did not like the moderated Alt.Folklore.Urban group, you could set up and unmoderated urban folklore group. Both were a lot of fun. People like Rich might get their feelings hurt in the unmoderated group. But rather than try to get it shut down, all a Rich could do was not follow the group.
Or as I call it, the good old days of the Internet and Web.
Or lake the WWW in the 90s and noughties? Again, fine with me.
Or as I call it, the good old days of the Internet and Web.
What is your objection, Rich?
Fine, but then you're responsible for what you publish.
=========
as publishers don't they have /editorial rights/
what the court really needs to do is to invalidate the section 230 protection they all enjoy, but that will require the court to take up a slander/libel case at some point.
=======
is it slander/libel to call someone bad content creator?
what the court really needs to do is to invalidate the section 230 protection they all enjoy, but that will require the court to take up a slander/libel case at some point.
=======
is it slander/libel to call someone bad content creator?
@ JH — What matters is solely the content in question. If that content is created by someone else, the website hosting it cannot be sued over it. This is the simplest, most basic understanding of Section 230: it is about placing the liability for content online on whoever created that content, and not on whoever is hosting it. If you understand that one thing, you’ll understand most of the most important things about Section 230.
I'm wondering what untoward effect on the internet Rich thinks removing 230 protection would produce.
Maybe I'm not being imaginative enough with my view that it will be an improvement.
Why is the Solicitor General representing Google?
Facebook could go back to its roots; a method for friends and family to connect. Why the hell should they be in the propaganda business?
"Seems to me that they want to have it both ways. If you are the "public square" then everything said in the square should be published. If you're "curating", i.e. editing, then you are a publisher, no different than a newspaper, magazine, or book. And, as such, should be bound by the same rules. Now to see if scotus has the same view point."
The difference is, the government is telling them what to censor.
I've been told that's OK if Democrats are in power...
"What is your objection, Rich?"
That is an easy question to answer, John Henry- Rich likes the fact that his political opponents get censored. If Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube were censoring the Left, Rich would be telling us that it was a crime.
Read the terms of service. It is explicitly THEIR content once you publish it. Non-exclusively theirs but their nonetheless.
I get it. Now are the States allowed to write laws that govern Terms of Service? Or are Terms of Service sacrosanct. For example, could the State of Texas write a law saying that any content provided remains mine? Or that censoring needs to be acknowledged by the platform with specific reason as part of their contract (ToS)?
The issue with all of these platforms is that they are putting their thumb on the scale secretly. They shadow-ban, they reduce the reach, they hide content. If the NY Times doesn't want to print a letter to the editor in their paper that's their prerogative, but they shouldn't get to print a single copy of the paper for the letter writer so that he thinks his letter was published, and then print it in invisible ink for everyone else, and then deny they do it.
The solution to bad speech is more speech, not shadow censoring.
"The companies say the measures are unconstitutional and conflict with the First Amendment by stripping private companies of the right to choose what to publish on their platforms.... "
I seem to recall the companies saying they shouldn't be regulated as they are simply platforms for free speech and as such, they do not control content. "the right to choose what to publish on their platforms" is the polar opposite of that.
" Rich said...
I don't recall the Framers mentioning the Internet in the Constitution. I expect the current Supreme Court to therefore massively overreach and abolish the entire thing. /s"
If you actually believe that to be true, is it really sarcasm?
once again the commentariat has it correct but inevitably the great legal liberal minds will be along shortly to educate us that the platforms are a floor was AND a dessert topping…except for Elon’s of course. Of course…
I'll go with whatever Elon thinks is best. What does Elon think is best?
"If you understand that one thing, you’ll understand most of the most important things about Section 230."
Yes, John Henry, you just don't understand. /sarc
It appears Yancey doesn't know the difference between "First Amendment" and a "Terms of Service" contract.
I’m a helper — let me help you…
Hello! You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About The First Amendment.
https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/11/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-the-first-amendment/
The content censors raped me…
So, They Knew It Was A Lie All Along
Adverse events in pregnant women... people and menstruating men?... women, mandates, and disinformation to garner profit and steer consensus.
