Did Twitch Violate Texas’ Social Media Law By Removing Mass Murderer’s Live Stream Of His Killing Spree?
from the you-asked-for-this-texas dept
As you’ve no doubt heard, on Saturday there was yet another horrific shooting, this one in Buffalo, killing 10 people and wounding more. From all current evidence, the shooter, a teenager, was a brainwashed white nationalist, spewing nonsense and hate in a long manifesto that repeated bigoted propaganda found in darker corners of the internet… and on Fox News’ evening shows. He also streamed the shooting rampage live on Twitch, and apparently communicated some of his plans via Discord and 4chan.
Twitch quickly took down the stream and Discord is apparently investigating. All of this is horrible, of course. But, it seems worth noting that it’s quite possible Twitch’s removal could violate Texas’ ridiculously fucked up social media law. Honestly, the only thing that might save the two companies (beyond the fact that it’s unlikely someone would go to court over this… we think) is that both Twitch and Discord might be just ever so slightly below the 50 million average monthly US users required to trigger the law. But that’s not entirely clear (another reason why this law is stupid: it’s not even clear who is covered by it).
A year ago, Discord reported having 150 million monthly active users, though that’s worldwide. The question is how many of them are in the US. Is it more than a third? Twitch apparently has a very similar 140 million monthly active users globally. At least one report says that approximately 21% of Twitch’s viewership is in the US. That same report says that Twitch’s US MAUs are at 44 million.
Of course the Texas law, HB20, defines user quite broadly, and also says once you have over 50 million in a single month you’re covered. So it’s quite possible both companies are covered.
Focusing on Twitch: taking down the streamer’s account might violate the law. Remember that the law says that you cannot “censor” based on viewpoint. And anyone in the state of Texas can bring a lawsuit claiming they were deprived of content based on viewpoint. Some will argue back that a livestream of a killing spree isn’t about viewpoint, but remember, this idiot teenager made it clear he was doing this as part of his political views. At the very least, there’s a strong argument that any effort to take down his manifesto (if not the livestream) could be seen as violating the law.
And just to underline that this is what the Texas legislature wanted, you may recall that we wrote about a series of amendments that were proposed when this law was being debated. And one of the amendments said that the law would not block the removal of content that “directly or indirectly promotes or supports any international or domestic terrorist group or any international or domestic terrorist acts.” AND THE LEGISLATURE VOTED IT DOWN.
So, yes, the Texas legislature made it abundantly clear that this law should block the ability of website to remove such content.
And, due to the way the law is structured, it’s not just those who were moderated who can sue, but anyone who feels their “ability to receive the expression of another person” was denied over the viewpoint of the speaker. So, it appears that a white nationalist in Texas could (right now) sue Twitch and demand that it reinstate the video, and Twitch would have to defend its reasons for removing the video, and convince a court it wasn’t over “viewpoints” (or that Twitch still has fewer than 50 million monthly average users, and that it has never passed that threshold).
Seems kinda messed up either way.
Of course, I should also note that NY’s governor is already suggesting (ridiculously) that Twitch should be held liable for not taking the video down fast enough.
Gov. Hochul said the fact that the live-stream was not taken down sooner demonstrates a responsibility those who provide the platforms have, morally and ethically, to ensure hate cannot exist there. She also said she hopes it will also demonstrate a legal responsibility for those providers.
“The fact that this act of barbarism, this execution of innocent human beings could be live-streamed on social media platforms and not taken down within a second says to me that there is a responsibility out there … to ensure that such hate cannot populate these sites.”
So, it’s possible that Twitch could face legal fights in New York for being too slow to take down the video and in Texas for taking down the video at all.
It would be kind of nice if politicians on both sides of the political aisle remembered how the 1st Amendment actually works, and focused the blame on those actually responsible, not the social media tools that are used to communicate.
Filed Under: buffalo, content moderation, hb20, mass murder, racism, shooting, social media, texas, white nationalist
Companies: discord, twitch
Comments on “Did Twitch Violate Texas’ Social Media Law By Removing Mass Murderer’s Live Stream Of His Killing Spree?”
They will just file it under terror upon something.
You know how these people are.
An honest question to make sure I understand…
Where does S230 fit into this?
I thought it took precedence over state law.
I realize that potentially 1000’s of dumb HB20 suits over moderation would be painful but shouldn’t they all be thrown out?
Have pity, I am not a lawyer! Thanks
Re:
I think the relevant distinction here is that S230 deals with liability from the content of users, whereas this law deals with the access to the content.
To say in another way, S230 might be applicable if the shooter took Twitch to court, but the Texan law allows viewers to take them to court.
Then again I am also not a lawyer. 🙂
Re: Re:
…S230 might be applicable if the shooter took Twitch to court…
No. Section 230 applies when someone wants to sue a website for what someone else posted. Here’s some <“https://www.techdirt.com/2021/10/29/everything-you-know-about-section-230-is-wrong-why/”>more information on it.
