Court Ignores That Texas Social Media Censorship Law Was Blocked As Unconstitutional: Orders Meta To Reinstate Account
from the [gestures-to-lowest-common-denominator]-who-among-us dept
Remember how Texas passed a social media content moderation law which was then blocked as unconstitutional by a federal court? Apparently people in Texas remember the passing of the law, but not the fact that it was blocked. Incredibly, this includes a judge as well.
If it had been allowed to be come law, Texas’ new, batshit insane “social media censorship” law would have allowed all sorts of bizarre claims to be made in court and greatly increased the odds even the most ridiculous of complaints will result in at least a temporary win for aggrieved plaintiffs. But, because it seems that everyone in a Texas court ignored the fact that the law has been blocked, we get to see how it all would have played out otherwise.
Welcome to the litigation party, Trump acolyte and would-be gubernatorial hopeful, Chad Prather. “Chad Whom?,” I hear you legitimately asking. Well, according to this Wikipedia article, Prather is “an American conservative political commentator, comedian and internet personality.” Whew.
He’s also attempting to unseat the current Texas governor, Greg Abbott — who is pretty much the same guy Prather is, only without the “comedian and internet personality” bio. Abbott is also a Trump acolyte and another fine argument for returning Texas to Mexico. Abbott has his own problems with so-called social media “censorship.” He has gone after Google and approved unconstitutional laws attempting to undermine Section 230 immunity and fully supports similar efforts proposed by others as idiotic and short-sighted as he is.
Chad Prather apparently feels Abbott is operating too far to the left, considering the governor is angling for a Facebook data center while spending a great deal of his ill-spent time seeking to undermine the legal protections that give idiots like Governor Abbott a sizable presence on sizable social media platforms.
Prather is now suing Facebook for suspending his account, under this new law (which, I remind you, has already been deemed unconstitutional and blocked from being put into effect) something he claims in a series of conclusory statements is obviously some sort of conspiracy between Meta and Governor Abbott to derail his attempt to unseat Abbott.
Thanks to Courthouse News Service — which always posts copies of legal documents it covers — we can read the inadvertently hilarious lawsuit [PDF] Prather has filed in a Texas county court. There are ways to be taken semi-seriously. And then there is what Prather has chosen to do: a series of conclusory statements tossed into a county court in hopes of using Texas’ shitty (again, already blocked as unconstitutional) new social media law to dodge well-settled moderation issues that have generated plenty of precedent in federal courts. That the law was blocked before it went into effect apparently doesn’t seem to matter to anyone involved in this lawsuit, which is just a little bit strange.
Let’s first take a look at the claims:
On February 21, 2022, just 8 days before the Election, Defendant suspended Prather from its Facebook social media platform for at least 7 days.
Facebook’s action against Prather severely inhibits his ability to communicate with potential voters and will cause immediate and irreparable harm by damaging his chances at winning the Election. There is no available remedy at law to Plaintiff for this interference with his ability to effectively campaign through social media.
Sure, there is. There are plenty of “available remedies,” starting with the inexplicably unpopular “more speech.” The plaintiff runs his own website. He also has apparently uninterrupted access to Parler, Twitter, and Instagram. Nevertheless, Prather insists this temporary inconvenience is not only actionable, but the direct result of collusion between Facebook and the state’s current governor:
It is likely no coincidence that Facebook chose to censor Prather so close to this hotly contested Election against Gov. Abbott. While publicly speaking out against censorship on social media, Gov. Abbott has been privately negotiating a deal with Facebook to bring the company’s new data center to Texas.
Is it likely, though? Prather has added communications between the governor and Facebook about the data center to his lawsuit (as exhibits), but fails to explain how this led Facebook to target his page for suspension. It certainly isn’t collusion. Prather doesn’t even register on the public’s radar, according to recent polls. Also, Prather seems to ignore that Gov. Abbott was a vocal supporter of this (unconstitutional and blocked by the courts) law that Prather is now trying to use… to claim that he was blocked to protect Gov. Abbott. Which, by itself should raise all sorts of questions.
Nonetheless, Prather insists he’s been beset upon all sides by powerful enemies.
The implications of this letter and the timing of Facebook’s censorship of Chad Prather should shock the conscience of this Court. Prather has a massive following on Facebook and has been a vocal critic of Gov. Abbott on his social media. It appears Facebook has likely censored a highly popular grassroots candidate for governor running against Gov. Abbott for the purpose of shoring up Abbott’s chances of winning the primary in order to protect Facebook’s pending deal with Gov. Abbott.
In other words, a California-based social media platform is actively interfering in the Texas gubernatorial elections to tip the scales in favor of the sitting governor of Texas who has just signed a law targeting them, so that he can give them a sweetheart business deal using taxpayer money. Sure. Uh huh. Makes sense.
Even if we assume these statements to be true (and we certainly don’t), what’s actionable here? Normally nothing would be. And here, nothing should be because the courts already blocked this law from going into effect. But Prather is trying to use the same law passed by the governor he now claims is colluding against him to bring this lawsuit against Facebook. This stupid law allows Texas residents to bring this completely stupid cause of action. Or it would if a court hadn’t blocked it. But, again, everyone seems to be ignoring that kind of important point.
Declaratory Relief for Social Media Censorship
And these are the sort of lawsuits this law would encourage, something Governor Abbott may come to regret (if the law actually is allowed to go into effect). After all, the law allows pretty much anyone to sue a social media service over any form of moderation they experience.