First off, there is no “neutrality” requirement at all in Section 230. Seriously. Read it. If anything, it says the opposite. It says that sites can moderate as they see fit and face no liability. This myth is out there and persists because some politicians keep repeating it, but it’s wrong and the opposite of truth. Indeed, any requirement of neutrality would likely raise significant 1st Amendment questions, as it would be involving the law in editorial decision making.
Second, as described earlier, you can’t “lose” your Section 230 protections, especially not over your moderation choices (again, the law explicitly says that you cannot face liability for moderation choices, so stop trying to make it happen). If content is produced by someone else, the site is protected from lawsuit, thanks to Section 230. If the content is produced by the site, it is not. Moderating the content is not producing content, and so the mere act of moderation, whether neutral or not, does not make you lose 230 protections. That’s just not how it works.
47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230
This was already decided, in the Pruneyard case, when the US Supreme Court ruled that companies dont' have a 1st Amendment right to censor people on their property, or to prevent people from using the company's property to advance that individuals political agenda.
And that therefore a State could pass a law forcing them to allow that.
If the Social Media companies are publishers, then they are legally liable for EVERYTHING they publish. So they can pick and chose what they publish, but they are legally liable for libel for EVERYTHING they publish.
Just like a newspaper is for and libel it publishes in a "letter to the editor".
If they can't be sued for libel for what's on their site, then they're not publishers.
And just like in the Pruneyard case, in that case the States of FL and TX can force then to allow people to come onto their property and use it to get their personal political messages out.
And that's leaving aside the whole reality that they've been acting as agents of the Federal gov't in their censorship's nd therefore we all have an absolute 1st Amendment right to sue them to hell for that
Rich said...
If I allow any passerby to write whatever they want on the walls of my house using paint and brushes I provide for free, I have the absolute right to be unfair and remove any writing I want for any reason or no reason at all.
Yep.
And if someone writes libel there, and you don't erase it, you can be sued for that, and you will lose.
Because YOU are the publisher there.
So you want to try again, you little Nazi?
Rich said...
There has never been any “Section 230 should be removed/modified” argument that was not built on false claims about what 230 does and how. What I want to know is what do the anti-230 people think the internet is going to look like if those liability protections are removed?
What I expect after that is for every single left wing tech social media company to go bankrupt. Which would be awesome.
Then we go back to having a blogosphere that can't be censored, rather than gated "communities" that can be.
So fascists like you, who know that all your opinions are garbage's dn that the only way you can EVER win a debate is by having the other side shut down, will be sad.
Whereas all decent people will be happy
Hardcore porn and Isis beheading videos, coming to social media soon!
Mark said...
Hardcore porn and Isis beheading videos, coming to social media soon!
Do you ever find it unpleasant, being both stupid and dishonest?
And being the kind of morally wretched scum bag who can't see a difference between "Isis Beheadings", and someone disagreeing with you?
I do not recall Greg commenting upon any stories about Donald Trump trying to censor those awful fact checkers. I could be wrong, he probably stated that Donald is allowed to do anything he wants because he is the chosen one. His type never comments on stories about actual censorship—unless, of course, they mean to troll the comments. Their silence on issues of censorship that aren’t right-wing fever dreams can be taken as an implicit approval of such censorship.
And if you could show us where in the “Twitter Files” that the government demanded Twitter censor specific kinds of speech—not asked to look at certain posts with a “do what you want or don’t” qualifier, but demanded deletion of content under threat of penalty—that would be terrific.
Just because everyone with any understanding of the Constitution and speech law says these laws are unconstitutional, doesn’t guarantee the SCOTUS will rule the same way, unfortunately.
Mark said...
Hardcore porn and Isis beheading videos, coming to social media soon!
--
Yes! That's where the concern lies. Absotootly!
Whereas in actuality, porn and accounts by terrorists are untouched while "election deniers" and "antivaxxers" are quashed.
Fuck. Off.
And if you could show us where in the “Twitter Files” that the government demanded Twitter censor specific kinds of speech—not asked to look at certain posts with a “do what you want or don’t” qualifier, but demanded deletion of content under threat of penalty—that would be terrific.