Re: Re:
Well, section 230 (c)(20) also provides federal law protection for websites that take down objectionable material (that is, protection for most kinds of moderation) as long as the moderation is done in “good faith”, and it preempts inconsistent state laws, so, it would seem, this would block the Texas law on preemption grounds.
Preemption in this case should bar the Texas law completely, because it would potentially subject platforms to inconsistent state legal standards and procedures, which is just what preemption is supposed to prevent.
However, obviously, American courts are not known for a high level of rationality, so presumably they will decide whatever suits the prevailing political view of the judges.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re: Preemption and Other Nonsense
You young folks commenting here have a lot to learn about how the Federal courts work, and who is on both levels of the Federal appellate courts making decisions which are binding on Big Tech, specifically including big social media platforms. Those two factors and not anything written in Federal law, or Texas law, will determine whether the State of Texas, or its residents can enforce the Texas law called HB25 against the big social media platforms platforms.
I’ve been a lawyer for 48 years and graduated from a famous law school. I’m also retired in Texas. I’m watching the one current Federal lawsuit, filed by two Plaintiffs which are questionable as charitable groups recently formed by what are rumored to be people working for “Big Tech”. The case is being litigated for those Plaintiffs by some young lawyers at an inconsequential law firm.
The defendant in the case is the Attorney General of Texas. He’s a squirrely guy who has difficulty keeping hot-shot lawyers on his staff, but even his second tier lawyers are pretty good. On the other hand, when the Republican controlled Texas Legislature brought in lawyers to write HB25, they chose lawyers who are brilliant at Federal Court/U.S. Supreme Court litigation, so the “blow up Big Tech” language in the last half of the Texas social media platform law is sitting there like a landmine waiting to blow up on Twitter and Facebook when the litigators get to it at the U.S. Supreme Court. Things get even more interesting from there.
Unless a commenter, or a writer on a tech oriented website like this one has a law degree from a fancy law school, and has actually litigated for at least 15 years, the commenter/writer doesn’t have a bat’s chance of understanding what’s at issue in this case, or how it will come out. The principal reason for you all being clueless is that there is a boatload of law in the United States that floats around in the air, and isn’t written down for non-lawyers to read with neatly spaced simple Paragraphs A,B and C. It’s called case law, and it comes from the Supreme Court, the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal, and from each State’s Supreme Court. The second reason you all can’t understand the legal issues is that no tech-expert or tech-lobbyist’s opinion matters in this case. Logic doesn’t matter. Nor does expedience for the big social media platforms. And sadly, all the heartfelt pleas we are now hearing about stopping hate speech doesn’t matter either.
Those 2 sets of Federal appellate courts are going to decide how this case is going to turn out, and whether the social media platforms have to comply, and spend money to comply BEFORE the U.S. Supreme Court decides.
As you may have read in connection with the abortion case which is at the Supreme Court right now, all the Federal judges right now are divided into 3 groups:
(1) Democrat leaning Federal judges from the Blue States and a few individual cities like Austin. They are of absolutely no consequence in the Texas social media platform regulation case.
(2) Corporate leaning Federal judges who are both Republican and moderately rational, though their intellects are owned lock stock and barrel by corporate interests, like Big Tech, big polluters, Wall Street and banks, auto companies, pharmaceutical companies and the like.
(3) Far right wing Federal judges who were members of the Federalist Society before they had to quit because that’s what the court rules require, though the Federalist Society still owns those judges hearts and brains and its members still have lunch with those judges. They are “to the far right” politicaly, and at least for the next year or so are and will be vehemently in favor of “States Rights”…which supports the new Texas social media law being enforceable. States Rights are derived from the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The majority of the Supreme Court at this time are the most pro-states-rightsy since the court in the early 1900’s.
The majority of the U.S. Supreme Court are in that third category numbered above.
If you’ve been listening to the news lately, you’ll know that abortion rights are about to be blown up by the U.S. Supreme Court in an opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito. He’s an angry old guy the Federalist Society loves. He’s in Group 3 as listed above. He’s very predictable. And suddenly this Texas social media platform law has been tied to the outcome of the abortion case at the Supreme Court which people are screaming about.
Earlier this year, a sort-of-rational U.S. District Court Judge in Austin TX put Texas’ new social media platform law “on hold” by way of a preliminary injunction while the case was going to be litigated over a period of about 4 years. That judge is in Category (1) or (2) above, in terms of his understanding of the law in its broadest sense. He ruled that the new Texas social media platform regulation law had to be put on hold until he finished handling the case, and there was a final judment in his trial court.
