The 5th Circuit Reinstates Texas’ Obviously Unconstitutional Social Media Law Effective Immediately
from the what-a-clusterfuck dept
Florida and Texas both passed blatantly unconstitutional laws limiting the ability of social media websites to moderate. Lawsuits were filed challenging both laws. In both cases, the district courts correctly blocked the laws from going into effect, noting that it was obviously a 1st Amendment violation to tell websites how they could and could not moderate. Both states appealed. A few weeks back there was a hearing in the 11th Circuit over the Florida law, where it became quite clear that the judges seemed to grasp the issues, and had lots of really tough questions for Florida’s lawyers. However, they have not issued an actual ruling yet.
On Monday of this week, the notoriously bad about everything 5th Circuit heard Texas’s appeal on its law, and the hearing went sideways from the very beginning, with one of the judges even trying to argue that Twitter wasn’t a website. That was only the tip of the iceberg of misunderstanding the three judge panel presented, confusing a number of issues around free speech, common carriers, private property and more. Based on the hearing, it seemed likely that the court was going to make a huge mess of things, but even then, it would be normal to take a few months to think about it, and maybe (hopefully?) reread the briefings. Also, standard practice would be to release a ruling where there would be a nominal period in which to file some sort of appeal. Instead, late Wednesday, the court just reinstated the law with no explanation at all.
An opinion is likely to follow at some point, but the whole setup of everything is bizarre and not very clear at all. The only bit of info provided is that the panel was not unanimous, suggesting that Judge Southwick, who seemed to have a better grasp of the matter than his two colleagues, probably went the other way.
So… what does this mean? Well, Texas is now a mess for any social media company. Operating in Texas and daring to do something as basic as stopping harassment and abuse on your platform now opens you up to significant litigation and potential fines. It strips editorial discretion, the right to cultivate your own community, and much much more that is fundamentally necessary to running a website with 3rd party content. I’ll have a second post later today exploring the many, many ways in which this law is effectively impossible to comply with.
I am positive that every decently sized social media company had to talk to its lawyers Wednesday evening and assess whether or not it makes sense to block access to everyone in Texas (even though some of the language in the bill suggests that it requires companies to operate in Texas). Others may decide to open the floodgates of hate, harassment, and abuse and say “well, this is what you required.” And it still won’t result in them not getting sued.
For what it’s worth, Trump’s own website, Truth Social, has moderation practices that clearly run afoul of this law, and he’s only protected from it to the extent that it still has less than 50 million monthly users.
It would be nice if the 11th Circuit came out with their ruling going the opposite way, and did so in a clear and reasoned fashion, setting up a circuit split that the Supreme Court could review. But that seems unlikely. I’ve been told that the judges on the 11th Circuit panel are famous for their excessively slow writing of opinions. The tech companies could seek an en banc review from the entire 5th Circuit, though much of the 5th Circuit is ridiculous and I’m not convinced it would help at all. There could be an attempt to appeal immediately to the Supreme Court’s shadow docket, but that’s also fundamentally an unknown arena right now.
So, in summary, Texas is fucked. Social media in Texas is now a risky proposition. And whether or not the companies continue to operate in Texas, the floodgates have been opened for ridiculous lawsuits. If you thought that Texas lawsuits over patent trolls created an entire industry unto itself, you haven’t seen anything yet.
Filed Under: 1st amendment, 5th circuit, common carrier, content moderation, discrimination, free speech, hb20, liability, social media, texas
Comments on “The 5th Circuit Reinstates Texas’ Obviously Unconstitutional Social Media Law Effective Immediately”
'Cesspits for all' or 'no social media for texas'
Well it looks like any social media platform above a certain size and operating in texas that’s not smart enough to just cut off service to the state will be prohibited from moderating conservative values such as checks notes pro-terrorism content, holocaust denial and anti-vaxx messages because several circuit court judges either don’t understand the first amendment or just hate it.
I’m sure that’ll work out great.
“with one of the judges even trying to argue that Twitter wasn’t a website”
Wow. I knew that you wouldn’t be exaggerating, and clicked on the story hoping to see that you were using some colourful euphemism, yet…
How the fuck can someone argue that accessing a service that you can use by going to http://www.twitter.com is not a website, yet the service that’s completely inaccessible without paying someone else for internet access is an internet service provider?
Of course Texas is screwed here, the judges presiding on tech can’t tell the analogous difference between a freeway, a car and parking space yet are trying to dictate how engines are built.
Re: Seperation
this is the idea of discussing Separation of things, For the Best in Understanding.
Separation of Church and state has a REASON.
An ISP is NOT a s company creating a service On the net, Nor a Chat/Forum site.
When Law makers DONT get a hint, How these things are separate, They Shouldnt be making laws.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Nice Move Elon
Permitting all legal political speech sure seems like good policy today! Remember, there’s no first amendment defense against discrimination.
To get a preliminary injunction, a litigant usually needs to demonstrate that some kind of adversity will occur unless the law is put on hold. In this situation, it’s the social media platforms causing the damage unless the law can proceed.
Re:
“Remember, there’s no first amendment defense against discrimination.”
So, hopefully the scum of the Earth that you support will be facing consequences when they do so on the platform that no longer protects them from going too far? Silver linings, I suppose, though I suspect there will be far less people voluntarily using a site where you people are allowed to abuse people freely
Re:
Discrimination against who, and on what basis? Be exceedingly fucking specific.
Re:
Texas Court of Appeals shill.
Re:
Because technically, it’s part of the First Amendment. Under the right to associate whoever the fuck we want. And most of us, foreigners included, would rather prefer we not associate with Nazis, COVID Deniers, and terrorists.
But you seem to have a problem with the First Amendment.
So, Koby, are the ones being “discriminated” against Nazis, COVID Deniers, and terrorists? As well as Rusian-backed insurrectionists?
Re: Adversity?
Ok,
Get this..
3-4 countries in teh EU tried this. the Aussie Gov. is abit Nuts also trying to do this.
KNow the Problem?
As soon as they Passed the laws, and the SITES killed access, Adversity happened. The Law makers got Tons of phone calls.
PLEASE start thinking. If they create a law against Public toilets, Whats going to happen?
Re:
Yes, there is. The only exception is with regards to business transactions involving certain protected classes, and neither political affiliation nor viewpoint qualify as protected classes. There is absolutely a First Amendment right to discriminate based upon viewpoint or political affiliation.
That’s not how it works. The adversity in this situation is that the law requires certain affirmative steps on the part of the plaintiffs and infringes on the plaintiffs’ 1A rights.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Step 1 Down
Step 1 down.
Now onto step 2. Get section 230 declared unconstitutional, government cant use state power to incentivize private actors to violate the rights of others.