CPRC § 143A.002 provides: “(a) a 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: (1) the viewpoint of the user or another person; (2) the viewpoint represented in the user’s expression or another person’s expression; or (3) a user’s geographic location in this state or any part of this state.”
According to Prather’s filing, he was suspended over a direct message that was presumably reported as harassing by the recipient. That’s all it takes to trigger a lawsuit under Texas’ social media law. However, clearing this extremely low bar is not the same as credibly alleging collusion between the governor and Meta, which Prather has done here.
And it appears the court may have already sided with Prather, at least temporarily even though this law never went into effect. Somehow, he has already secured a temporary restraining order [PDF] that tells Facebook to reinstate his account. The judge cites the new social media law even though the federal court already enjoined it as unconstitutional. It is unclear how this is even possible, though Prather and his lawyer, Paul Davis, who has made quite the name for himself as an insurrectionist lawyer who tried to sue to undo the entire 2020 Presidential election, are celebrating. I mean, to their credit, it is quite a feat to get an unconstitutional prior restraint ruling issued on a law that has already been declared unconstitutional and enjoined from being put into effect. So, kudos?
The garbage law has allowed a ridiculous person to force a private company to bend to his wishes — even though the law was not allowed to go into effect because of its unconstitutional nature. And Abbott’s hypocritical support of a law that undermines his belief the free market should not be fucked with has resulted in one of his political challengers having his account reinstated to be used as a megaphone to tout a lawsuit claiming the governor is in bed with Facebook. There are no winners here, just a bunch of losers who can’t handle being told to shut up by the free services they exploit.
Filed Under: 1st amendment, chad prather, content moderation, greg abbott, hb 20, hb20, paul davis, prior restraint, social media, temporary restraining order, texas
Companies: facebook, meta
Comments on “Court Ignores That Texas Social Media Censorship Law Was Blocked As Unconstitutional: Orders Meta To Reinstate Account”
Apparently, some people need a lesson.
The First Amendment protects your rights to speak freely and associate with whomever you want. It doesn’t give you the right to make others listen. It doesn’t give you the right to make others give you access to an audience. And it doesn’t give you the right to make a personal soapbox out of private property you don’t own. Nobody is entitled to a platform or an audience at the expense of someone else.
Re:
It’s strange indeed how so often those screaming about how important and sacred the first amendment is are the ones who show the most contempt for it.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Tought @%^
The moment you start making contracts you submit to contract law. Tough @@#%.
Mike Tim and the rest of Big Tech wanted their TOS be to considered legal contracts but they did not want the down side of that legal recognition. And they are fighting it tooth and nail. And thankfully losing.
Re: Re: Re: Contract
Well, a Facebook user has to agree to their terms of service, which allows Facebook to terminate their account for amongst other things, that which Facebook deems offensive.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2 Agian not Legal
“that which Facebook deems offensive”
Again that is completely ambiguous. Its not a legal contract.
Re: Re: Re:3
If it’s not a legal contract, then Facebook has no legal obligations to provide service, either.
Re: Re: Re:
Yes or no, Cholera: Do you believe the government should have the legal right to compel any privately owned interactive web service into hosting legally protected speech that the owners/operators of said service don’t want to host?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2 Extrapolation to Absurdity
Extrapolation to Absurdity
The government has every legal right to compel the provider of any service that has a contract with any customer to have specific contract language and procedures to cure the contract.
No ambiguity, no I can remove you when ever I damn well feel like it no recourse. You want the legal protections of a contract you accept the legal rules of a contract manchild.
Re: Re: Re:3 Laws
As Facebook is more of a club than a phone service, it can use the same rules as clubs, if the management do not like your face or behavior, out you go.
Re: Re: Re:
This has nothing to do with contracts. No one involved is claiming a contract violation here, so the point is moot. It’s also wrong, but still moot.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Nobody is Entilted
Nobody is entitled but the law sure a hell can make you. Cable carriers still complain about being forced to carry lease access, tough $%@%.
Re: Re:
How is it that somebody with your impeccable intellectual credentials, four degrees and all, does even understand the fundamental differences between a cable “carrier” and a social media platform.
Everyday you come here, the statements you make prove how much of an idiot you actually are!
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re: Don't Give a #$^
I dont care if the government choses to regulate cable in the public interest it can regulate social media in the public interest.
You can try and argue that the shouldn’t but its already decided that they can.
Re: Re: Re:2 You need to answer a few questions.
Who should regulate speech on social media? How should they define, social media for the sake of regulating it? Who should have the absolute final say in re: what legally protected speech can and cannot be posted on social media? What happens when government administrations change and their ideas on those restrictions also change? How would such regulations avoid the appearance of partisanship, especially when one political party is largely connected to/responsible for much of the speech that current social media TOS agreements tend to ban (e.g., racism, sexism, homo- and transphobia)? And how would any of your proposed regulations not run afoul of the First Amendment’s protections against government intrusion in the publication and dissemination of legally protected speech?
If you’re going to argue that the government should unilaterally control the flow of speech on social interaction networks, you need to answer all of those questions.
Well at least they are consistent in texas
Law is passed despite being blatantly unconstitutional.
Ruling is made using the law despite the fact it’s in limbo and not currently in effect.