The Texas Attorney General was angry, and his subordinates went running to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. The Federal judges who run that court are not party animals, despite their location. The majority of them are grumpy old men, and the women and younger men judges follow them. The Fifth Circuit judges are Category (3) right wingers to the extreme. The State of Texas ALWAYS wins in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal, no matter what any lawyer from anywhere might argue. On Wednesday 5/11/2022, the lawyers from the Texas Attorney General argued in front of a “panel” of three judges at the Fifth Circuit against stopping enforcement of the new Texas law for the 4 years or so until the trial was finished in front of the judge in Austin. The lawyers for the 2 phony-baloney tech oriented non-profits argued in favor of keeping the effectiveness/enforcement of the new law stopped during the 4 years or so until the trial is over. Two of the 3 judges ruled that the new Texas law should be allowed to go into effect immediately. That means that any big social media platform would have to start complying with the Texas law immediately. If they didn’t they would likely be sued by the Texas Attorney General, maybe immediately or maybe when he got around to it. Lawyers on Big Tech’s side of the case are whining and complaining that the judges at the Fifth Circuit who heard the arguments didn’t release a written opinion saying why they made that decision from a legal point of view. But the court rules say they don’t have to. Even an idiot of a lawyer should know why. The Fifth Circuit covers/is Texas. (There’s a song by Ray Wylie Hubbard which sums up the situation: “Screw You, We’re From Texas”. Listen to it and you’ll get it.) And all the chit chat from techies about one of the Fifth Circuit judges not using the right words in techie language is entirely irrelevant, in no small part because there is no law or case opinion requiring that.
As a result, the 2 phony-baloney charities who are Plaintiffs in the case, went running to some Republicanish lawyers aligned with Category (2) intellectually and late Friday night 5/13/2022 filed some emergency brief with the Supreme Court Judge who takes the first look at petitions for writs filed in any cases coming from the Fifth Circuit. You can read about it here, in the preeminent blog describing what’s happening in the U.S. Supreme Court, SCOTUSBLOG: https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/05/tech-industry-asks-court-to-block-texas-law-that-targets-social-media-companies/
That’s where the situation got interesting. The U.S. Supreme Court Justice assigned to corral cases from the Fifth Circuit is Justice Samuel Alito. You may have heard his name because its his draft of the “Abortion Opinion” which got leaked, ruling that the Federal government and its courts can’t dictate to the States over the content of anti-abortion laws based on the 10th Amendment and the doctrine of originalism. Those are same legal principles which will probably drive/decide the new Texas social media platform laws. Justice Alito’s job now, with respect to that law, is to round up other justices to decide what to do in terms of whether or not to put the new Texas social media platform law on hold again, until the trial is finished in Austin 4 years or so from now.
Again, there are 5 Category (3) Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court. It would be intellectually inconsistent for Justice Scalia and his 4 closest buds on the U.S. Supreme Court to be planning the release of a major 10th Amendment – States Rights oriented case, while at the same time stopping the new Texas social media platform law from being in effect BECAUSE that law is based on the 10th Amendment/States Rights as well.
However while the majority of the Supreme Court are Category (3) in terms of personality and mindset, they still feel the need to pander to Big Corporate America, including Big Tech, whose lawyers are Category (2) in terms of personality and mindset. So there’s a strong possibility that the U.S. Supreme Court will put that new Texas social media platform law on hold again. Once the trial in Austin is finished, regardless of “who wins” the Third Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether to put that law on hold again, while the losing party appeals.
The smart move for Big Tech is to contribute a boat load of money to the campaign of the final Democrat and Republican candidates for Texas Attorney General. Yes both. That’s the only way Big Tech will get the ear of the winner, and be able to plead with him NOT to enforce the new law, and not to resist/defend the case in court. At that point the only way the new law will get enforced will be if the Texas Legislature can successfully remove that winner from office.
Re: Re: Re:2
That doesn’t look too good cook for the lawmakers who cooked something like this up, does it?
Re: Re: Re:2
There’s always the violent option.
No one wants to excercise that option, but ol’ 45 and the Republican Party has forced that on the table on Jan 6.
While I hope things do turn out that way, I’m a believer in ensuring things do NOT becone worse, and I don’t rhink we have the option to wait.
Re: Re: Re:2
The fact that you think case law just “floats around” rather than being written down in court decisions makes me question your legal credentials.
Re: you can beat the rap but not the ride
They ought to be thrown out because
* they are claims founded on the decision to remove, or not remove, third party content, S:230
* the decision is protected speech, US 1st Am
However, getting there means that the defendant has to take the papers to and hire a lawyer. For some people, the stress of litigation is itself punishment. For others, paying the lawyer is punishment. In any event, being sued is rarely ``free” as in beer.
Think of it as a broken preview: you ought to be able to get to the right place, but with javascript disabled you may need to get lucky because the preview button is purely decorative. And maybe if you get sued you get a lawyer who is relatively inexpensive, reassuring, and familiar with S:230 and 1st Am law, along with a sensible judge. These things are about as certain as your chances of using Firefox 78.4.0 ESR / 64 on Linux and having everything that worked on the old site still work on the new site.