Step 3, incorporate political affiliation into our red states’ civil rights codes.
Step 4. Extradite Mike and his buddies to our red states to face trial in our state courts and a nickel to a dime in our state prisons for conspiracy to violate of our civil rights codes.
We are coming for you mike!
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
Hey, shitbird: You missed a spot.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Saturday
Saturday May 7, 2022,
I have a life you pathetic fuck! I dont spend my entire life trolling a blog.
Get a boyfriend all ready you little pathetic sissy fuck!
Re: Re: Re:
No excuses, shitbird. You replied to other comments on that article yesterday (you forget that you have a comment history and we can all view comments in chronology), but you somehow couldn’t bring yourself to answer One Simple Question.
If you’re going to troll this site, don’t say you have a life. We both know that isn’t true.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2 Nope
Look you pathetic little sissy go to the gay club and get a cock down your throat so you will shut the fuck up.
I’m never ever posting anything over the weekend. I don’t jump when you say jump. The only thing I’m going to do is shove my fat cock down your pathetic throat.
Re: Re: Re:3
Your rape fantasies aside (and I really hope Mike does something about those one day)…
And yet, here you are. 😁
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4 On a Thursday
On a Thursday morning making fun of what a pathetic sissy you are posting on a blog Saturday morning. You should have been out having or hung over you pathetic little shit.
Re: Re: Re:5
And if you had a life, you wouldn’t be wasting it by fantasizing about raping someone you’ve never met or trolling him on the comments section of a tech blog. I wish I could say I was happy about living rent-free in your head, but the accomodations are pretty shitty in there.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
Says the guy who posts a demand on a Saturday morning. You are pathetic you little sissy slut. Get a dick down your throat for gods sake.
Re: Re: Re:7
This is sad even by your typical standards. You’re letting your anger at someone out-arguing you get the better of you—like, literally to the point where raping me seems to be all you can think about.
Please seek immediate and professional psychiatric help.
Re: Re: Re:8
To be fair, I think projecting his fantasies onto others is his therapy.
Re: Re: Re:7
Given how often you tell others to suck dicks in one way or another regardless of whether or not that’s something they’re into, I can only presume you’re obsessed with the idea because it’s something that you would clearly love to do if you could only get up the courage. TL;DR: you’re projecting.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:8 He's Into It
Trust me he is into it.
Re: Re: Re:9
I’m not. Your rape fantasies about me are frankly unnerving. I’d ask you to stop, but you clearly have issues with someone telling you “no”.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:10 Nope
Like you would know its me, you little slut. I’d just be the next cock in the train.
Re: Re: Re:11
I rest my case, Your Honor.
Mike, is there literally nothing you can do about this asshole’s constant and increasingly creepy threats to rape me?
Re: Re: Re:9
Trust me he is into it.
Nice of you to back up my theory with yet another badly punctuated comment. I was talking to you, and you answered by talking about yourself in the third person (from what I can make out). Backs up others’ impression of you as a spoilt, petulant child.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:10 No I'm Just Amazed
No I’m just amazed that you will say something as stupid as telling an open bisexual on this forum that ‘he’s projecting.’ As if I’m somehow closeted.
Re: Re: Re:11
You need to go back to school and learn what projection means.
Re: Re: Re:11
We don’t say you’re projecting as though you’re closeted, (un)Chozen. It’s because you’re clearly projecting your BDSM fantasies onto others. Simples!
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:11
Hey Chozen,
How many times have you violently raped somebody? Kids? Boys?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:12 Never
Never, little sissies like Stephen beg for my cock willingly, if you must know.
Re: Re: Re:13
You know, I used to think sissy hypnosis GIFs and captions were meant to be subversively ironic, but thanks for confirming that your team is as fucked up as I’d imagined.
Re: Re: Re:3
Re: Re: Re:
Get a boyfriend all ready you little pathetic sissy fuck!
There are three things I notice in this quote: poor spelling, bad punctuation, and clear projection.
Re: Re: Re:
You life also involves HARASSING the users of this blog.
So it doesn’t matter how much white worshipping and race traitoring you do outside.
You can’t touch enough grass to convince us otherwise.
Re: Re: Re:
You do spend a disproportionate amount of your life doing so, though.
Re:
Extradition only applies in criminal cases, shit for brains. You might have some chance if you find out Mike’s address, break in one night, and he shoots you, but the odds are better that he’ll be let go on the basis of self-defence and you’ll be charged with breaking and entering and criminal trespass. How do you like them apples?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Oh You Don't Get It
Oh you don’t get the long term plan you little shit.
We in the red states will incorporate political affiliation into our state’s civil rights codes. When that happens Mike’s entire livelihood will be illegal in every red state. Conspiracy to violate civil rights is a crime.
We will extradite mike and anyone like Mike who makes a living conspiring on how to violate our rights.
The only reason we cant yet do this is section 230. Federal immunity trumps state civil rights code. This civil action law further chips away at section 230. As we chip away at it form the civil side eventually we can move to the criminal side.
This isn’t a threat its a warning. Mike needs to find a new line of work because West Texas prisons suck.
Re: Re: Re:
Dude, Section 230 doesn’t govern anti-discrimination laws. Your whole forced association diatribe and fantasies about jailing and raping me (possibly not even in that order) doesn’t make nearly the impact you think it does when the logical basis for that diatribe is flimsier than a wet sheet of notebook paper.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2 You Are and Idiot
“47/230/e/(3)
(3)State law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent any State from enforcing any State law that is consistent with this section. No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section.”
This covers all state civil rights code.
This was the issue in Candice Owens suit with AirBNB when they denied service. AirBNB claimed they had section 230 immunity and the court said no AirBNB is not an interactive computer service so civil rights code applies and the case moves forward.
Re: Re: Re:3
So what?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4 Means You Are Wrong
It means you are wrong again you dipshit. As usual you substitute your pure speculation and wishful thinking as fact. You’ve never in your life read the fucking act you pathetic little fuck.
Re: Re: Re:5
Explain how I’m wrong when (1) your own post seems to indicate that Section 230 doesn’t override anti-discrimination laws, (2) I never said 230 overrides anti-discrimination laws, and (3) you’ve offered nothing that says California state law can explicitly override Twitter’s First Amendment–protected moderation choices to force an association between a given user and Twitter.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
“(1) your own post seems to indicate that Section 230 doesn’t override anti-discrimination laws, ”
Yes it does you are just too stupid to understand why. Its any state law which includes state civil rights code. State Civil rights code is inconsistent with the act.