The judge’s ruling may be absurd and just begging to be benchslapped from a higher court but it does at least fit the theme of the law in question, namely that laws and limits are for other people to deal with.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Not Absurd at All
Not absurd at all. Injunctions are given all the time as a laws are sitting in limbo in the appeals process. The idea is not to do any damage while the issue is working its way thought the courts. You might as well call it a “Timeout”
Re: Re:
Except stopping Facebook from exercising its rights to moderate its private platform is damage, the same as it would be damaging for the state to demand you let a man come into your home to say things you don’t approve of when he has no property rights to be there.
Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, I demand that the state let me into Chozen’s home to say mean things about his family. If he thinks Facebook should be forced to host someone’s speech, I think he should be forced to host my speech about his mother’s alleged sexual proclivites.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re: Care to Quntify This Damage
Do you care to quantify this damage? That’s the hard thing about law. You think you have a case but often its really hard to prove damages.
Re: Re: Re:2 Okay, I’ll bite this one.
Meta being barred from moderating Facebook as it sees fit would prevent Meta from moderating content it doesn’t want to host. That would associate such content with Meta/Facebook, which could have a negative impact on its reputation (and therefore its business) depending on how negatively people think of the content in question. Being unable to ban people for posting such content would also cause similar damage as well. And all of this would run afoul of the First Amendment’s protections against forced association, which means Meta would spend plenty of money to fight against a blatantly unconstitutional law/statute/court ruling that it shouldn’t have to fight.
Re: Re: Re:2
Anyone with even a cursory amount of legal knowledge would know that infringement of constitutionally-protected rights is harm.
Which is why you don’t.
Re: Re:
An injunction that restricts free speech needs—at a minimum—to be based on a lawsuit with a decent chance of success. Heck, any injunction needs to show some reasonable chance of success. A lawsuit premised entirely upon a law that has been enjoined from taking effect is necessarily unlikely to succeed. Even if the district court’s ruling gets overturned and the law takes effect, that won’t change the fact that that law was not in effect when the lawsuit was actually filed.
Re:
Have to say, though, that this is a prime example that “Courts do not remove laws from the books”. The TRO will get slapped down the moment facebook ^H^H^HMeta points out that the law was deemed unconstitutional, but … that will take an appeal, or more likely just the next court appearance. And meanwhile, the account is active for a little longer. Hope the extra time was worth it, Prather.
Re:
I had a round with the lawyer on twitter, The lawyer got through a loophole, there’s an individual right to sue in the TX law, and the injunction staying the law only applies to the TX AG. The law probably willl be fully struck down, and his case nerfed, but for the moment, he’s got a win of sorts.
"an American conservative political commentator, comedian"
Talk about redundancy.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
WOOT WOOT
Woot woot score one for basic contract law Trumping silicone valley make up your own rules wishful thinking!
OMG if silicone valley has to follow basic contract law what ever will they do. People like Mike and Tim might have to get real jobs lol.
Re:
I do believe the “contract” you agree to boils down to “You can say what you want, but these are our servers and if we don’t like what you say we can and will remove your privilege of using them.”
Please remeber that, Meta is giving you the privilege of using their service to exercise your right to free speech. There is noting in there that says they can’t take away that privilege.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
They are my power lines I cant do what every I want with them. When I’m writing a service agreement(contract) there are oodles and oodles of local, state, and federal law I have to comply with such that my contract is legal.
In big tech … @#%^ … its the wild wild west. They do what ever they want no law or regulations at all. Its a lawless joke.
What the Florida and Texas law do is just force Big Tech to just abide by what are some basic contract law just about every other field has to abide by. Your contract has to be specific, you have to have procedures to cure the contract etc.
The public has a valid public interest in setting some ground rules on Big Tech terms of service contracts. With the current Jerry Springer “I do what I want” terms of service contracts the courts get bogged down with cases.
Guys like Mike wanted their TOS to be treated like legal contracts. Well that is good and bad. The bad is some @#%ing ground rules come with it.
Re: contract law?
Woot woot score one for basic contract law
The only “contract” here is that Facebook says it can remove you for any reason. This VIOLATES that contract and VIOLATES private property rights, not to mention the 1st Amendment’s restriction against prior restraint. So, no, you’re wrong. Again.
It’s kinda a pattern with you and you should maybe stop it.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: I Cant Do That Mike
I cant do that mike. I cant write a contract that says “it can remove you for any reason.” My reasons have to be specific. Its required by law. I’m also required by law to have procedure to cure in my contracts. What makes you so special Mike?
Re: Re: Re:
I suspect that the reason you can’t “write a contract that says “it can remove you for any reason”” is not because of legal restrictions, but because of basic competence limitations.
Re: Re: Re:
Why are you practicing law without a license, Chozen? Your false information could get people sued.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2 Mike Too
Yeah that’s what Mike does for a living. Difference is when I write a service agreement I don’t do it by myself. I work wit ha regulatory lawyer.
Re: Re: Re:3
I feel bad for your lawyer.
Re: Re: Re:
I cant do that mike. I cant write a contract that says “it can remove you for any reason.”
Hire better lawyers, dude. You sure can. I’m sorry that a lot of people have told you stupid stuff, and you’re apparently too fucking dumb to know better. But that’s on you.
Re: Re: Re:
What makes him so special is that he’s providing a platform for you, that you are using without providing renumeration for his services. The use of the platform and your ability to post on it is completely optional for both parties. In addition, since the nature of the platform is -speech- rather than the provision of goods and services, the government is forbidden by the fist Admendment in regulating it, except in very narrow ways.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Manchild
The pattern is Manchild Mike thinks the basic rules shouldn’t apply to him.