Just how many Klansmaen are in Texas?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
Shut up, little worm.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Betteridges Law
No. Chapter 143(A)(5) defines unlawful expression, and provides an exception for it. Issuing a death threat is not protected speech.
Re:
Question for you Koby, since you belong to the group of people who support mass murder in the name of being conservative, answer this for me:
Is white replacement theory one of the conservative opinions that you feel are being censored but are also the strongest opinions?
You and your conservatives own this tragedy. Fucker Carlson is spewing this kind of bull shit nightly and the conservatives like you eat it up!!
What do the lives of a few black people matter as long as you can “own the libs!!”
Re: Re:
“What do the lives of a few black people matter as long as you can “own the libs!!””
The death of black people is the actual intention, not just a side effect.
Those spouting the “Great Replacement” are really after the “Great Extermination”. Kill and suppress all the non-white non-Christians as fast and thoroughly as possible.
Re: Re: Re:
Just replace “The Great Replacement” with “The Jewish Problem” and suddenly we see where that reasoning can end up in the future.
Re: Re: Re:2
“Jews will not replace us.” is the line chanted I seem to remember.
Re:
Uh, the shooter wasn’t threatening death with his murder video. He was documenting it.
Re: Re: Republican Death Cult.
Streaming video is the ultimate form of free speech.
Streaming mass murder is the new American way.
Re:
But how much would it cost to get cases dismissed if say all Klansmen brought individual cases? Allowing individual action means that if enough gnats bite, even an elephant can suffer severs blood loss.
Re:
Wrong Koby. The video was not issuing a death threat. The video was a live stream of him actually killing people. It is absolutely protected speech.
And, even if you argue otherwise, it still doesn’t help your case. Because under the law, users can still sue and drag Twitch into court, who would then have to defend it on the grounds that this content was exempt under that part of the law, which takes away the entire benefit of 230 that allows for a much quicker dismissal.
Also, you seem to be putting a lot faith into the idea that Texas judges will be willing to say that a video of someone shooting people is unlawful content.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
Couldn’t disagree with you more. The clear intent of the livestream was to incite violence, and to send a message to folks that he was coming to kill more people. Police who made the arrest effectively confirmed this in their interviews with the media yesterday.
This is the balance change. The very few people who would want to argue that they desire to watch this content and claim that it is legal speech are few in number and frequency. They are far outweighed by the legitimate cases of discrimination.
Re: Re: Re:
Discrimination against who and on what grounds? Be fucking specific and stop fucking running, you coward.
Re: Re: Re:2
Discrimination against those who wish to freely associate with others wearing white robes with white conical hoods, of course. /s
Re: Re: Re:2
Discrimination against those who wish to freely associate with others wearing white robes with white conical hoods, of course. /s
Re: Re: Re:2
Discrimination against white replacement theory is one of the grounds I suspect!
Re: Re: Re:
The clear intent of the livestream was to incite violence, and to send a message to folks that he was coming to kill more people.
Isn’t that his viewpoint, which must be protected so that people who have beliefs similar to him won’t feel oppressed?
Why are you so sure that this doesn’t have anything to do with his political affiliation, which according to you and the other red-hat morons, is some kind of immutable trait?
Re: Re: Re:
Chapter 143 of what? Texas chapter 143 A 5 discusses employment status for police and firefighters.
If someone else posted the video without threatening to do it again, would that be lawful speech according to the definition you’re citing?
Re: Re: Re:
Discrimination against White Supremacy, COVID Denial and related conspiracy theories, and promotion of (potentially CIA-approved and FBI-endorsed) terrorism, perhaps?
It’s bloody fucking murder, you NeoNazi dipshit. Even the First Amendment says “nope”. But YOUR GUYS are trying to make this shit legal.
Re: Re: Re:2 Republican death cult
Why not make it legal? Republicans have already made it legal to murder protesters with your car if they are blocking a road.
And they have made it legal in some states for people to murder anyone if they claim that they were frightened.
Re: Re: Re:3
“Oh God, The Panthers are eating my face!” -ardent supporter of Face-eating Panther Party
And I’m very sure murder is illegal in pretty much every country on the planet.
If the Republicans are that stupid…
Hold on tight, we’re going to be getting a whole new slew of Twitch could have/should have acted faster and is 2 min really fast enough??
They are big tech can’t they just read minds?
But then y’all live in a country where 1 Murdoch property is calling out another Murdoch property that keeps pushing the great replacement theory without calling Tucker Carlson a blight on humanity.
And yes, some asshole in Texas will sue over this, because they can. It doesn’t matter how ghoulish they look, they will extract their pound of flesh they are entitled to.
Re:
They are big tech so the assumption is that they had been organising the mass shootings for woke propaganda reasons, and it stands to reason that they should not have started streaming the killing spree in the first place.
Where “reason” in the last paragraph is to be taken with a grain of birdshot and a complimentary lobotomy.
Texas legislature: “On the off chance that we’ll have crazy white supremacists going around killing people and wanting to stream it live over the Internet, we want to ensure this law gets signed by the governor as is–no amendments.”
So, Plan A (aka “White Is Right”) is still in effect.
If they go to court they would be able to claim section 230 protects them as its a federal law, but of course if they get alot of lawsuits over this it costs alot of money to hire lawyers to defend their right to moderate content. its ridiculous that texas politicans
actually voted down the right of websites to remove content that promotes terrorist groups ,
so in theory its now illegal for facebook to remove content promoting the taliban or isis terrorist groups or even extreme groups that would threaten politicans
or threaten violence on jews or other minority groups
the only thing good about this law is it highlights the
importance of social media to be able to remove content and the basic principal in the constitution the government shall make no law that forces a service to host speech or content
Now we hit upon the endgame question of all this bullshit: Do Texas lawmakers truly value the speech of a racist murderer over the right of platforms like Twitch to moderate speech?
Re:
Well, of course. And when Payton Gendron is eventually released from custody, he will be welcomed into the ranks of the glorious Ku Klux Klan with wide open arms.
Re: Re:
I know you’re doing a satirical response and I respect that, but please, never say Some Asshole’s name again. Deny them the notoriety they crave.
Re: Re: Republican Death cult
You mean the RepubliKKKan party.
Re:
I doubt they’d be honest on the subject twice but given they made it crystal clear that they consider such speech to fall under the umbrella of ‘conservative values’ by voting down an amendment that would have allowed moderation of such content I’d say they already answered that.
Even if they ARE idiots, don't treat them as such
It would be kind of nice if politicians on both sides of the political aisle remembered how the 1st Amendment actually works, and focused the blame on those actually responsible, not the social media tools that are used to communicate.
Oh don’t give them the benefit of the doubt, they’re in positions of power and authority so they should be held to a standard that reflects that.
They know(or should be expected to know at the least) that what they are saying/suggesting is a violation of the first amendment and/or a deflection from the actual problems they just don’t care since it’s easier to blame social media rather than admit that their demands are unreasonable/unconstitutional and/or that the source of the problem is something other than social media.
There’s never a cop blasting Disney music when you need one.
Well, I guess this is the proof we’ve been waiting for regarding censoring speech on the right. /s
If that’s the lae
Look, if this is the law this is the law, they need sued pronto! Who should watch this just law enforcement??? Maybe we also want to see how this went down and maybe how to defend against it same as them. This is our country the peoples country laws are there to protect us regardless who the hell likes the dam content. Our 1st amendment should not be infringed by any governing body it’s not their right to legislate for fvck sake. It’s specially not Facebook or any other social media platform company to infringe upon. So if we all use face book, or other social media, then they can strip us of our 1st amendment????
Bullshit if someone don’t sue them, then I will!!! So it’s gonna happen!!!
Re:
… what? Just to be clear are you arguing that Twitch should be sued for taking down a video of a mass-murder, because that’s what it seems like you’re saying.
Also it’s not possible to infringe upon a right you don’t have, and as you seem(though again I could be misreading your comment so by all means clarify) to be arguing that social media is infringing upon your first amendment rights that’s just wrong as you have no first amendment rights to use someone else’s property to speak from against their wishes
Someone should sue
It would be fantastic if someone in Texas decided to sue Twitch to repost the video, just to troll Abbott and the imbeciles at the Texas Legislature. I would like to see them squirm a bit.
Such bias much wow
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Democrats to blame
When did the 18-year old get radicalize & how…likely within in the last three years when democrats were spewing HATE throughout the USA. The comments here so far are more hate – not surprising from the democrat tribe. Riots & looting, okay with democrats. Unending lockdowns, okay with democrats. Killing cops or defunding entire police forces okay with democrats. Being white, nope…you are racist no matter what, unless of course you are a democrat. even better an old Irish Catholic white man with ties to the KKK and saying racist things repeatedly like Joe Biden. Media keeps brainwashing the youth & others in this country, leading to this horrific tragedy. Expect more of the same. 150+ mass shootings in USA so far this year. Only a handful reported by Media because the others don’t fit the narrative. Folks need to wake up FAST. Media needs to stop the HATE (lol unlikely). We are all ONE race/color – the human race. Don’t let the elites & media brainwash you. Tribalism is so 18th century.
Re:
Nimrod alert!
Re:
Did you hit your head against a wall before making that post, or did that level of ignorance come naturally to you?
Re:
You’re right, but not in the way you project.
Re:
likely within in the last three years when democrats were spewing HATE throughout the USA
Biden’s only been president for a little over a year. Weren’t conservatives controlling government before that, or was trump a democrat? I can’t keep track of which reality we’re using this week.
The comments here so far are more hate
Don’t you mean free speech? Hate is just a viewpoint.