Re: Re: Re:7
Okay but it actually doesn’t though. Section 230 is about granting liability protections to interactive web services over third-party speech (and the moderation thereof). But Section 230 doesn’t protect those services if they decide not to let Black people use said services because of their race.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:8 Federal Law
That is federal law. The act specifically exempts federal law. It does not however exempt state law. Mike is immunized from any state civil rights code.
Re: Re: Re:9
Again: Section 230 isn’t about anti-discrimination practices, but about moderation and legal liability for third-party speech. 230 can’t and won’t protect a website—even one based in California—from a charge of racial discrimination if the charge can be proven.
how are you so fucking bad at this
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:10
“Again: Section 230 isn’t about anti-discrimination practices, but about moderation and legal liability for third-party speech. 230 can’t and won’t protect a website—even one based in California—from a charge of racial discrimination if the charge can be proven.”
You can bring a federal case you cannot bring a state case. State laws are trumped by section 230 says so right in the text you fucking moron.
Re: Re: Re:11
Again: Section 230 doesn’t preëmpt anti-discrimination laws. If someone can prove Twitter or Facebook discriminated against Black users in some way, 230 not only won’t protect that service, 230 can’t protect that service because Section 230 is not about whether a company can legally discriminate against protected classes of people, but about immunity from legal liability for third-party speech.
how are you this fucking stupid, holy shit
Re: Re: Re:12
It is difficult to get a person to understand something when their entire argument depends upon them not understanding it.
Re: Re: Re:9
Actually, it only exempts federal criminal law and IP law (and a few other narrow categories). It doesn’t exempt preexisting federal civil law except where otherwise specified.
More importantly, the conduct you’re accusing Mike of (conspiracy to discriminate) is not that of Mike acting as either a provider or user of an interactive computer service, so §230 doesn’t immunize that conduct.
Re: Re: Re:7
No, it doesn’t. You are just too obtuse to understand that Section 230 protects a site’s moderation choices in the face of user-generated content. This protects the site if a user posts copyright infringing material two hours before the first moderator on duty wakes up for the day.
Re: Re: Re:3
…AirBNB is not an interactive computer service…
Nor is Four Seasons, and they have a website too. Your point?
Re: Re: Re:
Put down that crack pipe, you’re hallucinating again.
Re: Re: Re:
Political affiliation is not an immutable characteristic, so that would unlawfully violate the freedom of association.
You cannot extradite someone to face charges of discrimination because discrimination (and, thus, conspiracy, as conspiracy to commit an illegal or unlawful act is never harsher than the underlying wrongdoing) is a violation of civil law, not criminal law. Additionally, extradition is typically only sought in extreme cases. Can you name even a single case where someone was extradited to another state for violating that state’s anti-discrimination laws or conspiring to do so?
Also, again, Mike doesn’t do that.
§230 doesn’t protect the platform’s conduct outside of moderation of its own platform; conspiracy to discriminate doesn’t really fit that.
It also trumps every other state law.
No, it violates it. The only way to “chip away at section 230” is through federal legislation.
Re:
Does that mean Social media being free to not associate with people because of their politics, or does that mean there is only one party that people can associate with?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
It means if you are a business open to the public you cannot discriminate based on political affiliation. Cant refuse service in California because someone is a communist.
Some states have these laws. They come right out of the red scare. Mike’s business model is fundamentally illegal. He relies on a federal immunity to break the law in his own home state.
Just because you have federal immunity doesn’t make it any less illegal. Don’t confuse immunity with legality. The diplomate who rapes children still committed an illegal act.
Re: Re: Re:
Twitter would likely ding a user for posting a sentence such as “queer people should be purged from society”. Would that be “discriminat[ion] based on political affiliation” if a conservative user is more likely to post that sentence than a liberal user?
Re: Re: Re:2
Yes because it’s punishing conservative speech to the benefit of liberal speech, obviously. /s
Re: Re: Re:
Can you refuse service because someone is being abusive to other users, such as you being abusive to Stephen?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2 Stephen Likes the Abuse
Stephen likes the abuse. He is just a little sissy slut. With hope and enough degradation he will get out and get a cock down his throat. He needs it badly.
Re: Re: Re:3
Ducking that question will not make it go away.
Re: Re: Re:3
You didn’t answer the question, and we are not required to accept as true your claims that Stephen consents if Stephen fails to confirm it.
Re: Re: Re:
It means if you are a business open to the public you cannot discriminate based on political affiliation.
I have yet, in 52 years, to go to a business where I discuss my political affiliation, much less there being a question of whether or not I get served.
Where exactly is all of this happening, and why are you people hell-bent on making political affiliation front and center in discussions? Don’t you have anything else to talk about?
There’s certainly a pattern of your posts that is condescending, petty, and frankly batshit crazy. Perhaps you should consider those things if you’re being ignored instead of thinking it’s a politics thing.
Re: Re: Re:2
Twitter has rules against speech that promotes homophobia, racism, and other forms of bigotry. Figure out the connection between that speech and “political affiliation”, and you’ll have answered your question.
Re: Re: Re:2
Now when soundbites from politicians determines their talking points, and they believe all claims made by their chosen party.
Re: Re: Re:2
Where exactly is all of this happening, and why are you people hell-bent on making political affiliation front and center in discussions? Don’t you have anything else to talk about?
It’s because they can’t defend being an asshole on it’s own merits and they’re certainly not going to stop acting like that so they’ve decided to pretend that being one is a ‘political’ position and then whine about the ‘political persecution’ any time someone calls them out for being an abusive jackass.
Re: Re: Re:3
For some of them abusive and bigoted is their political position.
Re: Re: Re:4
Remember that it’s been proven with primary sources that Texas Republicans have officially declared that when they say “Conservative Values” they mean “Holocaust denial, vaccine disinformation, and terrorism.”
Re: Re: Re:
Please point to where Mike has been discriminating against people based on their political affiliation?
I mean if he is, it should be easy for you to prove.
Does that mean every time Fox News removes my anti-republican comments from their news website that the Fox execs will go to jail?
Re: Re: Re:2
Does that mean every time Fox News removes my anti-republican comments from their news website that the Fox execs will go to jail?
They ought to go to jail, but not for removing your comments. 😉
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Freedom of Association and Freedom of Speech
Freedom of association and freedom of speech when it comes to public businesses and places one go so far as to when one would reasonably consider such speech or such association as an endorsement.
The courts have ruled on this time and time again. Someone speech or presence in a public business would not be seen by a reasonable person as an endorsement and is therefore not the speech of the owner of the business.
Re: Re: Re:
If anything, you’re making the case for Twitter moderation by saying Twitter has the right to moderate speech someone might reasonably consider Twitter to be endorsing were that speech allowed to stay up.
how are you so fucking bad at this, kid
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2 No Reasonble Person
No reasonable person would. This is already asked and answered by the courts. Stephan you little sissy slut. You post demands of others early on a Saturday morning and expect them to respond.