In my work involving government contracts, you can get yourself into trouble as a government employee if you say anything that the contractor can construe as government direction outside of the scope of work, resulting in a constructive change to the contract. The government is no obligated to pay for that additional work and you could be potentially held personally liable to cover the cost. This is true even if you have no such authority to provide any direction to the contractor in the first place. It is a very low bar the contractors have to overcome if the dispute goes to court.
I see a similar parallel here. Even absent explicit governmental direction, the very fact that government employees, during the execution of their official duties, are providing what could be reasonably interpreted as direction to scrutinize and/or take action against certain content based on viewpoint should be sufficient to show first amendment violations by those government actors.
Rich said...
I do not recall Greg commenting upon any stories about Donald Trump trying to censor those awful fact checkers. I could be wrong,
--
Yeah, your account used to be visible, showing how recent it was initiated. You've apparently hidden info.
Dunno,
Mayebe something here for ya:
"The evidence is now all out there: The FBI handed out Top Secret security clearances to Twitter employees, ostensibly without the weeks of extensive background checking that I and other top Justice Department officials had to undergo.
Then, FBI officials created a special, secure online portal for Twitter staff, where the two sides could secretly exchange information about who was saying what on the platform and how that speech could be squelched. In this virtual "war room," the FBI made dozens of requests to censor political speech. Twitter chirpily complied.
Talking daily with government agencies through a secure government channel, having a government security clearance, and carrying out orders from the government is what an agent of government does. And that's what Twitter did.
This government-big tech partnership violated the First Amendment, a classic deprivation of civil rights.
The Biden administration and others casually dismiss this troubling arrangement as a rationale to somehow prevent election "misinformation." Yet misinformation is in the eye of the beholder. And since the U.S. Supreme Court has determined that speech in and around elections has more First Amendment protection than any other, government agents meddling in it will almost always be acting unconstitutionally. Indeed, lying about an election may be wrong, but it is fully protected speech. The minute Twitter started cooperating with the FBI, it needed to therefore be protected on the platform.
At the end of the day, it is up to the governed—not the government—to decide what's misinformation. The FBI has zero legal authority to stop it, and by using Twitter as its agent, it violated the free speech rights of the people who were censored."
https://www.newsweek.com/fbi-colluded-twitter-suppress-free-speech-where-outrage-opinion-1768801
Rich said...
I do not recall Greg commenting upon any stories about Donald Trump trying to censor those awful fact checkers.
Really, Rich? Which "stories" are these? Do give details, with links to news reports that are exactly quoting what Trump said, not just lying left wing douchebags claiming to describe what Trump was doing.
And if you could show us where in the “Twitter Files” that the government demanded Twitter censor specific kinds of speech
Gosh, you mean like Hunter Biden's laptop?
Or, gee, maybe people talking about the high likelihood that Covid was a CCP lab release from the WIV?
Or censoring anyone who wrote against lockdowns? Or wrote against getting the Covid shots?
Or who wrote about negative side effects of the Covid shots?
You know, all sorts of entirely truthful posts that were censored just because you evil scumbags on the Left hate teh truth?
Okay Greg, that’s nice. Now show me where the FBI demanded, under threat of penalty, that Twitter undertake the actions it took. Requests, not demands. In other words, not illegal. Back out here in the real world, the government exercised 1A rights, and none were ever censored. So says Federal judges who, unlike Greg, have the ability to comprehend the law.
Court Makes It Clear: Government Submissions To Twitter Flagging Program Do Not Violate The 1st Amendment
https://www.techdirt.com/2023/03/15/court-makes-it-clear-government-submissions-to-twitter-flagging-program-do-not-violate-the-1st-amendment/
Rich said...
"Okay Greg, that’s nice. Now show me where the FBI demanded, under threat of penalty, that Twitter undertake the actions it took."
The overwhelming police power of the state. For which you have no recourse. All government is force. What were they supposed to do in the face of that? Either comply or have every acronym agency triapse through your business finding fault with every tiddle and jot.
How is the FBI justified in doing this?