Re: Re: Re:
And you think the First Amendment shouldn’t apply to interactive web services, so you’re doubly wrong. Go back to arguing about ivermectin, jackass.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2 Then Dont Have a Contrat
Then don’t have a contract. The moment you engage in a legal contract you accept all legal restrictions that come with contract law.
Mike and Tim like all BigTech grifters want to have their cake and eat it too. They want TOS that are legal contracts but exempt from basic contract law. Its a win win for them.
Re: Re: Re:3
Yes or no: Do you think the law should make Facebook host white supremacist propaganda even if Facebook doesn’t want to host it?
Re: Re: Re:3
Then don’t have a contract. The moment you engage in a legal contract you accept all legal restrictions that come with contract law.
Given that Facebook’s TOS is functionally no different than Parler, Gettr, Truth Social, or FrankSpeech, can you point to the legal restrictions that all of them are supposedly violating?
And I’d ask that you refrain from answering by just making shit up.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4 Thats the Issue Here
“Given that Facebook’s TOS is functionally no different than Parler, Gettr, Truth Social, or FrankSpeech, can you point to the legal restrictions that all of them are supposedly violating?”
Thats the issue here. States are starting to write code for Social Media contracts just as I have to follow state and local code on electrical service contracts.
Mike is screaming ‘I know my rights I know my rights’ yes Mike you have rights right up until you star writing contracts once you make a legal contract that state has a compelling public interest in controlling how that contract is written because the state bears the cost of any future litigation.
Re: Re: Re:5
Yes or no, Chipotle: Do you believe the government should legally force Truth Social to host anti-Trump speech even though that service would likely ban people for posting such content?
If your answer is “no”: What makes that situation any different than the government trying to force Facebook into carrying a specific person’s speech other than “Facebook big”?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6 No Moral Arguemnts
I don’t care about moral arguments. What the government should do and what the government can do are two separate things.
The government can and does force various entities to host content that they don’t agree with. The communications act of 1934 gives the feds and states regulatory control over all communication wired and/or wireless. It has exceptional breadth and has been found constitutional on multiple occasions.
Should is another question. But Im not interested in should.
Re: Re: Re:7
Of course you’re not. You don’t want to think about how the same regulations you want to thrust upon Twitter and Facebook would also be used against right-wing social interaction networks like Parler and Truth Social or smaller SINs such as Mastodon instances. You don’t want to answer the question because you know that doing so opens up a whole host of other questions—ones that you are either too afraid or too ignorant to answer.
I don’t think highly of Parler or T.S or any other right-wing social media service; if they all disappeared overnight, I wouldn’t shed a single tear. But while they’re still up and running, I believe they should have every right to control what speech they will and will not host on their property (read: servers), even if that speech offends or disgusts me.
I’m more than willing to stand up for the First Amendment rights of people/entities I despise. What’s your excuse for being unable to do the same?
Re: Re: Re:7
sigh
What Chozen is too ignorant to understand here, and too dimwitted to investigate, is that in the VERY RARE circumstances where the courts have allowed Congress or states to institute regulatory controls over communications, they are clearly laid out and have to pass Constitutional scrutiny.
Texas’ law does not meet that bar by any standard, which is why it was thrown out.
Again, Chozen is too ignorant, and too stupid to understand what he doesn’t know.
Chozen: stop spreading stupidly wrong statements on my site.
Re: Re: Re:5
Mike is screaming ‘I know my rights I know my rights’ yes Mike you have rights right up until you star writing contracts once you make a legal contract that state has a compelling public interest in controlling how that contract is written because the state bears the cost of any future litigation.
As per usual, Chozen is too stupid to know how far wrong he is. Yes, governments can demand specific rules within contracts, but they CANNOT do that as pertains to speech, due to the 1st Amendment. And the test to get around the 1st Amendment is not, as he ridiculously implies, “a compelling public interest.” A compelling public interest does not get you around the 1st Amendment. Any decently competent lawyer would tell you that.
I know this because I actually understand the law. Chozen does not because Chozen is a ignorant child pretending to be smart.
Re: Re: Re:6 Hey now!
That’s an insult to actual children.
Re: Re: Re:6
Ok, so I’m just wondering, and I’m not justifying the outcome, but is it possible that despite obviously insufficient evidence, that the judge is relying more on the idea that the governor ordered the account blocked in his capacity as government and this a First Amendment violation, rather than reliance on the blocked law. I don’t see any commentary in the order that clarifies how the judge determined his ruling. If the judge took their claims at face value, it seems more like laziness than straight up incompetence of relying on a law ruled unconstitutional, though that too could just be laziness as well. The judges name doesn’t ring any bells to me, but maybe someone else is familiar with other rulings that might indicate whether he’s got his shit together.
Re: Re: Re:7
If that were the case then the proper target for the lawsuit would have been the governor rather than the platform, and even if then while there would be grounds to punish the governor there still wouldn’t be grounds to force the platform to reverse their decision.
Re: Re: Re:8
Thank you, that makes sense.
Re: Re: Re: Bitch please
“Manchild Mike”
And all you’ve got left is not particularly creative instincts. This is just embarrassing… for you.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
Mike’s a manchild. Its clear in his writing. Doesn’t understand contract law. Doesn’t understand regulatory law. He has lived in this bubble for so many years he just believes so many things that are so far outside the norms that go on in BigTech are actually normal.
He doesn’t think these rules a bad he just moans and complains about the rules being applied to him. Thats a classic manchild.