Media keeps brainwashing the youth & others in this country, leading to this horrific tragedy.
Brainwashing only works on the simple-minded.
150+ mass shootings in USA so far this year. Only a handful reported by Media because the others don’t fit the narrative.
If they weren’t reported, how did you hear about them?
Folks need to wake up FAST.
I prefer to hit the snooze button a few times. Slow down, life is short.
Tribalism is so 18th century.
Yeah, them democrats wanting to take us back to the 1950’s and shit! So typical.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: good points
why do people hide comments that don’t conform to the democratic narrative. afraid of different viewpoints. that shows you are weak. this site is anti 1st amendment. probably run by a bunch of left wing antifa communists. arguments/policies by the left are so stupid these days, you have to be a moron, on drugs, part of the government, or some combination if you vote for a democrat. I mean the head of the democratic party is weak, old, old racist white man that will get us into World War Three. but hey war is good for the party in office and democrats will do anything to keep their power over the 99%. Enjoy the years ahead sheeple.
Re: Re: Re:
Your comment was hidden because you have lost touch with factual reality and are spouting a lot of nonsense.
That you think anyone not adhering to your warped view of reality must be a democrat speaks volumes of your myopic worldview – perhaps leaving the basement a couple of times a week would do wonders for your mental health.
Re: Re: Re:
Hey kids, don’t do drugs. You don’t want to end up spouting drooling hallucinations like Cole, do you?
Re: Re:
Oh snap!
Re: Re:
Brainwashing only works on the simple-minded.
Actually, brainwashing techniques are more effective on averagely intelligent people than people with intellectual disabilities. Just saying…
Re: Womp Womp
Sad low energy trolling.
Re:
Unlike the orange Drumpf and his GQP followers? Come the fuck on.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Texas law doesn’t allow this...READ THE LAW...
The Texas law in question specifically says that this type of criminal activity can be removed by social media platforms (page 12-13).
Read the bill here:
https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/872/billtext/pdf/HB00020H.pdf
Do your homework and go to source documents, Too many liars/manipulators out there….
Re:
That does nor stop 1,100’s of people suing, and a company having to file thousands of requests to have the cases dismissed. The law is designed to allow such a mass attack on a company.
Re: Re: anyone can sue anyone
this is america. anyone can be sued for any reason a plaintiff feels just. nothing is stopping a million people from suing twitch other than it would be a waste of time & money for them and any good lawyer will not take on a bogus case.
Re: Re: Re:
Who said all lawyers are good lawyers?
Re: Re: Re:
You must be new here or missed the articles before where its shown theres lots of bad lawyers who take bad cases.
Re:
The Texas law in question specifically says that this type of criminal activity can be removed by social media platforms (page 12-13).
(1) The social media platform is specifically
authorized to censor by federal law – Not applicable
(2) Is the subject of a referral or request from an
an organization with the purpose of preventing the sexual exploitation of children and protecting survivors of sexual abuse from ongoing harassment;
Not applicable – there’s nothing sexual in the video
(3) Directly incites criminal activity or consists of
specific threats of violence targeted against a person or group because of their race, color, disability, religion, national origin or ancestry, age, sex, or status as a peace officer or judge;
Not applicable – The video is documenting his actions. There are no threats or calls to violence in it.
(4) is unlawful expression.
Not applicable – again, nothing sexual about the video
Do your homework and go to source documents
For your homework, look up the legal definition of ‘obscene’ as well as whether or not videos depicting murder are illegal.
Then feel free to come back and report.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: read the whole bill including definitions
Unlawful expression does not pertain to sex acts. The bill defines expression as:
“Expression” means any word, music, sound, still or moving image, number, or other perceivable communication
Nice try. Fact is the bill does not allow live streaming of someone shooting at people. Or any unlawful act. PERIOD. Stop being a tool for the left. Use your intelligence to speak the truth.
Re: Re: Re:
And that’s where you stopped. I know what an expression is. I’m not debating the meaning of expression. I’m talking about unlawful expression. That actually has a definition also in the bill.
(5)”Unlawful expression” means an expression that is unlawful under the United States Constitution, federal law, the Texas Constitution, or the laws of this state, including expression that constitutes a tort under the laws of this state or the United States.
Who exactly did he threaten via the video? It was documenting his actions.
Was it to promote incitement? I don’t see that proven anywhere, and I haven’t seen a report that he was told why the video was deleted and about his right to appeal.
Can you point to a specific statute that prohibits the documenting of a murder? And remember when you do, that livestreaming police killing of unarmed suspects is pretty commonplace.
Don’t bitch at me. I didn’t write the fucking thing, nor was I the one who linked to it. And I’m not the only one asking this question.
Read some more and try again, this time focusing on the ‘free speech’ part, and how social media are ‘common carriers’ – I thought they were supposed to be content-agnostic? Just like you short-sighted simpletons want.