YOU ARE NOT A REASONBLE PERSON!
You are fucking insane!
You need to ask yourself why you think its “reasonable” but the courts have time and time again said its not.
Re: Re: Re:3
And yet, Twitter still retains the right to moderate speech on the Twitter platform—an act protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and bolstered by 47 U.S.C. § 230.
Re: Re: Re:3
Does that mean you only visit Techdirt when whiling away your time at work, getting paid for doing nothing of value to your employer?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4 I Could Care Less
I could care less what you do on Saturday. Dont however make demands on me to come to this shithole on my Saturday.
Re: Re: Re:5
shithole
What’s the point of frequenting a shithole?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
I’m not like you. People in the center or two the right get their news from a wide verity of sources. I like seeing your pathetic arguments. It lets me hone mine.
There has been an oft repeated study on this. The right gets their news 60/40 right left. The center gets theirs 40/60 right left. The left gets theirs 5/95 right left.
Not only is this an echo-chamber it also causes this project where those on the left think that those on the right or center consume news as biased as they do.
Re: Re: Re:7
Coming from you, that’s a compliment.
Re: Re: Re:7
I like seeing your pathetic arguments. It lets me hone mine.
I guess I still don’t understand how honing your skills against pathetic arguments is useful, unless you feel you need practice.
Which begs the question as to what you’re practicing your argument skills for? That seems like a waste of time, unless that’s your primary job role.
Re: Re: Re:8
You misunderstand. He’s honing his pathetic arguments. I’m not sure why. They seem adequately pathetic as-is.
Re: Re: Re:7
Here’s how news consumption works in the real world, contrary to Chozen’s false-as-always numbers: https://www.techdirt.com/2019/01/18/splinters-our-discontent-review-network-propaganda/
Re: Re: Re:7 Show your article
Show where you got those numbers.
And I will show you the Far right gets there Opinions from only a certain group. That group TELLS them what to to do, and WHOM to BLAME, but Never a solution.
The Middle seems to be Shutting off the TV, and Avoiding most of the news sections, for Choices of their OWN.
The LEft? Dont ask. They seem to have lost their way.
PS. Just for Giggle, why dont you go back in History, nad see WHO has been in office the longest, repub or demo, for the last 50 years. Then Understand another think. HOW many of them have been in Gov. Offices for 20-40 years, and still IN THE SYSTEM.
Do you know WHy the system Limits the amount of TIME Any of these folks can be in OFFICE? But TO MANY have been there for so long, They should ALL retire.
Re: Re: Re:5
If you think Techdirt’s such a shithole, then why the fuck are you even here? Fulfilling your masochist fantasies of getting a verbal beatdown?
Re: Re: Re:3
And the answer is that moderation that favors or disfavors certain viewpoints on a privately-owned website open to the public is protected by the 1A right to freedom of association and free speech in addition to §230(c)(1), and §230(c)(2)(A).
Eventually, yes. Not necessarily right away. No one cares if you respond on a Saturday or a Monday or whenever. If you choose not to post anything on weekends, that’s your prerogative. Similarly, it’s Stephen’s prerogative to decide to post his “demands” on a Saturday.
That said, lots of people have more time—not less—to write posts on the weekends. There is no reason to expect that it would be most likely unreasonable for some arbitrary person to post on weekends. You have given no explanation for why it’s unreasonable in general.
[citation needed]
Re:
You know, the only thing stopping you from actually shooting MIke and, well, Tim Cushing, Glyn Moody, Karl Bode and the rest of the Techdirt editorial team is the fact that murder is I L L E G A L.
But thanks for being a homicidal brownshirt.
Re:
My lord, you are easily one of the dumbest people on the planet.
Not only are you massively and impotently angry, you haven’t even the slightest idea of how anything works.
Re: I hope you read the chaos you have Chosen.
#1
REPUBLICANS gave corps 1st amendment rights. So that Corps could use MONEY to represent Their vote.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT. So no matter what you do, they STILL have 1st amendment rights.
Re:
Which §230 doesn’t do, so this will fail.
Civil rights regarding discrimination by private parties are for immutable characteristics and religion only. Anything else violates the 1A freedom of association.
Since you can’t conspire to violate civil rights codes that either don’t actually exist yet or didn’t cover the alleged act being allegedly conspired to do at the time of the conspiracy, this fails right out the gate.
The Webpocalypse Is Upon Us
Welp, I truly thought this would never happen but it has and about the line “Texas is fucked”, Not only Texas, But the WHOLE DAMN WORLD! Say goodbye to every site you’ve grown to love because this is the end of the internet as we know it.
Re: Boiling Frogs
That frog thing is a myth, but as a metaphor it’s perfectly apt. I’ll try to keep it apolitical.
TL;DR – it’s too late and this trainwreck is heading down the cliff.
ONE GROUP wants to eliminate the rights of women and force them to be breeding animals. The argument of “every life counts” seems to start with a sex act and END upon childbirth. After that anything from imprisonment, expulsion, death penalties and war ARE ALL JUST FINE because, well, it’s already been born.
SO this is A-OK but if those other people in the other places want women to wear a body-covering, “we” decry that, call it names, and urge THEIR women to buck THEIR laws in THEIR countries.
ONE GROUP wants to eliminate rights of anyone other than themselves. They would like to be the moat-dragon of Big Content, earn obscene amounts of money for things they did NOT create, provided NO creator incentive, and virtually (“literally”) screwed the real creators out of the profit.
SO this is A-OK if you like the group, but otherwise is anathematic to core values we supposedly espouse (e.g 1AM.)
The end result is a gradual erosion of the rights of the “rest of us”, which I would say is group three:
ONE GROUP just wants to be left alone. We don’t harm children. We don’t tell others what to do with their bodies or clothing. We respect that if someone wants to setup a website (sorry, 5th Cir. http[s]://[www.]twitter.com IS a website. I guess it will take a jury (“trier of fact”) to figure that one out because our circuit court and supreme court judges are woefully out of touch and pretty darn stupid.
That’s A-OK by me, because I do think that my rights should extend just until they conflict with your rights, and vice-versa.
The frog-boiling thing is a myth, but it is an excellent metaphor for what happens when we let the long-game scammers play that long game for a long time. In the end, they “win.” By the time we see the “win” and recognize it… it is too late.
To use a cruder analogy, this is like being part of a traffic stop, a few words exchange, and being handcuffed in the back of a police vehicle enroute to jail, then a hearing, then a trial (maybe) then prison. One can’t get out of the handcuffs OR the patrol car… without making the punishment worse. The time to have fought was when “they” passed laws allowing “them” to ignore your rights.
Civil rights? Human rights? Free speech? Sure sounds good on paper. “Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlMwc1c0HRQ&ab_channel=NickKing
Re: Re:
“ONE GROUP wants to eliminate the rights of women and force them to be breeding animals.”
Says the person who cares nothing for any human being who is still in the womb. Unique DNA sequence means the baby is NOT “part of the woman’s body” but is simply living and growing there until he or she can survive outside it. So it’s not just about her. You also show absolutely no concern for the many, many women who are forced into getting abortions by their families or SO’s.
And many of us DO care about our kids well after birth. Quit generalizing, because doing so shows your ignorance, that you only see people as large monolithic groups instead of individuals, and that you’re fine with people generalizing against you and your beliefs.
Only the enforcement of your point of view matters to you. Doing the very thing you accuse those you disagree with of doing. Want to prove otherwise? Then start qualifying your statements and take back every generalization you have ever made. Because generalizations are always wrong, and people are not faceless collections of blobs. You want your view taken seriously, then drop the sweeping statements and treat those who think differently than you do the way you want you and your beliefs to be treated. Hate will turn on you eventually and destroy you, so don’t give in to it.
Re: Re: Re:
Yes or no: Should any person be forced by law to give birth, even if doing so will kill them? Please note that the circumstances of how a given pregnant person became pregnant are irrelevant.
Re: Re: Re:
Bloody hell do you people ever get new arguments?
‘It’s got different DNA!’ So what. The person passing by me on the sidewalk has different DNA than me, that wouldn’t mean if I needed a blood transfusion and they were the only match I’d get to conscript their body to provide the needed blood, even if it cost me my life were they to refuse.
‘Women are forced into getting abortions!’ Alright, if that happens at a rate that’s more than a statistical anomaly that’s a problem I’d like to see addressed, but just out of curiosity how concerned are you about the women who are forced into not getting an abortion by say laws making it illegal and bounties put on those that get/provide one? Is that something you are concerned about or does it only work one way with you?
Re: Re: Re:
And in the case of monozygotic twins, the DNA isn’t unique. Your point?
Re: Re: Re:
The problem is that you don’t care about every kid born of a woman who couldn’t have an abortion, but you damn well care that she must carry it to term.
You know the best way to avoid unwanted pregnancies, all men should get a vasectomy. If women can’t have full bodily autonomy, then men shouldn’t either.
Oh, just a little reminder – every sperm and every egg has their own unique DNA, they are just living in a body until they can survive outside but I don’t hear you complain about them being literally flushed down the toilet.
Re: Re: Re:
Not nothing; just less than the woman with the womb carrying the fetus or zygote or whatever.
So that means that someone with chimerism is two or more different people? That a donated kidney is not part of the recipient’s body? That a sperm cell or egg cell (even one that is unfertilized) is not part of the person’s body? That identical twins are part of the same body?
If he or she will ever be able to survive outside of it, which is often not the case. Furthermore, until the fetus does become capable of surviving outside the woman’s body, it can still be considered part of it.
Primarily, it is about her.
That’s a separate issue. Banning abortion is not the solution to that; ensuring proper safeguards and procedures so that all elective abortions are fully consensual will help deal with that. And banning abortion doesn’t suddenly make that pressure go away.
Your kids, anyways. But that’s not even the point. This is about the many who don’t. If you are not among them, great! That particular criticism isn’t about you, then.
[citation needed]
Re: Re: Re:
It is literally impossible to “care” for the unborn in any manner that isn’t directly to the pregnant person. The fetus doesn’t matter until she declares it does, and even then her life will still be prioritized in an medical emergency.
For every step towards giving a fetus rights to person-hood, you effectively strip the rights pregnant women, actual persons. There is already a pervasive problem of society collectively trying to own pregnant bodies. From people who touch pregnant bellies without invitation or permission, to the tsks and lectures over drinking coffee, smoking, heavy lifting, or having a glass of wine. When the fetus has rights, legislation that “protects” the fetus will follow. There is already a disturbing amount of pregnancy surveillance, like surreptitiously testing lab samples for drug use, in particular for Medicaid patients. And in cases of miscarriage, or fetal demise, there are already legislators chomping at the bit to make forensic investigation into whether the loss was caused intentionally or not the law. Do you understand the sweeping implications for every female in America, because I don’t think you have the faintest clue.
I also don’t think any of the so-called pro-lifers have a clue how granting rights to the unborn will devastate anyone seeking infertility treatment, or family building plan. Of course we hear cavalier and ignorant suggestions that adoption solves all these problems, like babies are some kind of commodity that can be bought, sold, or traded based on market forced of supply & demand.
The entire anti-abortion movement stems from white males fearing the inevitable slip of their iron grip on social order and power. If you think this is about saving babies, you have been duped and used. Your emotions and sensitivity activated by misleading statistics, inaccurate information, grossly edited images from scientific study. Your argument that freedom of choice results some how in loss of freedom of choice because there is risk of coercion, doesn’t even make logical sense. And my god, if you think coerced abortion so horrible (and any coerced decision is absolutely wrong and equally awful) then you need to know how forced birth works out for mother and child. The turn away study is a good start, but pretty mild. Look at the legacy of orphanages, homes for unwed mothers. There is a lot of brutal abuse, death, suffering. Babies left in the sun to die, children left with so little human interaction and without all the necessary stimulation that they rock themselves and beat their heads on the sides of their cribs, children sexuality and violently physically abused, buried in unmarked graves to be forgotten. Women forced to place babies for adoption traumatized for decades. I don’t know how anyone sees the reality of real children actually suffering physically, emotionally, spiritually in reality, pain that is not fabricated or imagined, children with sentience and actual capability of the human experience, is some how a preferable way to be (because that’s what life is like when abortion is not legal, no need to imagine, we know).
Re:
Ok doomer.
Re: Re: I’m Not A Doomer
THIS IS THE WORST CASE SCENARIO THAT EVERYONE FEARED AND THOUGHT WOULD NEVER HAPPEN! What I’m saying is not hysteria, It’s fact. I wish it didn’t have to be this way but it is
Re: Re: Re:
You mad, bro?
Re: Re: Re:
Bruh, that is hysteria.
But I’m serious: Mate, relax. Texas’ law is terrible, yes. But It’s not the end of the internet nor the end of the world. As long as you live everywhere else other than Texas, you are fine. There’s no need to get this hysterical.
Re: Re: Re:2
Your asumption that this will not impact social media outside Texas readily shows an ignorance of the willingness of bad faith actors to sue over behavior Texas has no jurisdiction over. It also shows an ignorance of the various laws this ruling would impact in the 5th circut – conflating an ISP and a website will impact just about every regulation for the internet.
The idea the entire internet is over is hyperbolic, but over the next decade this ruling will overturn most assumptions in the legal arena for internet based businesses.
Re: Re: Re:3
Good points. I’m not ignoring that possibility that this will affect the internet legally in the long run. I apologize if I appeared blissfully ignorant. Just was trying to help a hysteric deal with anxiety.
Re: Re: Re:3 What Happens in Texas
What happens in Texas may not stay there. The US 5th Circuit seems to follow the rule of Zippo [Mfg Co v. Zippo Dot Com], 952 F.Supp.
1119 (W.D. Pa. 1997). See Mink v. AAAA Dev, 190 F.3d 333.
Actually, I think most everyone follows that now. The Zippo sliding scale generally means that if a site is interactive and has subscribers in a particular state, that is enough to meet the minimum contacts of International Shoe.
Twitter and other web sites most likely should use some sort of IP-based blocking and perhaps also amend their terms of service to expressly bar use from Texas.
(preview still broken, in that it does nothing, on linux using firefox 78.4.0 esr, 64-bit, no javascript. used to work on old site with same web browser.)
I’m pretty sure that Wikipedia has more than 50 million monthly “users”, if you count the people who access it rather than those with accounts, as the law seems to suggest.
Who will be the first to sue Wikipedia because its article about them isn’t exactly what they want?
Re:
Elon Musk.
Re:
Donald Trump
Re:
Malibu Media.
Social media in Texas is now a risky proposition.
The result of which is likely to be certain ‘non-websites’ being blocked to people whose IP addresses show them as being in Texas. When judges are well paid (through lobbying) to not know that a social media platform on the Web is absolutely a website, it’s the people on their state who suffer. I wonder if Judge Southwick has a social media account and that’s why his vote was so sensible.
When every court in Texas is filled with cases against Twitter, will the appeal court come to its senses.
Re:
Nope.
Re: Re:
I see you’re a man of culture.
Step 3, incorporate political affiliation into our red states’ civil rights codes.
So you’re going to make ‘asshole’ a protected class?
Re: Unfair analogy
Assholes are useful. 😉
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Already is in California
Already is in California. Mike gets away with breaking California law because he has federal immunity. Now I doubt Cali will ever enforce its civil rights code fairly but I don’t really want them too. I don’t trust California’s ability to make the modern colonialists like Mike suffer the way they need to. I’d much rather see Mike spend 10 years getting fucking in the ass in a Texas prison.
Re: Re:
…fucking what
Re: Re: Re:
People shit through assholes every day, meaning assholes are actually useful, unlike Republicans.
Re: Re:
Thanks for the word salad, but that doesn’t give any insight as to whether or not you’re going to make ‘asshole’ a protected class in red states or not.
I also think this could be a teachable moment for you…suggesting that there’s a plot where MIke’s got federal immunity while suggesting that he should be sent to prison and raped because of something you perceived he did/does is the kind of thing they used to send you to a psychiatric ward for.
I would suggest that you stop normalizing this ridiculous nonsense. Because absolutely no one will take you seriously when this is what comes out of your head.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
I don’t perceive anything.
I don’t perceive anything Mikes admitted business is to figure our the best way to deny others their freedom of speech specifically based on political affiliation which is illegal in California. Mike gets away with this, as does all social media because section 230 immunizes him from any state law inconsistent to section 230. Because section 230 is overly broad with “otherwise objectionable” state civil rights code is effectively unenforceable.
But once section 230 is gone the flood gates open and we in the red states get to come after Mike and his ilk and we will.
Re: Re: Re:2
That’s the first honest thing you’ve ever said.
How sad.
Re: Re: Re:2
So then that’s a yes about making ‘asshole’ a protected class?
Re: Re: Re:3 I've said it before...
Calling these fools assholes is an unfair analogy. Assholes are actually useful. I know because I shit through mine every day. 😉
Re: Re: Re:2
Mike has never claimed that Gab etc cannot exists, or that Alex Jones cannot have his own website and show, but rather that people are not entitled to force their way onto a platform, or into a conversation where they are not welcome.
Texas has just said that people like you can abrogate other peoples freedom of speech by making social media so toxic that people will not want to use it.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3 Not Californai Law
In California this idea that you can have a republican or conservative bar is fundamentally illegal. Its a violation of the state civil rights code.
If you open your doors to the public you cant say ‘republicans out’ in the state of California.
Re: Re: Re:4
Can you point to any instance of California shutting down or preventing access to partisan political web services (i.e., forums)?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5 Business is Business is Business
It doesn’t matter what the specific business is. You always like to engage in the fallacy of specificity when you are losing.
Re: Re: Re:6
It does, though. You made a claim; alls I’m asking you to do is cite something that proves your claim true. Your inability to do that is your problem; I’m not here to do your homework for you.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:7
You are sealioning
You are sealioning demanding ever increasing standards of proof as each argument fails.
Re: Re: Re:8
I’m not. Sealioning is the notion that I’ll never be satisfied with any argument you present. But if you can present a cogent, coherent, on-point argument with actual citations of fact that I can’t refute, I’ll gladly concede the argument. I’ve done so before on this site, I’ll do so again.
That you keep whining about people asking for proof of the things you claim as fact instead of offering the proof being asked for doesn’t reflect well on you.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:9 Back To Saturday
Back to Saturday now that I’ve read it you perthitic fuck. I said that BigTech doesn’t enforce its rules on using bots to game algorithms if they politically agree with who is doing it.
You came back and demanded evidence that the algorithms are written with bias which is not what I said.
You sealion all the fucking time!
Re: Re: Re:10
Your entire argument up to that point was, essentially, what I demanded evidence for: Gmail algorithms were/are rigged by “Big Tech” to specifically target conservatives.
You’re the one who wanted to whine about rigged algorithms. I wanted proof they were rigged. Ain’t my fault if you can’t prove your argument, shitbird.
Re: Re: Re:10
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Re: Re: Re:6
You always like to engage in the fallacy of generality when you are losing. Just sayin’.
So let me see if I have this right.
Companies have a First Amendment right to donate money to Republicans and right wing organizations.
Companies do not have a First Amendment right to criticize Republican policies or support non-right wing organizations, which is derided as being “woke” and can result in sanctions from the state.
Companies have no First Amendment right to moderate their own online platforms.
Re:
That accurately sums up the conservative position on this matter, yes.
Re: Re:
It’s the same position on every subject – they get to do whatever they want without consequence, those other people don’t have the right to do a damn thing if they don’t like it.
Most people grow out of that mindset before they finish puberty, but somehow permanent adolescence is an attractive quality to some voters.
