Apparently Unwilling To Learn From Florida & Texas’s Failures, Georgia Moves Forward With Unconstitutional Content Moderation Bill

from the haven't-we-done-this-already dept

It seems that each week another ridiculously unconstitutional “content moderation” bill pops up in another state. Beyond the fact that nearly all of these bills are preempted by federal law (and are unconstitutional under the 1st Amendment) it seems that state legislatures feel the need to score political points. And it’s not just one party. As we’ve detailed, Republican legislatures are pushing bills trying to limit the ability of websites to moderate, while Democratic legislatures are pushing bills to force companies to moderate more. Both are unconstitutional.

So far, the Republican bills have gotten further, which means we already have examples of courts telling those state legislatures to knock it off. These kinds of laws have already been tossed out in both Florida and Texas as unconstitutional (though both rulings are now being appealed). But rather than recognizing that maybe this is a giant waste of taxpayer money, the state of Georgia appears to be moving forward, full steam ahead with its own such bill.

Facebook and Twitter would be prohibited from deleting posts or removing users based on the views they express, according to a bill that passed the Georgia Senate on Tuesday.

The legislation, supported by Republican senators who believe social media companies have censored GOP opinions, would allow the companies to be sued in Georgia courts.

The Senate voted 33-21 to approve the measure, Senate Bill 393, which now advances to the state House.

The text of the bill is just as dumb and clearly unconstitutional as you’d expect. First it just out and out declares social media a common carrier — despite that not making any sense at all. Then it says:

(a) A common carrier shall not censor or discriminate against 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;
(3) A user’s geographic location in this state or any part of this state; or
(4) The actual or perceived race, color, ethnicity, religion, religious beliefs, political beliefs, political affiliation, national origin, sex, gender, sexual orientation, or disability of a user or another person or of a class of users or a class of other persons.

(b) This Code section shall apply regardless of whether the viewpoint is an expression that is communicated on or through the common carrier or elsewhere.

So if your “viewpoint” is “kill all people who don’t look like me” you could not be suspended from social media, even if you spend all your time harassing people who don’t look like you. Hell, because of section (b) that includes if you do stuff off-platform as well.

Anyway, this is even more blatantly unconstitutional than both the Florida and Texas bills, which at least pretended to limit their scope and reach much more narrowly.

Perhaps hilariously recognizing that this bill is completely unworkable, they include an “exemption” for certain areas:

(a) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prohibit or restrict a common carrier from censoring:

(1) An expression that the common carrier is specifically authorized to censor by federal law;
(2) Any unlawful expression, including, but not limited to, an expression that unlawfully harasses individuals or unlawfully incites violence; or
(3) Any expression that is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, or harassing

Of course, note that when it comes to harassment, they limit the exemption to action that “unlawfully” harasses, which covers almost none of what most people consider harassment. Also, the “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, or harassing” language is hilarious since it’s basically taken straight from Section 230 (which preempts this bill), but fails to recognize that such things are very much in the eye of the website owner themself.

In other words, this bill is a bill to wipe away Section 230 (which it can’t do as a state law), because now any removal would have to be litigated over the specific reasons for the removal.

Also, if you want to highlight just how much this is a bill of attainder directly targeting certain companies, it explicitly exempts “broadband services” — which actually do meet the common definition of a common carrier service. So broadband providers get the explicit right in this bill to kick people off the entire internet for their viewpoints, but Twitter cannot remove a harassing user. Genius.

And unconstitutional.

And a total waste of taxpayer money.

Filed Under: , , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Apparently Unwilling To Learn From Florida & Texas’s Failures, Georgia Moves Forward With Unconstitutional Content Moderation Bill”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
131 Comments
This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
hij (profile) says:

Censor everyone else but not me in Georgia

This is the same Georgia that allows school principals to ban books so that people who are offended can go around librarians trying to make information available to students. If that is not censorial enough for you Georgia has also passed a bill that prohibits teaching “divisive concepts” such as acknowledging racism. There is plenty of hypocrisy in this state, but election years really bring it out in its full glory.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re:

No hypocrisy. Just the principles of “Team ME!”.

To a significant proportion of the citizenry straight white thin-skinned cis-males have a need to be defended since the very idea that others are equal to them is seen as a direct attack on their privilege.

This would be a hypocritical standpoint only if equality was a principle they believe in.

It’s just that they aren’t really open with the fact that they cater to racists, bigots and white supremacists.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Mick Jabber says:

Re: Book banning

I wouldn’t say that homosexual pornography is really a “book”,per se. It wasn’t ever considered a “book” from 1776 until like the 1980’s. It was considered obscenity,and was illegal to publish. Courts at some point decided that it was on par with debating over government policies and so was covered by the 1st Amendment. However,crucially, debating over government policies or holding protests over them is now de facto illegal if your political views are too far to the right because the courts in some areas consider it “ethnic intimidation” or some kind of hate crime. So if the courts can effectively ban something that was ALWAYS legal (debating over government policies and in the words of the author hating “everyone that doesn’t look like you” which has always been covered by the 1st Amendment) then it can certainly go BACK to banning gay pornography which has always been considered ILLEGAL until very recently.

This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re:

I wouldn’t say that homosexual pornography is really a “book”,per se

Good lord, they’re letting gay porn into school libraries? Please, give us the names of these “books”! We have to know what they are so we can help other schools keep that overtly sexual filth out of our schools! After all, we can’t have gay porn sitting next to all the straight porn; that would be…y’know…weird.

🙃

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Mick Jabber says:

Re: Re: Re:

These are libraries at elementary schools,dude. K-3. So,5-8 year olds. I’m not sure how it works in yeshiva school,Stephen,but in normal school it is kind of weird to have books that kids can or are told to read that have illustrations or descriptions of kids performing fellatio or anal sex on each other or with adults,whatever the sexual orientations of the characters in the books.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

but in normal school it is kind of weird to have books that kids can or are told to read that have illustrations or descriptions of kids performing fellatio or anal sex on each other or with adults,whatever the sexual orientations of the characters in the books.

That’s quite the charge. Do you have any specific titles?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Mick Jabber says:

Re: Re: Re:3

In my experience,being asked by lefties for specific examples of things is simply an exercise in wasting my time compiling an exhaustive list of easily googleable info only to then be asked to provide academic citations and have each one of my offerings somehow rationalized as not fitting some narrow unreasonable criteria nobody agreed on and thus disqualified,only to eventually realize that the only example that will actually be considered good enough is if a completely unimpeachable leftist suddenly leaps up and,twirling his mustache, cackles maniacally and screams “YESSSSS,we’re molesting your kids,and we’re doing it ON PURPOSE!!! We’re EVILLLLLLLLLL!!” like in a Marvel movie or something. Which no one,not even your dreaded Republicans,ever does in real life but somehow doesn’t stop you from accusing them of,for example, doing a Face/Off-style identity swap with Vladimir Putin to rule America and bring back fascism or whatever.