Re: Re: Re:3
…says the dude who apparently wants to break the skull of anyone who dares to insult him in even the mildest possible way.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
‘A harmless man is not a good man. A good man is a very dangerous man who has that under voluntary control’
I’m sorry you are not a man.
Re: Re: Re:5
You believe manliness is directly connected to, or perhaps solely made up of, violent tendencies and the inability to control such impulses in the face of even the mildest of insults. I’m sorry you’re a sociopathic nihilist deathseeker, but I can’t fix your shit for you, Chi-Chi.
Re: Re: Re:5
I’m sorry, but you are not showing yourself to be a good man: You are ready to throw down over the smallest slight.
Please be better and rein in your passions better.
Re: Re: Re:5
You know, quoting Jordan B Peterson without actually understanding what he meant is some funny shit, especially in the way you did it.
Re: Re: Re:6
Quoting Jordan Peterson in any context is hilarious in its own way.
Re: Re: Re:6
I love Jordan B. Peterson. I mean before he flipped out.
Re: Re: Re:5
Spoken like a true beta cuck.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re Bubble
W”ho is living in a small bubble? Lets put it this way, if your opinions were as popular ans important as you think that they should be, Mike and many of the commenters here would be the ones that could not use Facebook. The big social media sites moderate to suite and keep the largest audience, and that means Fascists and racists etc. get banned, which are you?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4 Mike's Misfits lol
Mike and his misfits are like 6 people. I could give 2 @#% less what their collective half a brain thinks.
Re: Re: Re:5
And yet, here you are.
Re: Re: Re:5
Which is why you keep posting here. Makes perfect sense, genius.
Re: Re: Re:3
That’s classic projection.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: contract law?
That sure doesn’t sound like “good faith moderation”. I can’t say what will happen with this texas law, but Facebook sure isn’t protected by section 230. Let the court case proceed.
Re: Re: Re:
Facebook is protected by 230, though. Its Terms of Service say that it can ban an account for basically any reason that isn’t covered by anti-discrimination laws. It says that to make sure people who play “find the loophole in the rules” can be banned when they’re being shitheads by violating the spirit of the TOS.
Yes or no, Kabal: Do you believe the government should have the legal right to compel any privately owned interactive web service into hosting legally protected speech that the owners/operators of said service don’t want to host?
Re: Re: Re:
Top of your class at Twitter University School of Law?
Re: Re: Re:2 A joke? I'll steal it! NO ONE WILL EVER KNOW!
Nah, he got his learnin’ on at Parler University—you know, good ol’ P.U.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re
Or the Trump school of law, where what you want overrides what the law actually says.
Re: Re: Re:
That sure doesn’t sound like “good faith moderation”.
That only matters if you’re so stupid you think that they can only moderate based on 230(c)(2). But, as we’ve explained to you over and over and over again that’s false.
So why do you insist it’s true.
Facebook sure isn’t protected by section 230.
Yes it is, you very, very silly person.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2 Contracts
You are absolutely correct its perfectly legal for them to have contracts with customers but those contracts have to follow basic contract law. Which you have proven is something you know zero about.
‘Oh social media TOS have to be ambiguous because bad faith actors will take advantage of specificity.’
NO @#$%!!! You think that’s an issue just for you. Yeah bad faith actors take advantage of specificity in contracts all the time. Welcome to the party pal!
I saw a contractor who didn’t completely clear an easement he was contracted to clear because some of the pine trees were a different species than the pines specified in the contract.
You are the ones who wanted TOS to be legal contracts live with the consequences manchild!
Re: Re: Re:3
Chozen, meet Dunning–Kruger. Dunning–Kruger meet Chozen!
When somebody doesn’t even know the simple difference between a public house and public housing, it’s hard to take anything you say as being anything other than a big stinking pile of 💩💩💩
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
Even if you were correct why the $#&^ does it matter. Are you that #@%ing petty?
How pathetic are you. That person was wrong on a single fact a year ago.
I get mike’s misfits little game.
Go piss up a rope!
Re: Re: Re:5
…says the dude who literally believes violent (and possibly lethal) assault is a proper response to an insult.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6 Oh Ye of Little Knowledge
Telling someone that they would get a mudhole stomped in their ass in real life is not resorting to violence. Its reminding the coward that they are really a coward and would never do that in real life.
Now there are literally hundreds if not thousands of papers and articles on the importance of the implicit threat of violence in a polite society. That is why in real life you Stephen don’t go up to the biggest guy in the bar and shout Boi in his face but will do it on the internet. Its the absence of the implicit threat of violence that emboldens you. But that isn’t the topic here coward.
Re: Re: Re:7
That you think violence is a proper response to speech you don’t like is telling.
No, I don’t do it for three reasons:
And the idea of someone using violence to answer an insult apparently gets you sexually aroused.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:8 Now now…
Some people like a bit of BDSM…
Nothing wrong with that, when in proper locals.
Re: Re: Re:7 Spoken like a true coward
“Telling someone that they would get a mudhole stomped in their ass in real life is not resorting to violence. Its reminding the coward that they are really a coward and would never do that in real life.=
How tiny is your penis?
Re: Re: Re:5 Has a ring to it
I dub thee Crybaby Chozen!
Re: Re: Re:3
But you said in this same comments section that the ambiguity in those clauses makes it “not a legal contract”. And yes, we can all see that comment if we un-hide it. You said it; you can’t unsay it!
Yes or no: Is Facebook’s Terms of Service a legal contract? You can’t argue that it both is and isn’t a legal contract based on whichever one suits your (weak-ass) argument of the moment. Open Schrödinger’s box already.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4 NO!