Twitter Admits in Court Filing: Elon Musk Is Simply Wrong About Government Interference At Twitter
https://www.techdirt.com/2023/06/05/twitter-admits-in-court-filing-elon-musk-is-simply-wrong-about-government-interference-at-twitter/
/“To date, not a single document revealed has shown what people now falsely believe: that the US government and Twitter were working together to “censor” people based on their political viewpoints. Literally none of that has been shown at all.”/
"Okay Greg, that’s nice. Now show me where the FBI demanded, under threat of penalty, that Twitter undertake the actions it took. Requests, not demands."
You are so naive. Or disingenuous.
https://ago.mo.gov/wp-content/uploads/missouri-v-biden-ruling.pdf
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court will not be reviewing everything about those laws. They agreed only to grant cert on the first two questions, about moderation restrictions and the requirement to explain every moderation decision, but not the transparency mandate part or the question about viewpoint discrimination. Here’s the list of questions that they were asked to review, and you can see that they’re skipping over the last two.
/“Questions Presented
These cases concern laws enacted by Florida and Texas to regulate major social media platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and X (formerly known as Twitter). The two laws differ in some respects, but both restrict platforms' ability to engage in content moderation by removing, editing, or arranging user-generated content; require platforms to provide individualized explanations for certain forms of content moderation; and require general disclosures about platforms' content-
moderation practices.
The questions presented are:
1. Whether the laws' content-moderation restrictions comply with the First Amendment.
2. Whether the laws' individualized-explanation requirements comply with the First Amendment.
3. Whether the laws' general-disclosure provisions comply with the First Amendment.
4. Whether the laws violate the First Amendment because they were motivated by viewpoint discrimination.”/
That’s too bad, because, as the transparency parts are actually really important. And leaving those in place will lead to real mischief. Of course, the Supreme Court can only avoid this issue for so long. The decision not to hear the transparency parts seems like another issue that the Supreme Court is just punting on (as it does), that it will have to deal with later….
Rich
The FBI paid Twitter for information on its users.
Why were the majority of requests about conservative users? What compelling interest does the government have to interfere with social media?
No, The FBI Is NOT ‘Paying Twitter To Censor’
https://www.techdirt.com/2022/12/20/no-the-fbi-is-not-paying-twitter-to-censor/
/“What the files show is that the FBI would occasionally (not very often, frankly) use reporting tools to alert Twitter to accounts that potentially violated Twitter’s rules. When the FBI did so, it was pretty clear that it was just flagging these accounts for Twitter to review, and had no expectation that the company would or would not do anything about it. In fact, they are explicit in their email that the accounts “may potentially constitute violations of Twitter’s Terms of Service” and that Twitter can take “any action or inaction deemed appropriate within Twitter policy.”/
Rich said...
Okay Greg, that’s nice. Now show me where the FBI demanded, under threat of penalty, that Twitter undertake the actions it took.
Does it ever bother you to be a dishonest lying sack of shit, Rich?
The gov't doesn't have to "demand" for it to be a violation of the First Amendment.
The FBI agents, having received the Hunter Biden laptop and knowing it revealed Joe Biden's corruption, spent the year grooming social media companies, "warning" them that "Russian disinformation" might come out. And then when the laptop got released, they went to those companies and lied, telling them that it was "Russian disinformation" when they KNEW if was legit.
But you're ok with that, because you are worthless scum
Rich said...
Court Makes It Clear: Government Submissions To Twitter Flagging Program Do Not Violate The 1st Amendment
https://www.techdirt.com/2023/03/15/court-makes-it-clear-government-submissions-to-twitter-flagging-program-do-not-violate-the-1st-amendment/
Dishonest left wing scumbags on the 9th Circus make it "clear": it's not a crime when their side does it.
#FIFY
Oh, Rich, if you think that SCOTUS is limited inits ruling based on the questions they decided to have argued, you're delusional, as well as dishonest.
The thing you're stupidly missing is that right now SCOTUS is also looking at the Biden Admin's appeal to the weak 5th Circuit ruling that they're not allowed to demand social media companies censor their users. If you think that's not going to be addressed during arguments on the FL / TX case, well, then, you're just as stupid as I think you are
Greg is reduced to using ad hominem...
Rich is reduced to making such stupidly worthless "arguments" that' there's nothing to actually respond to
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा