Texas Legislature Sees Florida's Social Media Bill Go Down In Unconstitutional Flames; Decides 'We Can Do That Too!'

from the seriously,-guys? dept

The Republican grievance culture wars about the internet are never ending. The Grand Old Party -- which once presented itself as believing in private property rights, keeping government out of business, and mocking "snowflakes" for playing victim all the time -- has shown its true colors as being for everything it previously insisted it was against. As we noted earlier this year, a bunch of states with Republican controlled legislatures and governors have been proposing blatantly unconstitutional bills to try to prevent social media companies from moderating disinformation and propaganda. Utah was the first state to pass such a bill, but Governor Spencer Cox wisely vetoed it, noting the Constitutional concerns.

Next out of the gate was Florida, where Governor Ron DeSantis chose poorly, signing the bill that was thrown out last week for being blatantly unconstitutional under basically any standard of review. As we've noted, this is all performative nonsense, playing to a base that wants to insist it's the aggrieved victims, because sometimes when they violate a website's policies, they face consequences.

Incredibly, though not surprisingly, Texas legislators have looked at Florida's giant constitutional mess of wasted taxpayer funds and said, "yeah, let's do that!" Earlier this year, Texas proposed another awful social media content moderation bill, but the legislative session ended without it being voted on. Rather than move on to dealing with actual problems, Texas launched a special legislative session with a long list of culture war grievances -- including the social media bill.

And so the bill has be re-introduced and it's arguably even more blatantly unconstitutional than the Florida bill. Most of the first part of the bill is just creating a ton of silly and wasteful compliance paperwork -- requiring social media websites to do a lot more to actually moderate content on their site, including having someone people can call, having an official appeals process, and explaining to people in exact terms why they were moderated (this gambit is a favorite of trolls and assholes, who want this information solely to disingenuously insist that they didn't break the rules, or to insist that others who broke similar rules were treated differently, usually by removing any and all context from those decisions).

But then the bill veers into even more ridiculous territory. First, it defines "censorship" to mean things that are clearly not censorship. Even if you disagree with the basic premise that moderation is not censorship, the Texas bill defines "censorship" so broadly to make the term meaningless:

"Censor" means to block, ban, remove, deplatform, demonetize, de-boost, restrict, deny equal access or visibility to, or otherwise discriminate against expression.

De-monetizing is censorship? De-boosting is censorship? In what world? I mean, Fox News refuses to put me on the air to express my views about their propaganda. Is that censorship? The bill does exempt news organizations, but still. Under this bill, it seems that search ranking is censorship. After all, whoever is ranked below the top spot has been "de-boosted" and not provided "equal access or visibility." I can't wait until I can sue Google for not putting Techdirt at the top of every search!

The bill then tries to prohibit its definition of "censorship" for viewpoints.

CENSORSHIP PROHIBITED. (a) A social media platform may not censor a user, a user ’s expression, or a user ’s ability to receive the expression of another person based on:

(1) the viewpoint of the user or another person;
(2) the viewpoint represented in the user’s expression or another person’s expression; or
(3) a user’s geographic location in this state or any part of this state.

So, you cannot ban Nazis any more. Or bigots spewing hatred. Sounds great, Texas. I mean... actually, sounds totally blatantly unconstitutional, and a clear waste of Texas taxpayers money, as you will have to go to Court and defend this law that will easily be tossed out as unconstitutional. But, who cares about that when there's a culture war to fight, and an opportunity to whine about how you're the victim again?

Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: 1st amendment, censorship, content moderation, florida, section 230, texas, transparency


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. icon
    AC Unknown (profile), 8 Jul 2021 @ 12:12pm

    My prediction

    This bill is probably gonna either end up going down in flames, or it'll get passed and then shut down by the courts after someone sues over it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2. icon
    Toom1275 (profile), 8 Jul 2021 @ 12:12pm

    Fascists gotta fash.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    icon
    Koby (profile), 8 Jul 2021 @ 12:29pm

    Publisher vs Platforms

    I mean, Fox News refuses to put me on the air to express my views about their propaganda. Is that censorship?

    No. Fox News is a publisher, and not a platform. Only platforms can censor.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2021 @ 12:37pm

    Re: Publisher vs Platforms

    Hey Koby we missed you at the last thread where the Florida law got chucked out. It too bad really we had pie and punch.

    You planning on going “on vacation” when this one goes the same way as well?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5. icon
    Blake C. Stacey (profile), 8 Jul 2021 @ 12:44pm

    "'Censor' means 'to give me a sad'."

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 8 Jul 2021 @ 12:48pm

    Fox News is a platform for speech in the same way a newspaper is a platform for speech. That the people what run that specific platform predetermine who gets to use that platform doesn’t make it any less of a platform. The biggest difference between a platform like Fox News and a platform like Twitter is that Twitter doesn’t (generally) predetermine who gets to use the platform.

    And just as Fox News can’t censor someone by refusing them a spot on that platform (e.g., Fox News can’t censor Joe Biden by refusing to air his speeches), Twitter can’t censor someone by doing the same (e.g., Twitter can’t censor Donald Trump by kicking him off Twitter). That you still believe moderation is censorship means you’ve either bought lock, stock, and raging dumpster fire into conservative propaganda or you’re a professional troll. Neither option speaks well of you.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2021 @ 12:49pm

    Hmmm sounds kind of like this would make providing a block/ignore feature a prohibited action (since it would ban/restrict/deny equal access.... usually for content reasons, but it would be up to the user doing it).

    I'm sure there's lots of other crazy fall out if you dig into it

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8. icon
    That One Guy (profile), 8 Jul 2021 @ 12:54pm

    'We lost again, give us even more money!'

    Almost certainly but as a PR stunt/bullhorn for the gullible(because it's sure as hell not a dog-whistle) it's almost certain that it being shot down is part of the plan, as that'll just be held up as even more proof of how 'persecuted' the poor victimized 'conservatives' in america are and how it's vital to give even more money and vote to get in office even more god fearing conservative politicians.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9. icon
    That One Guy (profile), 8 Jul 2021 @ 12:59pm

    Enjoy your mountain of dick pill ads texas

    "Censor" means to block, ban, remove, deplatform, demonetize, de-boost, restrict, deny equal access or visibility to, or otherwise discriminate against expression.

    Setting aside the obvious categories like bigotry and conspiracy theory nutjobbery by that insanely broad definition a spam filter engages in censorship and if censorship is a no-go for online platforms/services then I hope texans are big fans of avalanches of spam because they're going to be seeing a lot more of it should this unconstitutional dumpsterfire pass.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10. identicon
    Glen, 8 Jul 2021 @ 1:08pm

    Re: Publisher vs Platforms

    Hey Kolby, any bets on how quickly this law will get shot down if passed? And sticking your head up your ass doesn't help.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2021 @ 1:13pm

    Re: Publisher vs Platforms

    No. Fox News is a publisher, and not a platform. Only platforms can censor.

    Koby, please point to the exact text in either §230 or the 1st amendment that makes the distinction between publisher vs. platform w.r.t. their moderation choices.

    I'll wait.....

    If you can't find it, then maybe, just maybe, it doesn't exist and you are just full of shit 💩.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12. icon
    That One Guy (profile), 8 Jul 2021 @ 1:17pm

    Re: Publisher vs Platforms

    No. Fox News is a publisher, and not a platform. Only platforms can censor.

    By that argument the government would not be engaging in censorship were they to pass a law that otherwise legal speech that they simply don't like will be punished and platforms are not allowed to host it.

    Seriously, do you even listen to yourself?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    icon
    Koby (profile), 8 Jul 2021 @ 1:24pm

    Re: Re: Publisher vs Platforms

    ... that otherwise legal speech that they simply don't like will be punished and platforms are not allowed to host it.

    They have done that, rightfully so, with anti-discrimination laws. It has been upheld by courts.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2021 @ 1:29pm

    Now we know where the winterization funds went to.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    icon
    Koby (profile), 8 Jul 2021 @ 1:36pm

    Re: Re: Publisher vs Platforms

    please point to the exact text...

    It's not based on statute, it's based on contractual relationships. Fox News does not offer agreements with all members of the public to allow airtime.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2021 @ 1:46pm

    Re: 'We lost again, give us even more money!'

    as that'll just be held up as even more proof of how 'persecuted' the poor victimized 'conservatives' in america are

    One could argue that their control of various states and cities can be used as an augment that they are not persecuted, and that their message gets out just fine.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17. icon
    Ryunosuke (profile), 8 Jul 2021 @ 1:49pm

    When Utah is the voice of reason here, you might be fucking things up.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18. icon
    That One Guy (profile), 8 Jul 2021 @ 1:55pm

    Re: Re: Re: Publisher vs Platforms

    Because the groups/individuals being discriminated against were facing that due to factors outside of their control(race, gender, sexual orientation...), remind me again what people are being 'discriminated' against for that's being used to justify bills like this, and please, be specific.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2021 @ 1:56pm

    Re: Re: Re: Publisher vs Platforms

    Facebook and twitter etc. offer such a contracts, with the proviso that the use of the service is contingent on you following the rules. It is those who break the rules that get banned. So stop whining that the rules are not to your liking, and go somewhere where you like the rules....

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20. icon
    That One Guy (profile), 8 Jul 2021 @ 2:00pm

    Re: Re: Re: Publisher vs Platforms

    And social media platforms(or at least the sane ones) don't offer a 'once you're in you can say/do whatever you want' contract, and in fact will often have a 'we reserve the right to remove content and revoke membership at our discretion' clause so your attempt to make this a contractual issue that the platforms are violating probably isn't doing you as much good as you might think it is.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2021 @ 2:12pm

    Re: Re: Re: Publisher vs Platforms

    It's not based on statute, it's based on contractual relationships.

    So right there you admit that your platform vs publishers is just a stinking pile of shit.

    When you sign up for social media, you enter a contract to abide by their ToS, and if you break their rules, then guess what, you broke the contract and they have every right to give your ass the boot.

    That is their contractual relationship with you as a user of their social media service.

    You do not have a right to access other people's private property unless they expressly allow you to do so, and they can revoke that access for any reason at any time.

    Nowhere does the concept of platform vs publisher arise.

    Why is that so fucking difficult for you to understand?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2021 @ 2:15pm

    Re: Publisher vs Platforms - More Kolby bullshit.

    Merriam webster defintion of "censor":
    "to examine in order to suppress (see SUPPRESS sense 2) or delete anything considered objectionable"
    Which is exactly what Fox News is doing when they show anything other than a full statement from e.g. Joe Biden. Of course a "publisher" can censor, every bit as much as a "platform", not that "publisher" vs "platform" is a true dichotomy. The distinction is not real, it is just a fraudulent device to allow the user, typically a republican, to make false claims without their ridiculous fallacy and stupidity to be unavoidably obvious to their audience.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23. icon
    That One Guy (profile), 8 Jul 2021 @ 2:17pm

    Re: Re: 'We lost again, give us even more money!'

    I mean, one could, but that would require a lot more honesty than that lot of eternal victims have not to mention rather undermine their beloved persecution complex/fetish.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2021 @ 2:57pm

    Go ahead and fucking try

    I'd love to see this bill actually put to the test. Hear me out, because it would be fuck-all funny...

    Let's say social media can't censor anything. There are children and teenagers on social media, some of which belong to parents of the entitled little shitholes that keep crying 'but muh censirshit!"

    What will their reaction be when their kids come across Nazi propaganda? Or Qshit? Probably nothing, right?

    But what about (gasp!) LGBTQ material?
    What about (gasp again!) religions other than the Judeo-Christian nonsense they claim to follow?
    What about someone calling the US 'a third world shithole, where nearly half of the population are mentally defective?'
    Hell, what if they see a bare breast?

    None of this is obscene in and of itself, and under this clusterfuck of a bill, it would be required to stay up because 'cenzirship bad.' How will they possibly explain these things to their soon-to-be-equally-stupid chuds? I mean, it'll be funny when they get to use all their buzzwords like 'triggered' and 'snowflake' - but I predict the shit will hit the proverbial fan once their precious little spawn start asking questions like 'This person said there is no god, and you can't prove there is. What say you Mommy?' or something like 'Why does that person have two daddies?' or 'What's a Mommy Part?'

    I predict at that point, we'll pivot back to 'but, but duh childrun!!' and end up right back to where we are now.

    They think they want this, but in reality, they're not prepared for what happens once they fucking get it. Because god-for-fucking-help these idiots if they somehow get these stupid bills turned into law, and then start the whining back up once the moderation is gone.

    Buckle up fuckos! You have no idea what you'll be in for.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    icon
    Chozen (profile), 8 Jul 2021 @ 3:11pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Publisher vs Platforms

    "Because the groups/individuals being discriminated against were facing that due to factors outside of their control"

    I see you left religion out. Why? Surry it was just an honest error. It couldn't possible be because it didn't fit your narrative? You are such a good honest person you couldn't possibly engage is just deliberate deceit.

    P.S. FYI California Civil Rights code also protects political affiliation. Big Tech has really really fought to get his repealed in California because they realize that if they ever get on the wrong side of a State AG they are up @#$% creek without a paddle.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    icon
    Koby (profile), 8 Jul 2021 @ 3:18pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Publisher vs Platforms

    with the proviso that the use of the service is contingent on you following the rules.

    On Techdirt here, we decry unconscionable contracts all the time. From businesses suing their own customers because they posted a negative review on a review site, to video games deleting a product that someone purchased, to telecommunication companies disallowing you to purchase your own equipment so that you can avoid bogus fees, just because a corporation writes a contract claiming that they can do anything that they want does not make it okay. States most certainly have the power to void unconscionable terms in a contract to protect consumers, employees, and service subscribers. Writing bogus and unequally enforced rules into a contract is something that states are empowered to modify.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27. icon
    Samuel Abram (profile), 8 Jul 2021 @ 3:26pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Publisher vs Platforms

    Writing bogus and unequally enforced rules into a contract is something that states are empowered to modify.

    Nice to see you admit that causing an insurrection is a "bogus and unequally enforced rule". To see how full of shit you are, a bot that just retweeted Donald Trump's tweets was banned but Donald Trump's twitter account stayed up because he was the president. You're not asking for equal treatment but special treatment (which is was Trumpy actually got).

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    icon
    Koby (profile), 8 Jul 2021 @ 3:26pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Publisher vs Platforms

    It doesn't matter. Courts have also upheld factors that are within a person's control, such as familial status and religion. Civil rights are not contingent upon choice, or the lack thereof. Lawmakers CAN require businesses to adhere to particular service standards, even if the business has a contract that claims they can do otherwise.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2021 @ 3:42pm

    Re:

    So if you would just be so kind as to point to any court ruling saying such a proviso is unconscionable please, enlighten us.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2021 @ 3:43pm

    Re: koby vs reality

    "It doesn't matter."

    You didn't answer the question.

    Try again

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31. icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), 8 Jul 2021 @ 3:52pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Publisher vs Platforms

    On Techdirt here, we decry unconscionable contracts all the time

    Koby, how the fuck is it "unconscionable" to say "you can post on our site as long as you obey our rules"?!?

    Are you really that clueless?

    Writing bogus and unequally enforced rules into a contract is something that states are empowered to modify.

    What is bogus? And what is unequally enforced? (Hint: just because you surround yourself with idiots, assholes and trolls, and don't realize that people outside of your idiot brigade also get banned, does not mean that rules are enforced unequally).

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2021 @ 3:53pm

    Re: Re: Re: 'We lost again, give us even more money!'

    Your implication that Trumpist Republicans are dishonest is ridiculous.

    To be dishonest you have to have some, however tenuous, connection to reality...

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33. icon
    Samuel Abram (profile), 8 Jul 2021 @ 4:04pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Publisher vs Platforms

    Are you really that clueless?

    I'm afraid I have some bad news for you, Mr. Masnick. You're going to have to sit down for this one...

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    icon
    Chozen (profile), 8 Jul 2021 @ 4:05pm

    Re: Re: Publisher vs Platforms

    See now you are just being too smart by half. You are playing a linguistic game. platform is a general term used to describe the large collections of bodies that the courts had determined were not publishers and also not distributors.

    In the late 90s the term platform started being used to describe these 'not publishers.'

    So yes it is not a term created by an act of congress, it began as a commonly used vernacular.

    Now here is where you get too smart by half. The courts started using the word which makes it law genius. It was just recently used in Joe Biden Jr. v. Knight First Amendment Institute ~ April 2021

    So since the highest court in the land has used and defined the term it is law.

    And yes I know leftwing legal blogs have said there is no such thing ... those people are idiots.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35. icon
    Samuel Abram (profile), 8 Jul 2021 @ 4:43pm

    Re: Re: Re: Publisher vs Platforms

    Do you know what is also law? Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, for which Trump-appointed (and voted by GOP senators in an overwhelming majority and voted against by Dem senators unanimously) Justice Brett Kavanaugh:

    Under the Court’s cases, a private entity may qualify as a state actor when it exercises “powers traditionally exclusively reserved to the State.” … It is not enough that the federal, state, or local government exercised the function in the past, or still does. And it is not enough that the function serves the public good or the public interest in some way. Rather, to qualify as a traditional, exclusive public function within the meaning of our state-action precedents, the government must have traditionally and exclusively performed the function.