NO facebook’s contracts are not legal contracts but it takes a judge in Northern California to rule as such. BitTech TOS aren’t worth the paper they are printed on and more and more BitTech is losing in court because of that. What the states want to do is specifically codify the rules for social media contracts be in big tech TOS just like they do in numerous other industries.
The state bears the cost for litigation so the state has a valid public interest in setting the ground rules for contracts within their state in any industry.
What Mike Manchild doesn’t get because he lives in the Sand Box of BigTech is this is normal in most other industries. BigTech and social media are the exception.
Re: Re: Re:5
Then your argument is worthless and you can kiss my pale white ass. The government can’t, and shouldn’t have the right to, force any social media company to host all legally protected speech. You have yet to make a compelling argument to the contrary—as have your comrades-in-arms (e.g., Koby). You’ll never be able to make that argument without sounding like an authoritarian who believes the government should control the entire Internet.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6 The Government Already Does
Again the government already does so I don’t get this argument. You are almost a century late to the party.
Re: Re: Re:7 We know
“ I don’t get this argument.”
So close yet so far away
Re: Re: Re:3
You are absolutely correct its perfectly legal for them to have contracts with customers but those contracts have to follow basic contract law.
What “basic contract law” overrides the 1st Amendment, Chozen?
I’ll wait.
Oh fuck it, no I won’t: the answer is none. That’s why this law was tossed out as unconstitutional. You don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about and each time you try to dig in deeper you only display how profoundly stupid and uninformed you are.
Re: Re: Re:4 You Can Agree to Waive Some Rights
Pretty much any contract (sometimes called ``private law”) can do that.
We can have a non-disclosure agreement. In those, we waive our 1A rights to expound on certain things. Such agreements are frequently upheld.
We can have an endorsement agreement, wherein one of us agrees to praise only the other’s products or services and not a competitor’s. For instance, you can agree to publicly endorse only Lucky Strike cigarettes, and not to praise any other brand, despite the fact that the 1A would allow you to praise any brand of your choosing.
Less formally, as a condition of membership in your local KKK chapter, you can agree not to speak in favor of integration. The 1A would otherwise permit such political speech, but you agree not to do so in return for the perceived benefits of membership.
You could even agree not to say [censored] or even [bleep] in order to be permitted to post on a family-oriented message board. But for that agreement, you could say those rude words, and indeed you might still say those words outside of the family-oriented message board.
Re: Re: Re:5
Pretty much any contract (sometimes called “private law”) can do that.
No, that’s not what we were discussing. Yes, through a contract one can waive a right, but he was saying that “contract law” (not contracts) can require companies to give up their rights. He’s saying that governments can force companies to give up their rights because of how they write their contracts.
The rest of your comment is talking about the entirely unrelated point of how you can waive your rights in a contract. That’s not what we were discussing.
Re: Re: Re:5 Basic contract law?
Tanner, I thought you were better than that. Here, let me show you where you got off the beaten path:
The fact is, what you call a “private law” is between two private entities, and not between any of them and the government in general. And in case you’ve forgotten, 1A concerns and covers the government, and only the government (at any level). This is so well tested and settled that it’s becoming shopworn to have to repeat it.
Essentially, statutory law boils down to one thing: both parties to an agreement (or contract, if you wish) must gain some viable benefit, or said agreement may be declared null and void by a court, if suit is brought by a wronged party. That’s it, period. Everything else you see surrounding such laws is just so much are window dressing, elucidating what society considers to be one or more unfair business practices.
From that, we jump to contracts in general. At this point, most of us would ask you to provide proof that someone entered into a contract that specifically and explicitly told him/her that he cannot speak his mind openly in public. I’ll go you one better: no one, especially no lawyer, has ever written such a contract – they know it wouldn’t stand up in court. What you went on about vis-a-vis non-disclosure, that’s, again, between two private parties. If I choose to disobey the condition of the contract, and rat you out for dumping chemicals into the local river, you can’t prevent me from doing so. What our agreement said was the if I did rat you out, then you can come after me for damages you suffer, either directly or indirectly, etc. And that’s something a court would have to seriously consider before rendering a verdict as to whether you deserve those damages, when in fact your dumping was against other laws in the first place.
Now, do you understand the differences, given this explanation? I hope so, because you have participated here for awhile now, and you usually don’t exhibit such a large deficiency in your critical thinking.
Re: Re: Re:6
Let me add one more example. As I was writing the above, I recalled Ed Snowden. He suffered an absolute shitshow of oppression, we’re all agreed on that score. But that wasn’t because he broke an agreement, but because, in the view of the government, he committed a treasonous act (revealing secrets to an enemy). Notice that the government never said that he could not speak his mind, ala as permitted by 1A, they knew better. For them, it was enough to call him a traitor, and try to bring him to justice via that route.
While I never saw his contract with the NSA, I’d bet a lot that it said “You agree not to reveal secrets of a National Security nature to anyone not authorized to receive them”, yadda yadda, etc. That just isn’t the same as “You will shut up and never speak your mind, neither while you work here, nor forever afterwards”. – that would be a direct contravention of 1A, because even though the government is acting in the capacity of an employer, it’s still the government. Neither congress or The Supremes have ever said that there’s a distinction between the two capacities.
Re: Re: Re:6 Contracting Away First Amendment
Not a problem. Totten v. United States, 92 U.S. 105 (1875). Good discussion on the topic of voluntariness of waiver, Sambo’s Restaurants v. City of Ann Arbor, 663 F.2d 686 (US 6th Cir.)