Re: Re:
Snuff films are generally considered obscene and banned in many countries as a result. Could Twitch maybe categorise the shooter’s video as a snuff film so any lawsuit is quickly dismissed despite Texas’ illegal denial of Section 230 protections?
Re: Re: Re:
Not under US law.
https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/citizens-guide-us-federal-law-obscenity
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Author is a rambling moron.
What a rambling bunch of angry comments. The author should also be put on mass murder watch. He, she, or it also sounds like a mentally unstable quack that can’t stand the fact that Texas does not allow censorship. Too bad because this author needs to be dumped with every other dirt bag that no permeates American “culture”.
Re:
Where’s the proof of your rambling assertions?
Re:
Sir, this is a Whataburger.
Re:
[Projects facts not in evidence]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Who ever wrote thisbarticle is the most whiney little baby. I hope they are a 5 year old girl. If not.. it’s scarry they can vote. At least he isn’t reproducing. His wife’s boyfriend won’t let him.
Re:
thisbarticle
scarry
No do go on. I’m really interested to hear you attempt to insult people.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Not helpful
You can characterise him as a ‘brainwashed white nationalist’, but that’s no more helpful or useful than what he did at Tops Supermarket.
The fact is that a huge section of the non-black American population (and even many blacks themselves) are sick of living alongside these people. No matter where you put them or what kind of aid you give them, blacks commit crimes at rates markedly disproportionate to their numbers, they drop out of school, they have babies at rates 4x higher than whites, they are impoverished, they are loud, obnoxious, stupid (look at IQ by race)… I could go on. Mind you, not ALL blacks are like this, but it’s a normal distribution and for blacks in particular it is shifted relative to whites in all areas. You guys (the media) can pretend the shooter in this case was ‘brainwashed’ – all it really takes is to live alongside or amongst these people, and then read articles like this which ostensibly pretend there isn’t even a problem, to set some (clearly unhinged) people off.
Violence and mass shootings aren’t the answer, obviously, but neither is pretending that blacks don’t have a massive problem. Pretending that all non-blacks who dislike black people are ‘brainwashed’ is as asinine as pretending that every single black person is a criminal. The anger at blacks is justified; indiscriminately killing them is not.
Good day.
Re:
Hey Koby,
Are these some of the same opinions that are being censored and are also the strongest?
Re:
Go back to Stormfront, you racist prick.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Never been in any way affiliated with SF, nor do I consider myself a ‘white supremacist’ or a ‘white nationalist’. In fact, I think Asian cultures are actually superior to whatever we’ve got going on in our ‘modern’ Western democracies – there’s certainly something to be said about Chinese and Japanese racial homogeneity and the resilience to external threats that it provides.
Anyway, you’ve simple-mindedly proved my point. You see the world as binary – if I’m a ‘racist’, I must be a Stormfront white nationalist. On the contrary, my partner is non-white and I just happen to detest ‘black’ culture and (with some exceptions) black people generally. But hey – don’t let those facts, or statistics on the matter, affect you – go on kneejerking, man. Good luck in life.
Re: Re: Re:
Anyway, you’ve simple-mindedly proved my point.
That we are correct in assuming you’re one of those assholes who whines about your viewpoints being censored?
Here’s a protip for you, dicktard – detail in the context of your post doesn’t change anything, other than to specify which group you hate. But I’m sure you know that already, you racist piece of shit.
Re: Re: Re:
You could’ve fooled me~. 🙄
Ah yes, fetishizing other largely homogenous cultures while complaining about racial diversity in your own culture definitely doesn’t mark you as a racist~. 🙃
Not all racists are Nazis, but all Nazis are racist. If you take offense to being called a racist or a Nazi, that’s on you. I’m only working with the material you give me, you racist prick. 😁
Again: Really not doing yourself any favors here with the “I’m not a racist” but-hole you’ve been slowly opening up. 👀
May you live in interesting times. 😐
Re: Re: Re: Definitely beta cuck bitch behaviour.
Why are you neo Nazis always so fucking stupid? The asians are better than us whites as cover for your shitty racism trope is older than you are, boi. Can you sister fuckers please come up with something new. Or are your chromosomes now so homogenous you make a Hapsburg look like Channing Tatum.
Re: Re: Re:
Y’know, I was originally thinking that Stephen might be jumping the gun by calling you racist, but your response basically confirms it.
Re:
You can characterise him as a ‘brainwashed white nationalist’, but that’s no more helpful or useful than what he did at Tops Supermarket.
Yeah, there’s very fine people on both sides I heard somewhere. I suspect that wasn’t helpful either.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
For whatever it’s worth, I didn’t vote for Trump and I think he’s a senile megalomaniac narcissist. Nevertheless, it seems pretty obvious that there are usually two sides to everything, and there is often nuance if one is willing to look. My own position is that these days nobody is interested in the nuance – one need look no farther than this clusterfuck of a comment section, where you’re either a libtard kool aid drinker, or you’re a card carrying Stormfronting Trumpian.