Re: Re: Re:
Ah, an optimist.
Re: Re: Re:
Except for incels, who fail to learn that you need to treat possible partners with respect, and consider their needs and desires.
I guess this is the yang for the previous story’s yin, in which the 5th Circuit denied immunity for the prosecutor and detective. The 5th Circuit giveth, and the 5th Circuit taketh away…
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
The Social Media Sites don’t use their powers to moderate hate, instead they use it to sensor material they aren’t politically aligned with. Sounds like this was a win for Free Speech!
Re:
Which material would that be, pray tell? Be exhaustively specific.
Re: Re:
Chozen’s effectively answered that by suggesting that he would make ‘asshole’ a protected class. When they say ‘political affiliation’ it’s as a scapegoat for assholishly hostile behavior and a penchant to argue about everything, especially with people who have no interest in arguing.
Frankly, I see why they do it – everything is someone else’s fault, so they blame assholism on politics, drape themselves in their flags, and pretend it’s about freedum.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Hunters laptop
Wuhan Lab
Re: Re: Re:
Okay, and…what law prevents social media services from moderating speech they don’t agree with or want to host? Be specific; cite the exact text.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2 Cali Code
(b) All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, POLITICAL BELIF OR AFFILIATION, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind WHATSOEVER.
That whatsoever kind of destroys your favorite fallacy of specificity arguments.
Re: Re: Re:3
It doesn’t, unless you can cite a single instance of that law being used to deny a social media service the right to moderate speech.
Whine about sealioning all you want; that won’t save you here. Either show me the proof or show yourself the door.
Re: Re: Re:3
A business establishment is a physical location in which business-related activities take place. How does the law thus regulate Twitter and other web-based services in what they do online? That specific definition destroys your favourite fallacy of general arguments. Do me a favour and go in for a Darwin Award, why don’t you? Only one step to go to qualify for one.
Re: Re: Re:4
Hate to burst your bubble there, but the Darwin Awards are now meaningless. They’ve begun awarding them to people who’ve had kids.
Re: Re: Re:
If those topics were silenced, how did you come to know about them?
Re: Re: Re:
So you admit you have zero examples, got it.
Re: Re: Re:
Wasn’t banned; only links to a specific story about that laptop were temporarily banned under a policy that no longer exists in a form that would’ve applied to that story. The topic itself was fully allowed.
Assertions that it was definitely from a lab were banned because such claims have not been demonstrated.
Re:
So are support Nazis, the Klan and similar groups spouting hatred about the others to be tolerated wherever they want to spout their hatred? What will you do when you become one of the Hated?
Re:
[citation needed]
Lol, you actually fucking think that the Supreme Court is going to reverse this decision? After the leaked draft on Roe v. Wade and everything?
This country is well and truly fucked and you still cling to the notion that the blatantly rigged systems will work out in the end.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Chip Chip Chip
“Lol, you actually fucking think that the Supreme Court is going to reverse this decision? After the leaked draft on Roe v. Wade and everything?”
Now you are getting it!!! Chip chip chip goes section 230. As we weaken it on the civil side we also weaken it on the criminal side. Once its gone we send the Mike’s of the world to red state prisons. I hear the Huntsville Unit is such a nice place.
Re: Re:
I’m honestly glad you confirmed that you and your conservative brethren plan to send your ideological enemies to prison for no reason other than their political leanings as soon as you turn the United States into an authoritarian Christian theocracy. That level of candor is…refreshing.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re: You Can Disagree All You want
You can disagree all you want. When you attempt to use your power to infringe on my rights I will fight back.
As I’ve said before silicone valley amounts to a modern technological colonialism. As small percentage of the worlds population is attempting to use market power and a technological monopoly to force their world view on everyone else. Not at all much different than what the Europeans did the the world during colonization.
Re: Re: Re:2
When has anyone, including the administrators of a social media service, ever blocked (or tried to block) your right to speak under any and all circumstances? Getting booted from Twitter isn’t a violation of your civil rights regardless of how much you want the world to think otherwise.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3 Its Always a Violatoin of Rightes
Its fundamentally a violation of rights. You say its a legal violation because there is no law against it, or if their is section 230 immunizes the platform.
I’m saying we will get rid of section 230, make it illegal, and throw Mikes ass in jail for it if he continues to do it.
Re: Re: Re:4
It isn’t.
You have no legal right to use Twitter unless you own Twitter. The same goes for literally every other interactive web service. Facebook, 4chan, Discord, any given Mastodon instance—none of them have any legal, moral, or ethical obligation to let you use them. You are no more entitled to a spot on their platforms than I am.
Twitter booting someone from the Twitter platform doesn’t violate any of your civil rights unless that someone can prove the ban was handed down in a way that violates non-discrimination laws. If you want to say I’m wrong, you’ll have to prove me wrong—and throwing a hissy fit about me asking for proof isn’t going to prove me wrong.
The First Amendment protects the right of Twitter to moderate speech on its platform—and Twitter’s right to choose, within the limits of non-discrimination laws, with whom it will associate. Unless you can cite a case where California state law has ever prevented Twitter from moderating speech or banning users on the basis of “political affiliation”, any such argument is bullshit. Unless you can cite a law or court ruling that overrides the First Amendment’s protections for speech and association, such that said law or ruling can force (and has forced) Twitter to host speech and users it would otherwise refuse to host, any argument that the law can do those things is bullshit.
Asking for citations of fact to back up your empty arguments isn’t sealioning. Getting the citations and acting as if they don’t exist would be. If you have the citations, present them and I’ll determine for myself whether they’re bullshit or not—and if they’re not, I’ll concede the argument to you. But if they’re bullshit, and you continue to press your claims despite being told they’re bullshit…well, don’t get pissy when people keep asking you to prove your claims. Your being unable to do so is your problem, not theirs.
Re: Re: Re:4
I’m saying we will get rid of section 230, make it illegal, and throw Mikes ass in jail for it if he continues to do it.
Nothing says ‘we’re for freedum’ like throwing someone in jail.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5 Basic Law
Our most basic laws prohibit us from infringing on the rights of others. That’s why people form governments in the first place. “L”ibertarians forget this. They get so caught up in the bill of rights that they forget why governments exist in the first place.
Re: Re: Re:6
And yet, you consistently argue that Twitter admins shouldn’t have the right to moderate Twitter because you believe in the imagined (and non-existent) right of free reach.
Re: Re: Re:6
Our most basic laws prohibit us from infringing on the rights of others. That’s why people form governments in the first place. Republicans forget this. They get so caught up in the First Amendment and free speech that they forget why governments exist in the first place.