So I’ll tell you what. Google “school board pornographic book” and you can waste your own time. There’s loads of them.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4

In my experience,being asked by lefties for specific examples of things is simply an exercise in wasting my time compiling an exhaustive list of easily googleable info only to then be asked to provide academic citations and have each one of my offerings somehow rationalized as not fitting some narrow unreasonable criteria nobody agreed on and thus disqualified

If you’d stop pulling examples from less-than-credible sources (e.g., Breitbart, InfoWars, your ass), maybe you wouldn’t have this problem. Cite credible sources with a track record of getting it right far more than they get it wrong, and maybe you’ll be taken seriously.

the only example that will actually be considered good enough is if a completely unimpeachable leftist suddenly leaps up and,twirling his mustache, cackles maniacally and screams “YESSSSS,we’re molesting your kids,and we’re doing it ON PURPOSE!!! We’re EVILLLLLLLLLL!!” like in a Marvel movie or something

Yeah, uh, that’s never happened in a Marvel movie. Also: If someone stands up and confesses to child molestation, yes, people will tend to take that seriously regardless of any political affiliation.

doesn’t stop you from accusing them of,for example, doing a Face/Off-style identity swap with Vladimir Putin to rule America and bring back fascism

what the actual fuck are you talking about

Google “school board pornographic book” and you can waste your own time.

We’re not here to do your homework for you. Cite a book banned by a school board that is considered pornography or fuck off.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Mick Jabber says:

Re: Re: Re:5

It was pretty nice,yeah. Well,I’m not accusing them of being pornographic,they blatantly contain pictures and descriptions of sexual scenes. Have you ever read any of the people whose Twitter and Facebook accounts you demanded be banned? Did they get banned based on what you THOUGHT they were saying? Of course they did.

I mean,we can play this game all day long.

I’m a free speech guy,apart from obscenity being shown by governmental institutions to children. If it was up to me,any political speech would be fair game,but that’s not a belief that YOU have. You guys have people and materials banned without ever even looking at them. You’re AFRAID to look at them. And you don’t just ban their words,you physically mob attack the PEOPLE that are saying them.

So I’m not going to sit here and pretend that you are arguing in good faith. It doesn’t matter if I have read them or not. It doesn’t matter to YOU what it says in Mein Kampf or My Awakening,you still wouldn’t let a teacher read it to kids.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6

I’m not accusing them of being pornographic

In regards to a link about book bannings in schools, you literally said, and I quote: “I wouldn’t say that homosexual pornography is really a ‘book’[.]” You also claimed that, in regards to these books you’re talking about, that “kids can or are told to read [these books] that have illustrations or descriptions of kids performing fellatio or anal sex on each other or with adults”.

Don’t try to gaslight people when we can all read your comments.

they blatantly contain pictures and descriptions of sexual scenes

Again: Can you name these books so we can judge their contents for ourselves?

Have you ever read any of the people whose Twitter and Facebook accounts you demanded be banned?

Bold of you to assume I’ve ever demanded such things. (Outside of maybe Trump, I can’t think of anyone I’ve ever “demanded” be banned from Twitter or Facebook.)

apart from obscenity being shown by governmental institutions to children

Now if you could provide proof of that happening, that’d be greaaaaaaaaaaat.

You guys have people and materials banned without ever even looking at them.

Every accusation, a confession…

It doesn’t matter if I have read them or not.

It actually does, for the purposes of this argument. You claim certain books being shown to kids are full of pornography; you shoulder the burden of proving this claim to us. None of us are here to do your homework for you⁠—either you cite the proof or we call “bullshit” on your claim. Don’t like how that works? Door’s to your left; don’t let it hit you where you pull all your opinions from.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Mick Jabber says:

Re: Re: Re:7

“You also claimed that, in regards to these books you’re talking about, that “kids can or are told to read [these books] that have illustrations or descriptions of kids performing fellatio or anal sex on each other or with adults”.

Don’t try to gaslight people when we can all read your comments.”

I’m not gaslighting you,you retard. I’m using the same terms you’re using because every time I speak in an even slightly referential or abstract manner,you people sperg out about some technicality as an excuse to not listen to what I’m saying because your brains can’t handle information that conflicts with what you’ve been spoonfed.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8

every time I speak in an even slightly referential or abstract manner,you people sperg out

Say what you mean with clarity and everyone will understand you. Don’t speak in vague platitudes and wait to “gotcha” people for “misunderstanding” you; that makes you a trollish shithead.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Mick Jabber says:

Re: Re: Re:7

“It actually does, for the purposes of this argument. You claim certain books being shown to kids are full of pornography; you shoulder the burden of proving this claim to us. None of us are here to do your homework for you⁠—either you cite the proof or we call “bullshit” on your claim. Don’t like how that works? Door’s to your left; don’t let it hit you where you pull all your opinions from.”

Don’t you “do the work” for black people,gays,hispanics,transgenders,Native Americans and everyone else? Are you saying you won’t do the work for me because I’m White? Because I don’t do unpaid labor so if you want me to do research for you,then employ me.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8

Don’t you “do the work” for black people,gays,hispanics,transgenders,Native Americans and everyone else?

what the fuck are you even talking about

Are you saying you won’t do the work for me because I’m White?

No, I’m saying I won’t do the work for you because you made a claim that you haven’t backed up. Your claim, your burden to prove it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:8

Are you saying you won’t do the work for me because I’m White?

Yeah. So what if I am?

Are you unable to do such a menial thing yourself, for us ‘little-brains’ that just don’t understand an intellectual like yourself?

Next you’re going to tell us about your 4 degrees, how many law courses you’ve taken, and how you’re a 250# fat fuck…

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Cattress (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8

You mean make an effort to understand and empathize with people coming from different viewpoints than those of us that are white, het-cis Christian males? (Or females in my case). You mean like actually research or verify the claims we make about people different from ourselves? Or about the realities of covid, or the 2020 election?
I mean do you have a specific point about those that you have read from anyone here that you would like some kind of verification of where the facts were found, or clarification of how we justify the morality of our beliefs?
Thing is, you could easily find a few books with mature content. You just couldn’t find any record that those books were ever made available or recommended or required reading of such young kids, as you said 5-8 yr olds. So yeah, we call bullshit.

Cattress (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7

That dummy jabber just lacks basic reading comprehension skills. None of the books that do have mature content, and they do exist, are available in elementary, or middle school. Some nitwit in Moms for Liberty” (I despise their disgusting hijacking of the word liberty, that’s my daughter’s middle name because it’s something hubby &I have such high regard for) was trying to turn a description of seahorses mating into a sensual, erotic reading.
The thing that gets me, is how many of these idiots are convinced that young people will me morally corrupted, or some how at an increased risk for sexual abuse because they read a passage about a sexual encounter,
yet demean and minimize the trauma of the young people demanding something be done about gun violence because they just saw their classmates blown away.
Of course, frank, open, honest, age appropriate conversations about the body and sex and consent from an early age could actually help kids avoid becoming a victim and speak up when something has happened (by making it less uncomfortable to talk about and kids more willing to ask about confusing things, give kids the terminology they need to explain an incident, by making sure that kids know that they have the right to say no, no matter who it is). I want to know what makes so many of they morons think they can erase all traces of sexuality from the under 18 crowds world, and why that is a good thing. And why are they so convinced that any conversation that do happen outside of curriculum, or within an approved curriculum, are not kept in age appropriate range, especially at a common enough occurrence that it must be addressed with a law. I mean, I know it’s to erase the presence of anyone LGBTQ and any acceptance and affirmation, but they really go all in on this fear that sexual predators are lurking everywhere and all children are being targeted for grooming.

This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4

Have you ever read Mein Kampf or David Duke’s “My Awakening”?

Why yes! I must’ve missed the porn, though.

If not,is it ok if I read them to Kindergarteners?

Ah yes, I certainly remember teachers fighting their consciences when they were trying to figure out whether to put Mein Kampf before or after multiplication tables.

Fucking moron.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Mick Jabber says:

Re: Re: Re:7

Oh. I see. Thanks. You’re not actually intelligent enough to participate in this conversation. I was saying that gay porn was being read to Kindergarteners in schools,not Mein Kampf. If you had read either gay porn or Mein Kampf (or soup can labels,anything really) your reading comprehension would probably be good enough to understand that by this point.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:8

I was saying that gay porn was being read to Kindergarteners in schools,not Mein Kampf.

Yeah, dipshit. We got that part. Now that it’s been thoroughly established multiple times by multiple people, feel free to give us some titles of said gay porn you’re so familiar with. Since you’re all over the topic and all…

Cattress (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4

I’ve never read either of those, but you could come read those to my 4 year old anytime. I can’t guarantee she will actually pay any attention, unless you have a real knack for voices or have added colorful illustrations that have animals, the Cocomelon characters, dinosaurs, playgrounds, unicorns, and also concepts like lift the flap, pop-up, buttons with funny sounds or music.
You obviously don’t have kids, don’t know anything about kids, don’t know any teachers, or even have the slightest clue about how curriculum is designed, children’s books are curated for a library or classroom.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Mick Jabber says:

Re: Re: Re:3

Well,anon,the only proof you and our good friend Stephen Stone needed to believe that Vladimir Putin had hacked our elections,done a Face/Off-style identity swap with Donald Trump and was secretly trying to bring about the Fourth Reich and go running around with your hair on fire and flailing your arms screaming about it for 4 years straight was that 17 anonymous intelligence officials supposedly said that had happened,so 17 anonymous intelligence officials said that kids were being read or were told to read or had access to books in their school libraries which have either illustrations or depictions of sex between kids,kids and adults,or humans and animals.

I trust that will be all the corroboration you need.

It’s either gay pornography is being shown to little kids,or people with right wing political beliefs are cartoon characters solely motivated by hatred of anyone who isn’t a straight White male and for no other reason than that. I trust with your completely situational high degree of skepticism and inquisitiveness,you can come to the right conclusion given enough time and the moral courage to google the terms “school board pornographic book”.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4

the only proof you and our good friend Stephen Stone needed to believe that Vladimir Putin had hacked our elections,done a Face/Off-style identity swap with Donald Trump and was secretly trying to bring about the Fourth Reich and go running around with your hair on fire and flailing your arms screaming about it for 4 years straight was that 17 anonymous intelligence officials supposedly said that had happened

what the actual fuck

Putting aside that no one here has ever seriously espoused those kind of insane beliefs⁠—especially me⁠—have you actually ever encountered anyone who believes all of that? Or are you transforming serious concerns about Russian interference in U.S. presidential elections into a bunch of strawmen who are also made of horseshit?

It’s either gay pornography is being shown to little kids,or people with right wing political beliefs are cartoon characters solely motivated by hatred of anyone who isn’t a straight White male and for no other reason than that.

Again, putting aside your batshittery: One of your claims can be true while the other is false, both can be true, or both can be false.

Both are false, by the way. Right-wing politicians aren’t driven exclusively by hatred⁠—greed is a thing, too.

I trust with your completely situational high degree of skepticism and inquisitiveness,you can come to the right conclusion given enough time and the moral courage to google the terms “school board pornographic book”.

Once again: We’re not going to do your homework for you. You made the claim; you bear the burden of backing it up.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

it is kind of weird to have books that kids can or are told to read that have illustrations or descriptions of kids performing fellatio or anal sex on each other or with adults

Can you cite the titles of these books so that we can determine the existence of pornographic content (or lack thereof) within those books ourselves?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4

I mean,are you retarded and incapable of using the internet?

The hallmark of solid research, sports fans!

‘I can’t share what I clearly know, thoroughly researched, and have been asserting this whole time because do your own research!’

I guess we all didn’t have Mein Kampf read to us before nap time.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Mick Jabber says:

Re: Re: Re:5

I mean,you made the claim that almost all of Donald Trump’s supporters on the internet were robots from Russia and had 100’s of thousands of their accounts banned,and you also claimed Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin did a Face/Off-style identity swap,you also said the cold and flu virus was going to kill pretty much everyone on Earth but that vaccines would prevent you from getting the cold and flu virus.

The only proof you provided for any of that was the word of 17 “unnamed intelligence sources” and that seems to be the only proof that you’ll accept for anything,so you can’t really get mad at me on this. You’re the one who decided on an arbitrary and capricious standard for evidentiation of claims.

Oh,and you also claim there’s a secret worldwide conspiracy where all White people in the world collude through secret codes to do a racism against blacks. AND you claim that when a man puts on a dress and makeup,he undergoes a magical transubstantiation into a woman.

You’ve not provided any proof for any of these things really and the only proof there seems to be is that people you like say that these things are the case.

I’ll make you a deal. You show me how saying that you are a woman will magically transform a man’s y chromosome into an x chromosome and I’ll sit down and compile that list of gay porno books in schools for you since you aren’t smart enough to put in 4 search terms to google. I’ll help you out if you help me out.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6

you made the claim that [a bunch of fucking bullshit]

You can stop lying about things I’ve said. It doesn’t make your argument any better; it only makes you look like someone who lost the argument long ago and is resorting to increasingly ridiculous attacks because you have literally nothing else at your disposal but pounding your fists on the table and going “nuh-uh”.

Leave the preschool playground horseshit where it belongs and start acting like an adult. When you can do that, we can have a reasonable conversation about adult topics. Until then, here’s some milkies, since you wanna act like a big baby: 🍼

Cattress (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6

I’ve never heard anyone here make any of those claimed, or anywhere really. Well except about the covid vaccine being more effective than it’s turned out to be, but situation in the ground changed because of mutations. Are you really that dense?
Also, there’s nothing wrong with anonymous sources so long as the journalist citing them is credible, and that’s on you to make a judgement call.
What about this Face Off thing with Trump & Putin? Trump is wayyyy too far and wayyyy to orange to be switch his face with Putin. That’s just silly.

Ian Williams says:

Re: Re:

Your chronology is severely lacking, in it’s resemblance to reality (much like your assertion that right wingers protesting policy is has been made illegal, doubly so when many of the laws against protests were passed to limit left wing protests, and when right wingers broke those laws the laws were oddly ignored (see the articles here on the police reaction to anti-Cuba protests) there wasn’t a federal statute on obscenity until the Comstock act of 1873, and what was considered obscene was narrowed in 1957, and again in 1973. As it is, the books that are currently the subject of right wing ire, have a few explicit scenes in them, -that doesn’t make the entire work gay pornography, much less obscene.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Mick Jabber says:

Re: Re: Re:

So,actually, my chronology isn’t lacking. Gay pornography wasn’t legal until the 80’s. It wasn’t actually published before the Comstock Act because no one in their right mind in America thought it was acceptable to publicly exhibit explicit materials.

Just like my assertion that right-wingers protesting policy has been made illegal.

You say it’s all left-wingers being targeted or whatever,but the J20 protesters bar one I believe had all of their charges dropped. The incited feminist mob that went into the Capitol banging on doors and yelling at people to try to disrupt Kavanaugh from being confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice were never even charged. You can go out in the streets and scream about how all White people need to be murdered because of their skin color,the Black Panthers,Black Hebrew Israelites,NFAC and other black supremacist groups do it all the time. They bring loaded rifles to their demonstrations.

A state of emergency was declared before anyone could even speak at the Charlottesville Unite The Right event. Everyone who was there has been civilly charged with “ethnic intimidation” and sued because,as an independent investigation known as the Heaphy Report found, the POLICE caused a riot by kettling right wing protesters who obtained a legal permit to protest and showed up to protest statues of American Civil War veterans from being destroyed into an unpermitted group of black supremacists and antifa who showed up to “counterprotest” them by spraying them with fire from makeshift hairspray flamethrowers,beating them with MagLites as they were attempting to comply with the order to disperse, and throwing frozen cans of drinks and other projectiles at them.

700 people were arrested in connection with protesting the 2020 election,some of them charged with “sedition”. Not a single one of them firebombed anyone’s business or car or sprayed people with fire from a makeshift flamethrower. In fact,by all OBJECTIVE reasoning, the vast majority of them were peaceful. If they hadn’t been,it wouldn’t have been all right wing Trump supporters who were killed that day.

A group of White people CANNOT get together and peacefully say “We don’t want you to,as a matter of policy,destroy these statues that White people put up to honor other White people”. They cannot get together and say “We don’t think this election was on the up-and-up”. These are fundamental issues of policy that are fully protected under the 1st Amendment by ANYONE’S interpretation of that aspect of American law;election security and what taxpayer dollars are spent on.

You cannot gather in public to discuss them or to petition the government for redress of grievances if you’re a White right-winger. You will be initially treated as if you are committing a terrorist attack,and then you will be slapped with criminal or civil charges that WILL NOT be dropped or reduced at sentencing,unlike left-wingers, who the government gives 14 million dollars in compensation to based on the fact that some of them were arrested for being part of a group that burned down 2 billion dollars’ worth of property over 6 months of nationwide daily rioting,an ACTUAL coordinated terrorist attack.

Also,if these gay porn books that are being given or read to Kindergarteners had one insensitive depiction or word about blacks,gays,jews,hispanics,transgenders,or women in them instead of just 1 or 2 descriptions gay fellatio,gay anal sex,or instructions for how to do these things,we wouldn’t be on opposite sides of this argument. In fact,they’d never have been shown to toddlers by the people who are showing them gay pornography in the first place.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Did you get all your bullshit from Fox or OANN?

right-wingers protesting policy has been made illegal

Please cite the law, statute, or “common law” court ruling that says this.

They bring loaded rifles to their demonstrations.

Yes, I’m sure that phenomenon is wholly limited to “left-wingers”~.

700 people were arrested in connection with protesting the 2020 election,some of them charged with “sedition”. Not a single one of them firebombed anyone’s business or car or sprayed people with fire from a makeshift flamethrower.

They broke into the Capitol building during a closed session of Congress with the intent of, at a bare minimum, disrupting the official verification of the results of the 2020 presidential election. (Let’s not forget the chants of “hang Mike Pence”, either.) You might be fine with a right-wing insurrection, but that’s your problem.

A group of White people CANNOT get together and peacefully say “We don’t want you to,as a matter of policy,destroy these statues that White people put up to honor other White people”.

You’re being disingenuous about the reason those statues were put up and why people wanted to keep them up, but that’s fine. The rest of us are aware of the nature of those statues and the defenses thereof.

They cannot get together and say “We don’t think this election was on the up-and-up”.

You can, but you’re probably going to get laughed at for believing a bunch of lies that require you to believe in a nation-wide conspiracy involving hundreds, if not thousands, of people working in perfect tandem and complete secrecy to rig only the presidential election instead of the elections for POTUS and both houses of Congress.

Breaking into buildings and smashing shit up to protest those lies won’t help your case either. But you already knew that.

You cannot gather in public to discuss them or to petition the government for redress of grievances if you’re a White right-winger.

You can, but you’re going to be treated as a dumbass for airing petty grievances such as “they’re cancelling Dr. Seuss” or “gay people have the same civil rights as I do and that sucks”.

You will be initially treated as if you are committing a terrorist attack

[citation needed]

unlike left-wingers, who the government gives 14 million dollars in compensation to based on the fact that some of them were arrested for being part of a group that burned down 2 billion dollars’ worth of property over 6 months of nationwide daily rioting

[citation needed; make sure the source is credible]

these gay porn books that are being given or read to Kindergarteners

Please name these books so that we can determine for ourselves whether the books are pornographic or merely describing gay people existing without bringing up sex in any way.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3

He can’t. I did actually do the google that he suggested up there ^^.

The books are in High Schools libraries. and are aimed at young adults.7 There is, lets say “concern” voiced by some people about “explicit depiction”. Most of the books appear to be back on the shelves.

No-one serious appears to have suggested that they’re read to small kids.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Mick Jabber says:

Re: Re: Re:3

“Please cite the law, statute, or “common law” court ruling that says this.”

Well,in the first place,I said “de facto” illegal when I initially said this,the part that you quoted was in a response where I was admittedly a bit lazy with my wording. I also understand that some of you are just caved-in-head wojak dumb so I’ll briefly explain that “de facto” illegal is when something that is legal is punished the same as if it were illegal,like if someone who us not an N-word stands up in a crowd or gets on tv and says the N-word. It is legal to say the N-word but since people on your part of the spectrum (political or neurotypical) believe that it is not ok to say words that are legal,that person will be punished as if they had committed a crime even though they actually didn’t.

“De jure” illegal is when there is actually a law against doing something. The government is forbidden from making a law against being a White right wing straight male,so that’s why they have private corporations censor them and allow left-wing extremist groups to physically assault them when they attempt to engage in 1st Amendment-protected political activity.

“They broke into the Capitol building during a closed session of Congress with the intent of, at a bare minimum, disrupting the official verification of the results of the 2020 presidential election. (Let’s not forget the chants of “hang Mike Pence”, either.) You might be fine with a right-wing insurrection, but that’s your problem.”

“Hang Mike Pence” is the same thing as #killallwhitemen,it’s an example of politically-protected free speech. Again,the Black Panthers took over the Capitol grounds in the 1970’s with guns and actually claimed they were doing an insurrection. The J6 people walked around in a building taking selfies and then left when the police told them to a few hours later. The Kavanaugh protesters did the same thing. It sounds like you’re ok with a leftwing insurrection,since you describe that event entirely differently.

“You’re being disingenuous about the reason those statues were put up and why people wanted to keep them up, but that’s fine. The rest of us are aware of the nature of those statues and the defenses thereof”

YOU DON’T ASSOCIATE WITH ANYONE WHO WANTED TO KEEP THEM UP. Here,let me do your thing for a minute, “Provide a notarized copy of a statement from every person who put up one of these statues or wanted to keep them up or your opinion is invalid.”

Come on,dude. You don’t and can’t know why people wanted to keep those statues up. You wouldn’t listen to somebody explain that to you for 5 minutes. And if you didn’t,you would sit there smugly believing that they were just out and out lying or YOU somehow knew better. That’s your personality type. You’re one of these guys where if the neighbor gets a new tv,your tv has to be better.

“You can, but you’re probably going to get laughed at for believing a bunch of lies that require you to believe in a nation-wide conspiracy involving hundreds, if not thousands, of people working in perfect tandem and complete secrecy to rig only the presidential election instead of the elections for POTUS and both houses of Congress”

Which THE GOVERNMENT has an obligation to at least make SOME SORT of effort to dispel. The government is a service that those people pay for.

“You can, but you’re going to be treated as a dumbass for airing petty grievances such as “they’re cancelling Dr. Seuss” or “gay people have the same civil rights as I do and that sucks”.

People listen to you people when you complain about “racist bird names”,dude.
Why should you be treated any differently than you are advocating I be treated. I’m actually talking about government policies that are discriminatory,you are BLATANTLY explaining that you people are going to discriminate against people like me and your reasons for doing it,then when people like me say we’ve been discriminated against,you’re like “Give me 6 official sources notarized by an attorney where people in government with the same beliefs as me admit that they broke the law by intentionally discriminating against conservative White dudes”. Don’t talk down to me. Don’t act like I don’t know that you know what’s going on.

“[citation needed]”

Do it,and you’ll be able to cite yourself.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4

I said “de facto” illegal when I initially said this

Nice backpedal. Either show me what law says “right-wingers protesting policy” has been made illegal or fuck off.

“de facto” illegal is when something that is legal is punished the same as if it were illegal

Based on the example you give after this: Can you show me anyone who has been punished by the law only for saying the N-word in public? They can’t have been punished for “disturbing the peace” or “inciting violence” or any other criminal offense⁠—the punishment must be only and specifically for speaking the racial slur.

that’s why they have private corporations censor them

And yet, here you are, speaking your mind like a champ.

and allow left-wing extremist groups to physically assault them

[citation needed]

“Hang Mike Pence” is the same thing as #killallwhitemen

It really isn’t, but keep fooling yourself into thinking calls for the assassination of the sitting Vice President is…oh, how did they say it…“legitimate political discourse”.

the Black Panthers took over the Capitol grounds in the 1970’s with guns and actually claimed they were doing an insurrection

[citation needed]

It sounds like you’re ok with a leftwing insurrection

I’m not. Protests against policy⁠—no matter how disruptive, no matter how foolish in approach⁠—are different than trying to interrupt, temporarily or permanently, the certification of the presidential election results.

YOU DON’T ASSOCIATE WITH ANYONE WHO WANTED TO KEEP THEM UP.

I don’t have to. The only reason anyone would want to keep up a statue of a Confederate soldier/leader⁠—a man who betrayed and fought against the United States in a war to preserve the institution of chattel slavery⁠—is to celebrate the Confederacy and the principles for which it stood. Any talk of “preserving history” is rendered null and void when a Confederate statue defender spits on the idea of moving the statues to museums or historical battlefields.

You’re one of these guys where if the neighbor gets a new tv,your tv has to be better.

If my neighbor gets a new TV, I don’t give a shit. Why should I?

Which THE GOVERNMENT has an obligation to at least make SOME SORT of effort to dispel.

I don’t know if you know this, but the courts that ruled against Trump and his cronies in some five dozen different legal actions designed to delay or cancel out the election⁠—the courts that ruled all their allegations are bullshit? Those courts are part of the government. And I know this might shock you, but with the exception of that Cyber Ninjas catastrophe, all the recounts and audits of the election results were carried out by government entities.

That you still believe in a conspiracy theory that can be easily debunked by pointing out exactly how many people would need to be in on it and keep it a secret for the rest of their lives is…well, it’s your problem, not mine.

you are BLATANTLY explaining that you people are going to discriminate against people like me and your reasons for doing it

“Dumbass” isn’t a protected class; neither is “Republican”. Cry more about it; maybe Kevin Sorbo will make a movie about your bitchfit.

Don’t talk down to me.

Give me a reason not to.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4

Which THE GOVERNMENT has an obligation to at least make SOME SORT of effort to dispel. The government is a service that those people pay for.

They did. Sixty court cases, and all you have to show for it are a bunch of lawyers arguing ‘no reasonable person would believe what I filed is fact.’ I sure thought by the 58th time something would’ve stuck, with all the fundraising being done on your backs.

Listen Mickelous, it’s got to be hard admitting you dumbfucks have been duped.

You gave for a wall, and they made no wall.
You gave to support trump, and he lost again.
You gave to support their ‘election fraud’ cases, and all of them went south like Rudy’s hair dye.
You give them your information on their ‘social media’ sites so they can ask for more money.

You’re a fool. We get it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3

Apparently:
Gender Queer” by Maia Kobabe and “Lawn Boy” by Jonathan Evison (https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory/school-system-pulls-books-graphic-sex-libraries-80219516). Re-instated about a month later.

A bit of further googling throws up the snippet that there are two books titled “Lawn Boy”, and the one about a child setting up a landscaping business is aimed at younger children. I sincerely doubt that any teacher is going to confuse the two.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

The incited feminist mob that went into the Capitol banging on doors and yelling at people to try to disrupt Kavanaugh from being confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice were never even charged.

Why not? Who was in charge of the DOJ at the time? Might want to look into that…

They bring loaded rifles to their demonstrations.

What about their 2A rights? Or are just inbred hicks allowed to carry their weapons at protests?

In fact,by all OBJECTIVE reasoning, the vast majority of them were peaceful.

Of course! Must’ve missed that part. If only it was broadcast live on TV. Then we’d know the truth.
Then again, with cell phones being nearly ubiquitous, you’d think people would have recorded all that peace and love and posted them to social media. Given how peaceful it all was, one has to wonder why all of them decided to pull their footage down, rather than use it in their defenses.

A group of White people CANNOT get together and peacefully say “We don’t want you to,as a matter of policy,destroy these statues that White people put up to honor other White people”

Ah yes, you must preserve the confederacy participation trophies because the south must be allowed to forget that they fucking lost.

They cannot get together and say “We don’t think this election was on the up-and-up”.

But you have! And the courts, with judges your team installed have told you you’re full of shit. Funny how just saying it didn’t make it true, huh? But yeah, that’s our fault that your case was just made up shit.

See, this is why you’re not wanted on social media. These views insult the average person’s intelligence.

It’s just a great big-tech left-wing, deep-state, satanic cabal controlled arm of libtard snowflakes who seem to outwit you people at every turn, despite your incessant donations. It’s like you’re part of some massive joke or something!

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Mick Jabber says:

Re: Re: Re:3

“Ah yes, you must preserve the confederacy participation trophies because the south must be allowed to forget that they fucking lost.”

I mean,the jews lost in WW2 but they get Holocaust memorials and museums all over the world. Is this a consistent principle you have or is it a convenient prop that you’re willing to pull out on a situation to situation basis like all of your other political beliefs?

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Another We hate the first amendment bill I see

It’s more than a little disturbing how many politicians are making overt support of the worst people imaginable big parts of their ‘support us!’ strategy as it implies that either they know nothing about their supporters or those sorts make up a majority of their voting base.

That just gets worse when part of that strategy is blatant shows of contempt towards the actual first amendment rights of others to ‘protect’ the fictional first amendment rights they want to claim.

Also, if you want to highlight just how much this is a bill of attainder directly targeting certain companies, it explicitly exempts “broadband services” — which actually do meet the common definition of a common carrier service.

Ah this clause again, because nothing screams ‘we are corrupt raging hypocrites’ quite like exempting the industry that does meet the category you’ve laid out so that you can only apply it to the specific companies you want.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Koby (profile) says:

Enhanced Twitter Jail

So if your “viewpoint” is “kill all people who don’t look like me” you could not be suspended from social media

This would be a death threat, and ought to be something to report to the real life police. Once in real life jail, the problematic social media posts will end. Just stick with the objective rules, and you’ll be okay. Don’t discriminate based on viewpoints.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Mick Jabber says:

Re: Re:

Well,that’s a real easy fix. Everyone will just espouse viewpoints that only conform to YOUR particular narrow range of myopic and uninformed political opinion,completely negating the purpose of having the 1st Amendment in the first place.

How about stop trying to force everyone else to believe the same things you do,especially since the things that you believe are completely ridiculous and absurdly counterfactual on their face?

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Everyone will just espouse viewpoints that only conform to YOUR particular narrow range of myopic and uninformed political opinion,completely negating the purpose of having the 1st Amendment in the first place.

On private property, you have no First Amendment rights. The owners of said property can kick you out if you say anything they don’t like hearing on their property. And you’d still be free to speak your mind elsewhere.

A social media company has the right to ban racial slurs from its platform even though racial slurs are protected speech. Feel free to explain why it shouldn’t have that right…if you can.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Well,that’s a real easy fix.

It is, actually. All of these alt-social media experiments that you’re seeing is going to illustrate who’s right & wrong fairly quickly.

Either the assholes who feel persecuted on mainstream social media will find a home where their ideas can flourish. Or, those same assholes will grow tired of their peers because let’s face it – they’re assholes.

There’s nothing philosophical going on. The same people being kicked off social media are the same ones getting disinvited from family events, etc. The reason is they’re assholes. It’s not a 1A issue, unless you’re talking about my right not to have to entertain assholes.

How about stop trying to force everyone else to believe the same things you do,especially since the things that you believe are completely ridiculous and absurdly counterfactual on their face?

I’d love for the religious right/evangelical nutcases to lead that charge. Think you can get them to agree?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Mick Jabber says:

Re: Re:

Well,strangely enough,Twitter’s deeply-held beliefs regarding not hosting that sort of content never manifested before like 2017 when Congress,the media,and groups like the ADL started telling them to censor that content.

Also,we already don’t allow companies to just refuse to do business with people based on categories that they belong to in America. It’s strange that NOW,when it’s people that you don’t like being barred as a class of consumers,that you guys have suddenly become libertarians.

My guess is that if Twitter somehow developed a deeply held belief that men who wear dresses are still men and began banning people for saying that they are women,your own deeply held libertarian beliefs in the right of companies to deny people civil rights based on the beliefs they hold would evaporate just like your previous beliefs in free speech, workers’ rights,privacy from government surveillance,and anti-war foreign policy were discarded as soon as it became convenient for you to do so.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Twitter’s deeply-held beliefs regarding not hosting that sort of content never manifested before like 2017 when Congress,the media,and groups like the ADL started telling them to censor that content

[citation needed]

It’s strange that NOW,when it’s people that you don’t like being barred as a class of consumers,that you guys have suddenly become libertarians.

…what the fuck are you talking about

if Twitter somehow developed a deeply held belief that men who wear dresses are still men and began banning people for saying that they are women,your own deeply held libertarian beliefs in the right of companies to deny people civil rights based on the beliefs they hold would evaporate

Not really. I’d lose all respect for Twitter and possibly add a blockline for it in my HOSTS file, but I would never say “Twitter doesn’t have a right to do that”. Twitter absolutely has the right to decide whether it will punish or tolerate transphobic speech. All of its right-wing imitators have the same right, and I’ve never said otherwise.

Now, if Twitter were to start banning trans people only for being trans, then I’d have a bigger problem with that. In all likelihood, so would Twitter.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

That was a yes or no question and I might have missed it but I didn’t quite see either in your answer, so just to be clear…

Should Twitter be forced by law to host viewpoints and opinions⁠—like, say, “gay people shouldn’t have the right to marry each other”⁠—that it otherwise wouldn’t host?

… would your answer to that question be ‘yes’ or ‘no’?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Mick Jabber says:

Re: Re:

Well,strangely enough,Twitter’s deeply-held beliefs regarding not hosting that sort of content never manifested before like 2017 when Congress,the media,and groups like the ADL started telling them to censor that content.

We already don’t allow companies to just refuse to do business with people based on categories that they belong to in America. It’s strange that NOW,when it’s people that you don’t like being barred as a class of consumers,that you guys have suddenly become libertarians.

My guess is that if Twitter somehow developed a deeply held belief that men who wear dresses are still men and began banning people for saying that they are women,your own deeply held libertarian beliefs in the right of companies to deny people civil rights based on the beliefs they hold would evaporate just like your previous beliefs in free speech, workers’ rights,privacy from government surveillance,and anti-war foreign policy were discarded as soon as it became convenient for you to do so.