Here in Florida, companies and governments enter into non-disclosure agreements as well. As a condition of participating in some bid processes, entitles agree that some information will be secret. In Silver Express, the bidders all agreed not to disclose outside of the private session.
The ``floating billboard” company dealing with the count has expressly agreed to waive the rights to say certain things. The county beach administration probably insisted on that, but in any case it is in the agreement as presented for approval.
Since the original question was phrased as whether a contract could override First Amendment rights, I think my original response was on point. You can agree to waive rights, whether dealing with private entities or with the government.
(preview still borken)
Re: Re: Re:7
There are instances where you can’t pass on information due to national security reasons for example, which absolutely infringes on a persons 1st amendment rights but there’s good(?) reasons for that were we try to balance the harm if the information is made public vs the 1A harm the person suffers.
Of course, you can also voluntarily waive some of your 1A rights in regards to specific information which you are contractually obligated to keep confidential.
But the argument was that a contract can force a person or company to give up their constitutional rights, not waive. The only time a contract can force something is when it wasn’t a mutual agreement to begin with, and that in itself implies some rather unsavory things happened for the contract to be signed at all which put its legality in doubt.
Re:
Why are you still bitching?
Now with all the alt-right social media sites, certainly NOW you can see the short-sightedness of what you want, no?
You aren’t that obtuse, are you?
Corruption in public office
Actions like this are some of the biggest means by which rule of law, the independence of the judiciary and the basic competence of politicians.
After all, competent politicians wouldn’t put incompetent’s judges in office, or allow them to continue.
As for this judge, attempting to enforce an action using a law that was already deemed unconstitutional shows he’s not fit for office. The question is if it’s a case of him just not being mentally up to the task, if he’s letting his personal/political feelings impact his judgement, or if he’s literally been paid off to do this.
Unfortunately for him, he fucked up, BIGLY.
And it’s time that judges be held to task for their inability to discharge their offices honestly and independently. So he should maybe face a corruption in public office investigation, and be suspended from the bench while it’s ongoing.
Re:
Judges should able to be called to the stand. That would change a lot, I think.
Re: Re:
I mean, they sort of can, but not in a trial or hearing over which they are presiding. It’s sort of a practical thing. Imagine if some random plaintiff or defendant tries to hold up proceedings or be a nuisance for a case where they clearly should not prevail by constantly calling the judge to the stand for questioning.
Maybe if there was a serious question about the judge’s partiality or something, an appellate court might order a hearing in which the judge takes the stand to defend themself (and then be cross-examined), but even that should only happen in extraordinary cases. Like where a judge refuses to obey the orders of higher courts or refuses to rescue themself in a case where they clearly have a direct and vested interest or maybe even be a party or witness for the proceedings, or where both sides to the dispute agree that the judge is impartial and in the same way.
Interestingly, I’ve yet to see any news as to whether Facebook is going to comply with the order. If it were me, and if I had just about enough money in the bank to buy Texas outright, I’d tell the court “Nah, we don’t think so. We’ll wait for a real court that understands how to correctly apply the Constitution, if you don’t mind.”
Actually, the sad thing here is that at least one addlepated turkey thinks that elections are won or lost on Social Media. Imagine that, a method of tossing the whole Constitution in the trash, just because the Founding Fathers didn’t foresee the rise and subsequent fall of our education system. You know, the one where the loudest whiner gets the largest gold star on his forehead instead of being told to try harder next time.
ponders
I move we amend the phrase to now be…
STOP ELECTING STUPID PEOPLE!
Fun Fact: if a judge knowingly instructs anyone to break the law, all protections go out the window for that judge.
They can be held liable for civil AND criminal damages.
This is the same Chad Prather that openly campaigned to free Epstein (before he died) and has said Ghislaine maxwell should basically be above the law because she’s rich.
What are the chances mr Prather is a child rapist and is in Epsteins little book?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
New election, be failures
We once again return to election method and integrity.
The government really needs to reign in election processes.
We need a federal site for federal election discussions. And state sites for state level. And local for local.
We need fixed spending. And fixed access.
We need to cut out private money and private sites.
And gain control and moderation on PACs.
A candidate should not be FIRST turning to private businesses for a run for office!
Re:
I mean, I don’t have a problem with most of those things, but how are they related to anything being discussed here?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Oops
Seriously…!
At some point we need to wake up and realise private media is not the solution for public office!
Re:
I… don’t know anyone saying that private media is a “solution” for public office… whatever that means… Nor do I understand what that has to do with the article.
Re: Re: Re
If people weren’t using private companies for their election conversation they wouldn’t have to worry about being censored on those platforms they use.
Well there needs to be a government solution to election conversation.
Re: Re: Re:
Well… I suppose I’m not opposed to having a government-run platform for election stuff.
Re: Re: Re:2 Back in the day….
There was a time when every major paper carried what a candidate said. Not by mandate but by choice.
That’s been lost today.
When private entities exercise their rights by barring some politicking, it’s time to move it all off those platforms.
This goes hand and Al hand in the whole election funding argument and the CSPAN vs FNC/CNN debates and the PAC concerns
It’s past time to give some level and complete access to the political process in this country
Re: Re: Re:
They weren’t censored, they where told to fuck off from someone’s private property because they couldn’t behave in accordance to the owners rules.
Re: Re: Re:2 Semantics
If removed and banned from a platform it has been censored within the confines of that platform.