FTFY. YW. :p
Re: Re: Re:2
What about you infringing on other peoples rights by insisting that you can turn every place that they gather into a cesspit? You re not defending wights, but rather demanding that a one party state is established, and no-one can disagree with the party.
Re: Re: Re:2
…[S]ilicone [V]alley…
I’ve never heard of that place before. Is that where you went to get your Brazilian butt lift?
Re: Re: Re:3
More like the cleavage of a woman after a boob enhancement.
Re: Re: Re:2
[Projects hallucinatioms contrary to any and all evidence]
Re: Re: Re:
…as soon as you turn the United States into an authoritarian Christian theocracy.
When will you tell them exactly what their precious First Amendment forbids?
Re: Re: Re:2
The rules mean nothing when the rulemakers can (and will) ignore the rules for their own benefit.
Re: Re: Re:3
*re-reads articles about Ron DeSantis and Josh Hawley* True.
Re: Re:
Once its gone we send the Mike’s of the world to red state prisons.
How do you reconcile sending people like Mike to prison for his speech with enhancing free speech by removing the ability to moderate?
Those things seem really really at odds with each other.
Re: Re: Re:
Remember: Chozen, like any other authoritarian, believes the law must protect but not bind the in-group (i.e., conservatives and anyone who agrees with them) and bind but not protect the out-group (i.e., literally everyone else).
“The law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone; and it cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.” — Frank Wilhoit
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
SOME conservatives. Like Ehud, you seem to think that people are nothing but monolithic groups that have no individual thoughts or beliefs. Your hate for the group as a whole is so strong that you refuse to acknowledge that people are, in fact, individuals and that not all subscribe to the belief set you attribute to the group.
I’m one of them. While I have certain things I believe in, I also believe no one should be discriminated against and that everyone deserves to be treated with human dignity and respect whether you agree with them or not. And yes, it IS possible to disagree with someone’s behavior and/or lifestyle and yet still treat him or her decently and respectfully.
But in your rush to judge and condemn the entire group, you fail to acknowledge and accept this. Which only says you’re fine with the same thing being done to you and those who believe as you do. So quit generalizing. Qualify your statements, adding words like “some” or “many” to indicate that you acknowledge that not all believe or act in the way you describe. Dismissing ANY group of people automatically destroys your credibility because it shows your refusal to acknowledge people are individuals and don’t always conform to what others in the group think or do.
Because no group that large ever acts uniformly. People are individuals and need to be seen and treated as such. If you want you and those you agree with to be seen and treated that way instead of being generalized against (as doing so against them invites), then do the same for others.
Re: Trouble in Hooterville
Here’s as good a place as any to make my statement.
A few of us TD’ers, a very few of us, see what’s coming down the pike. And that would be, the circuits are setting up the Supreme Court to fail. Not only fail themselves, but fail the country. The UUSC going to be put in the position of backing either the Constitution and specifically 1A, or backing the Asshole Party, and doing so by cloaking it with 1A, as if that were the intention of our founders.
It was bad enough with the abortion thing, but this is the line in the sand. I’m now strongly considering writing to my Representatives and Senators, inveigling them to please impeach these three judges on the Fifth Circuit. My hope is that taking out the three rotten apples will be sufficient to teach the rest of them to straighten up and fly right. Absent proof that they have indeed “seen the light”, then the rest of them are ripe for the same treatment.
It’s the only hope we have of straightening out our judiciary. I’m certainly not in favor of going full bore, all guns out and blazing, but experience tells me that sometimes you just can’t successfully suppress a house fire with a mere garden hose, you need to bring in an honest-to-Gawd water cannon.
I urge the rest of you (those who aren’t looking at the world through a glass belly button) to consider doing the same.
Re: Re:
Sorry, my self-editing skills are rather cramped this morning, the wife keeps interrupting me. Next time I’ll try to respond after she’s gone to bed or something. Sigh
Re:
In fairness, the reasoning behind Roe v. Wade was far weaker than the 1A and §230 problems with the Texas law.
Y’know, this troll is kinda amusing and all (in as much as I see select juicy lines of his being quoted), but it doesn’t seem more than tangentially related to the blog post. Or reality.
Guess I’ll, y’know, wander over to the other post about this issue.
These clowns really wanna force us to all go back to private web forums then? Good luck trying to get a court order to force yourself into such sites. We’ll just shut them down and put them on TOR or some Web3 protocol which will be hosted across many tiny countries that don’t give a single hoot what some Qanon nerd believes. Seriously, they just can’t accept that if they can’t attract an audience then they don’t have a right to one.
UPDATE: NetChoice and CCIA Are Going To SCOTUS
I’ve heard SCOTUS frequently disagrees with the 5th Circuit so………?
Something I never quite understood about this and other similar laws: If a company does not want to do business in your region (county, state, country, whatever), on what basis can that region’s government force them to operate there?
Re:
Texas is about to find out they probably can’t.
Ignoring the first amendment issues, how could this be legal by any standard? Seriously, what is their legal basis? Or is that simply another “novel” idea like offering bounties to track abortions?
Re:
Why should they care if there is a legal basis, it is the part of the electorate that they rely on for support, that will explore the legality of issues raised by both laws.
Re:
I asked the same question above. But it’s not “novel” to Texas. IIRC Australia said much the same thing when Google and Facebook threatened to pull out of the country over the link tax law.
Didn’t these judges give an oath to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution? Have they never even read it? Their “rulings” now look like nothing so much as treason.
Re:
Eroding the Constitution and Rule of Law the sole reason why McConnell/Trump chose the judges they did to appoint.
“Of course Texas is screwed”
And some of them are even allowed to be judges.
Ice Floes.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
cope and seethe
your just mad because social media companies are going to be treated like common carriers
Re:
And you are chortling in glee at gaining the ability to turn the Internet into a cesspit.
Re:
Explain how can a social media company become a common carrier?
You do realize that the internet and society will still function if all social media companies were to shut down tomorrow.
And how does social media become a common carrier but not an ISP?
Without the ISP, you wouldn’t have access to anything on the internet.
With an ISP, you have access to the internet, and guess what, nobody is forcing you to use social media. You know you don’t have to have a Twitter account.
So again, please give us a single valid reason why social media should become a common carrier when social media serves no purpose in order for life to survive.
Re:
My condolences to your literacy teacher, who obviously failed at the impossible task they were given.
Courts in America are joke 🤣
Re:
They most certainly are not, jokes are meant to be funny.
From appearances, this protection is likely to be long-lasting.
It’s honestly funny – almost disturbing – to see a degree-holder reducing himself to a babbling, incel, 4chan wreck.
Not to say that Democrats are blameless, but anyone who thought that Trump was the answer is fooling themselves.