The world is a hell of a lot more complicated than that. My point was simply that characterising everybody who hates black people as brainwashed racists might make you feel better, but it ignores the fact that hidden behind that hatred are some legitimate grievances. If you or the media or anybody else was actually interested in solving ‘hatred’, you’d probably work on finding out exactly what those grievances are, instead of just strawmanning everything they say and caricaturing them to death. And to be fair, people like me should do more to try to understand blacks better, too, and to be more open minded about ‘liberal’ causes. But I’m not all that optimistic on either front (no pun intended). Indeed, things only seem to get more polarised with time, as has been rehashed endlessly by the very media that encourages the polarisation in the first place.
Re: Re: Re:
I’m interested in The Nuance™. As soon as you present actual nuanced arguments instead of tired-ass “Black people are inherently a bunch of violent n⸺rs” bullshit that I’ve seen time and time again from people less openly racist than you, I’ll be glad to have a discussion about those. Until then: Go back to /pol/ or Stormfront or whatever other white supremacist shitpit you congealed from and stay there.
Re: Re: Re:
If you or the media or anybody else was actually interested in solving ‘hatred’, you’d probably work on finding out exactly what those grievances are, instead of just strawmanning everything they say and caricaturing them to death
What makes you think hatred can be solved? It’s a built-in function of the religious nutcases, along with their perpetual persecution.
So no thanks. I’ve heard enough of the grievances to the point where I simply don’t care.
Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, right. As if the GQP adherents weren’t as stupid as they willingly demonstrate on live TV, no less.
Re:
Facts don’t care about your feelings, snowflake.
Re: Bravely ran away
Hey Koby you forgot to log in bro.
Ridiculous laws
Maybe the Texas Constitution should have an amendment passed which requires all candidates for legislative office to have brain scans to make sure they actually have a brain in their otherwise empty craniums!
Re: Republican Death Cult
Given the number of mentally ill people in the U.S. and the number of geriatrics in U.S. government, it would be prudent if candidates for office needed to pass a basic cognitive test and be evaluated for mental illness (Entire Republican Party), by certified psychiatrists.
Americans have become so stupid that they can’t even manage to elect sane government representatives.
I presume that this is a result of life long exposure to lead paint and the exhaust from vehicles that burned Leaded gasoline.
Re: Re:
A large portion of the would vote their party come hell or high water. The rest have great difficultly in finding a sane politician on the ballot. When politics stinks, only stinkers stand for office.
Re: Re:
I get what you’re going for, but I would object to a regulation that anyone with any mental illness would be barred from serving in Congress. “Mental illness” doesn’t mean “violent nutjob”.
Re: 'I didn't know I was wrong' vs 'I knew but did it anyway'
Common misconception, while there certainly are lunatics and idiots that make it into office it’s probably a safe bet to assume that the ones making insane statements/laws are not stupid but corrupt.
They know or should know the problems with what they are saying/doing they just bank on not enough people catching and/or calling them out on it.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
No .. it did not violate the Texas law.
A troll article.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Dumb article
To answer the question to the article title: NO
Read the bill.
Sad people write such garbage. Outright lies or manipulation of facts to fool the weak minded sheep.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
God help us
Reading the blog & comments here makes me feel sorry for this country. Hateful comments while at the same time labeling others as hateful. Don’t throw stones in glass house, eh. That coupled with the sheer lack of intelligent thought of the original blog…author clearly didn’t read the Texas bill. Another lame attempt to try to put republicans in bad light. Unfortunately, some will believe this blog & all its rubbish.
Hate to tell ya but half the country is republican and growing due to the war the left is waging against free speech/parents/police/law & order/state rights/ secure borders/common sense/capitalism/etc. Without the constant lies & MSM in their back pocket, the left would be out of power & unemployed.
Re:
You’re concerned about the hate in the comments?
Those are our viewpoints, fuckface! Get used to hearing them you dumb mother-fucker you.
Free speech is what you wanted. Welcome to the party asshole!
Re:
😆
…oh wait, you’re serious. Let me laugh even harder.
🤣 🤣 🤣
Re:
If the Republican side is growing and the left is shrinking, what do you even have to be concerned about?
Why All the Trolls on this Article?
Why all the trolls trying to defend the Texas law against this article?
It’s as if somebody got butt hurt that this article was written and decided to get all their friends to leave trollish negative comments without stating a single fact about why this article is wrong.
Just the standard, “I know more than you and you are wrong!” style of trolling.
Re:
Why all the trolls trying to defend the Texas law against this article?
They have to. They painted themselves into a corner and didn’t bother to think how what they wanted might backfire.
Re:
It’s amusing how the reich-whinger lemming’s sole tactic is to try to blind us with their projection and gaslighting.