Cattress (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

So first thing, how does donning a dress determine the sex or gender of an individual? Yes dresses are traditionally feminine garments worn by women, but throughout history the particulars of what is considered masculine and feminine have not exactly been static. Men have worn worn makeup, high heels, wigs, embraced the color pink, ruffles and frills, grown their hair long, wax/shave body hair. Some traditional men’s clothing in the Middle East are rather reminiscent of caftans and tunic dresses, and those are in cultures with very strict interpretations of masculinity.
And how unsurprising that you are so upset by a biological male identifying with the feminine gender, yet make no mention of a biological female identifying as the masculine gender. Deep down, or maybe not so deep, you see femininity and women as inferior. You think little tomboys are cute and endearing, but little boys pretending to be princesses a shameful abomination.
The trans and non-binary communities simply wish to be accepted for who they are, as they present themselves, without being forced to conform to rather arbitrary social designations of gender assigned to certain genitals and chromosomes. You have no right to know anything about their sexual organs or chromosomes, it’s none of your business. You have no moral authority to make claims degrading another person’s humanity.
I’m sorry you feel threatened by a changing world, we all struggle with change. But the reality is that the patriarchy that demands such conformity hurts men too. Similarly, the systemic racism that has created chasm in racial disparity is also restraining significant potential successful outcomes and better living for all of humanity. Who knows what humanity could have achieved if it did engage in religious war and genocide,not to mention the ridiculous antivax, anti-mask, general refusal to mitigate the spread of the pandemic, plus the old classic disinformation campaign on the effectiveness of condoms, wiping out so much potential.
So if Twitter decided that keeping content that is hostile and degrading to certain groups of people, contrary to your assertions (which also make clear that you have never read Techdirt before now) I would respect their right to be assholes and just close my account. Of course then you would be screaming about cancel culture…

Bobvious says:

Re: Once in real life jail,

the problematic vexatious lawsuits will end

“Old habits die hard, even when limited by incarceration. Convicted lawyer/Prenda mastermind Paul Hansmeier apparently isn’t going to let being locked up for 14 years steer him clear of recidivism.”

https://www.techdirt.com/2022/03/22/court-tells-convicted-fraudster-paul-hansmeier-to-stop-wasting-the-courts-time-with-frivolous-litigation/

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

And,by the way,”being an asshole” is defined as having even vaguely right-wing views.

Welp, if any of those poor persecuted right-wingers would care to specifically outline what speech they’re being persecuted for, we could put this debate to bed.

The big problem is when pressed for specifics about which speech, specifically is getting them shunned, you all clam up.

So tell us, finally. What specific speech is getting you poor folks in trouble? Then we can see if it qualifies as being ‘assholey’ or not. Here’s your chance…

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re:

This would be a death threat,

No, it wouldn’t be. Not under the law. A general statement like that, which is not directed at any individual, nor directly calling for action is not, in any way, a death threat. The police would ignore it.

So, no, you’re wrong. But maybe, just maybe, this bit of you being wrong (not for the first time) will get it through your apparently thick skull, that these things are a lot more complex than you seem to think. And when you say “objective rules” it shows you’ve never moderated a mailing list of like 3 people, let alone a massive social media platform with millions of users.

There is no way to create “objective” rules when almost every thing is subjective. Your ignorance and naivete are kind of astounding, given your insistence that you know how to handle this.

Also, believe it or not: no major social media platform “discriminates based on viewpoints.” They have rules, and if you violate them, you may get suspended or otherwise limited. The only social media platform I know that has discriminated based on viewpoints is Parler, where the former CEO admitted to banning leftists.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re:

no major social media platform “discriminates based on viewpoints.” They have rules, and if you violate them, you may get suspended or otherwise limited.

To be fair, social media platforms do discriminate against certain viewpoints. They’re viewpoints that promote bigotry and are often used to harass certain classes of users off the service, granted, but still. 🙃

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Mick Jabber says:

Re: Re:

“Also, believe it or not: no major social media platform “discriminates based on viewpoints.” They have rules, and if you violate them, you may get suspended or otherwise limited.”

And their rules are specifically tailored to violate people with certain viewpoints. I’m really tired of this argument. How many left-wing people are going to get violated for saying that a man in a dress is a man? That’s NOT a left-wing viewpoint.

Your argument is like saying “Jim Crow wasn’t racial discrimination,water fountains had rules and black people broke them”. BY BEING BLACK.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

their rules are specifically tailored to violate people with certain viewpoints

And which viewpoints are those? Be speci—

How many left-wing people are going to get violated for saying that a man in a dress is a man?

…wow, okay, one of you fuckers decided to be honest and upfront for a change.

I’m sure there are plenty of left-leaning people who have issues with transgender people and the civil rights thereof. The difference between them and right-leaning people who have those issues? The left-leaning people know enough to not say the kind of shit you said.

That you went for the trans people example says a lot. It doesn’t say what you might want it to say, sure, but it still says exactly what it needs to say.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

And their rules are specifically tailored to violate people with certain viewpoints. I’m really tired of this argument. How many left-wing people are going to get violated for saying that a man in a dress is a man? That’s NOT a left-wing viewpoint.

This is the type of ‘conservative’ speech that the world MUST hear about? This is what you people think you need to shout from the rooftops?

If true, it illustrates the problem you have perfectly. You have opinions that no one gives a shit about, coupled with an inherent assholeness vis-a-vis your insistence that we hear it anyways.

But now, you have a plethora of sites where users will share and embrace those opinions. So it’s time to quit complaining, no? If you made your own place to shout your message, what difference does it make what everyone else on social media does?

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Its not like they have to pay the court costs if this silly shit actually gets passed.

This is appealing to the base who feel that they are the victim in everything.
Just because you were posting meme’s about the Obama’s being monkeys is no reason for a platform to tell you to fuck off.
Just because you insisted this toxic dirt & 1 simple trick would protect people from covid if they sent you $19.95 is no reason to get booted off.

These poor poor victims somehow manage to have elected enough people to save them that they can ram an unconstitutional law onto the books.
Last I checked victims were pretty much powerless & couldn’t amass enough power to save themselves.

If someone disagreeing with them is the worst thing in their lives… I really want to run them down with a truck.

If I stood in their neighborhood yelling how cool eating ass was, they’d remove me… but if they want to tell me how I’m going to hell, because their imaginary skyfriend “wrote” something that if you look at it sideways and have a specific outcome in mind, we’re all supposed to let them without asking them to GTFO our lawns.

I am not sure how these people manage to stay alive with these perfectly horrible things happening to them over and over. I mean its not like they are getting dragged behind trucks, or attacked for holding hands, yet they are the biggest victims in the nation… while somehow managing to control the political system and get their ridiculous religious beliefs turned into law.

Anonymous Coward says:

Mixed

I mean if we can have anti-hate laws prohibiting companies from saying anything that discriminates against another person for their orientation, then I can sort of understand passing a law prohibiting companies flat-out censoring or banning people for a regular non-harassing political opinion in a large place that normally allows typical politics, since a lot of people builds their lives around needing a job on social media these days. I don’t really see anything in the law that violates the first amendment.

However, the law is so dangerously broad, that I wish they could write it better.

As for ‘common career’, I’m not even sure what that is. Perhaps I can understand the argument that you need internet these days in the modern times to get a normal job, or having a regular job on YouTube but that’s about it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: One of these things is not like the others...

There’s a big difference between discriminating against someone for something they do versus discriminating against someone for what they are. You choose your political affiliation and especially how you express it, something like sexual orientation, race or gender not so much.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

While I’m not sure about every place, many people didn’t need to have a Twitter account alone at first, so someone banning them for their orientation would probably not be violating human rights so the need for such anti-hate policy could be compared a little. If it’s still not really the best to compare, then I could just replace the anti-hate thing with net-neutrality laws. In the end, some of the arguments behind some laws are based off the the idea against psychological abuse some companies do, over something that at first, wasn’t much about human rights in the first place.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: Re:

One of the braintrust at the hearings for the SCOTUS nominee tried to pitch a hypothetical that he could declare himself Asian and sue Harvard after he made a mess of a gender pitch.