You can be censored locally without being censored globally.
Re: Re: Re: Government platform
The problem is, not a whole lot of people would go to a government-run election media site. The politicians are going to go where the people are. And the first amendment say the government cannot stop them from doing so. So building a new platform for candidates to address their potential voters would just be throwing money away.
Re: Re: Re:2 Eggs and baskets
That’s more chicken and egg.
I prefer ‘if you build it they will come’
Would it not be better to have a mandated real-time archive as well that is free from any private interests?
Re: Re: Re:3
Trump’s attempts at social networks have proven that to be false.
You mean require by law that candidates’ messages are put on that archive? No, I would say that type of forced speech would also be a first amendment issue. Though a government would presumably be free to host any public messages from politicians that it chose to, barring any copyright issues.
Re: Re: Re:4 More than now?
You mean require by law that candidates’ messages are put on that archive? No, I would say that type of forced speech would also be a first amendment issue. Though a government would presumably be free
They already do this for the President. That was the whole issue with Twitter and the NA preserving his tweets.
But it would be in everyone’s best interest, no, to have something like a CSPAN 4 for recording and transmitting candidate info and communication?
The use of private services puts political communication at the whims of a private moderator who can delete at will.
Chad Prather lawsuit
I love your take on this! 💯 percent correct. I mean, what choice did Greggie have? The race being so close and all. 🤣🤣🤣 These people are the biggest whiny candy-asses.
Um
Facebook: no?
LOL, Prather and Abbott are from the same. Prather has head on right and his heart in the right place for Texas.
Facebook vs ?
Having been suspended by Facebook myself because of a horrendously faulty algorithm, I can sympathize with Prather. It’s not just about free speech alone. Facebook makes billions off of the eyes of its participants. I agreed to that when I signed up, but I also expect to be fairly treated. Facebook needs to be made to think twice before selectively editing the comments, views, and opinions of its customers.
Re:
So what was your post about that made Facebook suspend your account? Be specific!
I should note, Facebook doesn’t usually suspend accounts unless there is some really egregious shit going on – plus they never edit comments. Taking that into account and what you wrote makes me think that you are either a sock-puppet or a horrible person, or both.
Re:
Facebook needs to be made to think twice before selectively editing the comments, views, and opinions of its customers.
Citation very much needed, there is a big difference between ‘you violated our rules so out you go’ and ‘we’re going to modify specific parts of what you said to give a different impression’, so if you’ve got evidence they’re doing the latter rather than the former there are likely a lot of people who would love to see it.
If on the other hand you means that they are picking and choosing who gets to speak rather than changing what is said then I would simply point out that it’s their platform, if they don’t want a particular person on it they should be no more forced to host them than a bar should be forced to host a disruptive customer or a store someone who’s harassing their staff.
Re:
Well, first off, the suspending of accounts is pretty rare and not typically left solely to the algorithm (unless it’s copyright-related, but that’s another story). Posts are removed by the algorithm, and the same goes for organizing searches, but account suspension is much rarer and less mistake-prone. That’s not to say that mistakes don’t happen on this front at all, but it’s rarely purely the result of a faulty algorithm.
Second, what kind of posts did you make? How do you know that it was a mistake? On what grounds were you suspended? How long was the suspension? Details matter here.
I mean, it’s only about free speech to the extent the government isn’t allowed to force a private platform to host speech it doesn’t want to.
True. If only more people realized that.
Well, we only have your blank assertion that you were unfairly treated and absolutely no details which might lead us to agree with your conclusion. More importantly, fairness is incredibly subjective. What you think is unfair may not be what I think is unfair.
What? Facebook doesn’t “selectively edit” anything! They change the order of posts in a given search, remove posts or comments in their entirety, suspend accounts entirely, or ban users entirely. They do not make changes to any posts or comments on their platform, and if they did, unless maybe if it’s something like changing all instances of the word “fuck” to, say, “f$&k”, “«expletive»”, or “fudge”, that would not be protected by §230 as that would be their own speech/content and not purely 3rd-party content (as they would have helped “develop” the content) or pure moderation. That’s also not something that either you or Prather have alleged happened to either of you, so seriously, what in the world are you talking about?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Facebook
Facebook needs to make their editorial policy clear, and I said “editorial policy” on purpose, because this “platform” claim is nonsense. If they had clearly spelled out their “community standards” in the first place, there wouldn’t be a problem. The degree of subjectivity in their algorhythm-based punishment plan is unacceptable though. People are frequently put into “Facebook jail” for breaking a rule that isn’t written anywhere. It would be nice if they took this lawsuit as a wake up call. I doubt they will though, especially if they listen to people like the author of this article.
Re:
Yes or no: Do you believe the government should have the legal right to compel any privately owned interactive web service into hosting legally protected speech that the owners/operators of said service don’t want to host?
Re:
It’s simple, don’t be an asshole. None of my friends or I have ever been suspended from social media which means that either we are far smarter in avoiding the algorithms than the people you are talking about, or perhaps the simple explanation is that we understand that behaving like assholes will have consequences.
Frequently? Do you have any data for this and what the people said?
Yeah, only horrible persons points out that something is unconstitutional.. /s
I like how Lostinlodos has basically achieved full “Koby” status by having even his non-offensive comments flagged. On the other hand, he did advocate for BDSM in one of those comments, so…
Re:
I mean, I don’t care about BDSM if it’s between fully, enthusiastically, and knowingly consenting adults.