They still, after all this time, can not understand that if it was a choice why oh why would anyone still be gay?
I want to get treated like shit.
I want there to be laws so bigots don’t have to serve me.
I want to run the risk of being killed for doing the same things straight couples get to do.
I want people to keep telling me to stop rubbing it in their face, for doing things much less than straight couples do out in public.

I mean religion is a choice, nearly every religion has instructions on how to convert between them.

Race is a stupid construct, everyone still bleeds red.
Pretty sure thats true for all humans.

Sexual orientation is a real thing & ZOMG despite denying all science, they’ve shown in many species that they have homosexuality. Its not like deciding to have Capt. Crunch instead of grapenuts one morning.

Gender is a bit more malleable, and much like the people who pretend that autism is having a massive upswing in happening (rather than noting that the diagnostic has gotten much better over time) the fact that more brave trans-people have come forward has given hope to others who felt this way & were keeping it hidden.

If you look at it from a distance, much of the furor is at those who don’t fall into the black & white thinking embraced by some. Nothing those people in the shades of gray do changes anything for everyone else, other than make them a bit uncomfortable & their answer is find ways to make the lives of those in the shades of gray that much harder.

We’ve always had gays, it only became a problem when we stopped doing our best to be invisible & demanded we be treated like humans. I mean its not like thats ever happened before… oh wait.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

They still, after all this time, can not understand that if it was a choice why oh why would anyone still be gay?

I imagine that there are a few boneheaded enough to actually believe that it’s a choice but I suspect that for many it’s mostly a matter of dodging guilt and personal responsibility since if sexual orientation is no more a choice than skin color is then the problem might be on their end for judging someone for a trait that they had no control over.

In addition to your list of ‘why would I choose to have horrible things done to/thought about me?’ which should be all that’s needed to shoot that idiotic claim down I’d demand that anyone making that argument either put up or shut up and choose to spend the next month as the sexuality they find the most abhorrent.

Not just pretend but actually be that sexuality and have the related thoughts and urges without any mental prompting or reminders from their conscious mind, even if they never follow through with action. If it really is a choice then it’s one they should have no problem making to prove their point.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

I’ve seen the bump in out of towners on Grindr, Scruff, etc when CPAC is in town.

I think there is a whole bunch of self-loathing because they preach gay is a sin & a buncha these closet cases lash out at other gays to try to keep their ‘sin’ hidden.

I mean look at gay homophobe a running list of conservative assholes who pass laws harming teh gays & then they get caught. They fear the wrath of a bunch of bigoted fuckwads so much they will support harm for people just like them.
If it IS a choice why don’t they just stop having those feelings?

Being gay isn’t a choice, but being a judgemental asshole hiding behind a “religion” thats says love one another/judge not/help the poor & ignoring all of those parts they claim are important…

“There are 6 admonishments in the Bible concerning homosexual activity and our enemies are always throwing them up to us usually in a vicious way and very much out of context. What they don’t want us to remember is that there are 362 admonishments in the Bible concerning heterosexual activity. I don’t mean to imply by this that God doesn’t love straight people, only that they seem to require a great deal more supervision.”

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

then I can sort of understand passing a law prohibiting companies flat-out censoring or banning people for a regular non-harassing political opinion

The problem is when all these people are asked for a concrete example of the speech being banned, they get all coy, and just day political speech. Remember Hitlers opinions were just political speech, as were the I
ideas of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Like I said, it’s a bit too broad. I was thinking more in terms of specific political sides involving some political stuff. I’m alright with Twitter and Facebook not allowing certain opinions. I would have an issue if it was like “I agree with Biden.” being allowed but not “I agree with Trump” or visa versa. Got reminded of an old story involving something somewhat similar.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Got reminded of an old story involving something somewhat similar.

I’d believe you if I didn’t think it’d be an example of this…

Conservative: I have been censored for my conservative views
Me: Holy shit! You were censored for wanting lower taxes?
Con: LOL no…no not those views
Me: So…deregulation?
Con: Haha no not those views either
Me: Which views, exactly?
Con: Oh, you know the ones

(All credit to Twitter user @ndrew_lawrence.)

ECA says:

And beyond

My state is passing the Same law Texas made about 6 weeks and abortion.
There was another bill that was based on HEART BEAT, which is still6-8 weeks, from February.
And I really find it STUPID that MEN are deciding this.

Girls?, Just hand the Newborn to the Man and walk away. It will solve allot of problems as soon as they get to the office.

Anonymous Coward says:

It's worse than that, it's dead, Jim!

There are two things I noted among the exceptions… for their absence. It may be that the EFF has already covered these, I haven’t read their coverage linked by an earlier commenter…

Removing content based on court judgements (in specific; I was thinking “defamation”, but it’s bigger than that) creates a catch-22. The court orders you to take it down, but taking it down subjects you to liability.

Also missing: “An expression that the common carrier is specifically authorized to censor by state law””.

If Georgia authorizes the “common carrier” to remove a message, it would be a nullity unless they added the state law exception. And if you think lawyers wouldn’t leap on that law-hole, you haven’t been reading enough cases.

Ian Williams says:

You know, thse laws seem to have a loophole you could drive a trucker convoy through.

“ 1) An expression that the common carrier is specifically authorized to censor by federal law;”

The only place AFAIK, where expression is specifically authorized to be removed by internet platform is in Section 230(c), and that listing includes the “or otherwise objectionable” clause.

All a provider would have to say is “we find bigotry, quackery, and false claims of election fraud” otherwise objectionable, and under federal law we are specifically authorized to remove it. It’s not our problem if you think the federal government was to vague in their authorization, you can sue them over it.

Ian Williams says:

I say once the law passes, someone should sue Truth Social under it, after all, promotion of goods and services isn’t one of the things internet platforms are specifically authorized by federal law to remove, and that’s to say nothing of making truthful claims pointing out that the election wasn’t stolen, or that Devin Nunes has lost a defamation case -again-.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Hmmm

Is it just me, or does this law read in a way that would prevent Facebook (and other social media companies) from deleting the accounts of sex offenders?

Granted, I haven’t read the full text, just Mike’s summary, so it’s possible there are additional exceptions for this. Seems a news article blasting the names of the people who support it under the headline “Georgia Senate approves bill to force Facebook to allow Sex Offenders” might just kill this one.

Wyrm (profile) says:

Shooting oneself in the foot

Funny enough, as I read their bill proposal, it applies way more to conservative platforms like Truth Social, which explicitly ban opposing views, than those like Facebook, which demonstrably allow a large scope of political views – and actually (slightly but noticeably) favor conservative ones by fear of being criticized by them… even as they are still criticized by them.

(Even the most open platforms have moderation rules that will get people banned, but their rules for this are mostly viewpoint neutral, focusing more on toxic behaviors – trolling, threats, harassment, etc. which just happen to be more common on a certain side of the political landscape. And the application of the rules is often a little more lenient towards right-wingers, because they are the ones complaining the loudest.)

I think someone should review their own bill asap. Or better yet, drop it completely as the grand-standing BS it obviously is.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...