    The Court has stressed that “very few” functions fall into that category. … Under the Court’s cases, those functions include, for example, running elections and operating a company town. … The Court has ruled that a variety of functions do not fall into that category, including, for example: running sports associations and leagues, administering insurance payments, operating nursing homes, providing special education, representing indigent criminal defendants, resolving private disputes, and supplying electricity. …

    When the government provides a forum for speech (known as a public forum), the government may be constrained by the First Amendment, meaning that the government ordinarily may not exclude speech or speakers from the forum on the basis of viewpoint, or sometimes even on the basis of content[.]

    By contrast, when a private entity provides a forum for speech, the private entity is not ordinarily constrained by the First Amendment because the private entity is not a state actor. The private entity may thus exercise editorial discretion over the speech and speakers in the forum. This Court so ruled in its 1976 decision in Hudgens v. NLRB. There, the Court held that a shopping center owner is not a state actor subject to First Amendment requirements such as the public forum doctrine[.]

    The Hudgens decision reflects a commonsense principle: Providing some kind of forum for speech is not an activity that only governmental entities have traditionally performed. Therefore, a private entity who provides a forum for speech is not transformed by that fact alone into a state actor. After all, private property owners and private lessees often open their property for speech. Grocery stores put up community bulletin boards. Comedy clubs host open mic nights. As Judge Jacobs persuasively explained, it “is not at all a near-exclusive function of the state to provide the forums for public expression, politics, information, or entertainment[”.]

    In short, merely hosting speech by others is not a traditional, exclusive public function and does not alone transform private entities into state actors subject to First Amendment constraints.

    If the rule were otherwise, all private property owners and private lessees who open their property for speech would be subject to First Amendment constraints and would lose the ability to exercise what they deem to be appropriate editorial discretion within that open forum. Private property owners and private lessees would face the unappetizing choice of allowing all comers or closing the platform altogether. “The Constitution by no means requires such an attenuated doctrine of dedication of private property to public use.” … Benjamin Franklin did not have to operate his newspaper as “a stagecoach, with seats for everyone.” … That principle still holds true. As the Court said in Hudgens, to hold that private property owners providing a forum for speech are constrained by the First Amendment would be “to create a court-made law wholly disregarding the constitutional basis on which private ownership of property rests in this country.” … The Constitution does not disable private property owners and private lessees from exercising editorial discretion over speech and speakers on their property. …

    A private entity … who opens its property for speech by others is not transformed by that fact alone into a state actor.

    (Stephen T. Stone, I know this is what you usually do, but I'm out of Dragon Balls)

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36. icon
    Samuel Abram (profile), 8 Jul 2021 @ 4:44pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Publisher vs Platforms

    Sorry, should be "for which Trump-appointed (and voted by GOP senators in an overwhelming majority and voted against by Dem senators unanimously) Justice Brett Kavanaugh delivered the majority opinion:"

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2021 @ 4:55pm

    Re: Go ahead and fucking try

    You are overlooking an important point, the bigots can and will shout louder and more viscously than the LGBTQ people and other minorities, and the trolls will likely drive them off of the Internet, or at least into private invasion only online spaces. A lot of the trolls, if unleashed, will make Baghdad Bob look like a kind and gentle person.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38. icon
    That One Guy (profile), 8 Jul 2021 @ 4:55pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Publisher vs Platforms

    Ah what the hell, I'm already dealing with one dishonest person in this thread might as well make it two.

    I wouldn't think I would need to explain that triple periods typically means 'and so on' but I guess for someone like you it needs to be spelled out very clearly that that would also include religion, which might not technically fall into the category of 'personal factors beyond someone's control' but is generally included in anti-discrimination laws because without it the various religions would rip each other to pieces, with 'No jews/catholics/protestants/muslims and especially atheists' signs and/or laws going up all over the place.

    This does not help you or Koby in this instance however because even if you want to claim that people are being 'persecuted' due to political reasons I need merely repeat the question: Which political actions/words are causing that 'persecution' you think is happening, and again, be specific, and keep in mind that if you really want to open that door then keep in mind it swings both ways.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39. icon
    That One Guy (profile), 8 Jul 2021 @ 5:01pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Publisher vs Platforms

    Strange, I'm not seeing any details of factors that are causing people to be 'persecuted' by the big mean tech companies and therefore justify unconstitutional bills like this, perhaps you forgot to include those in your comments?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40. icon
    That One Guy (profile), 8 Jul 2021 @ 5:06pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Publisher vs Platforms

    Are you really that clueless?

    Not clueless, just dishonest, some people just cannot stand the idea that rules might apply to them and break out the persecution complex any time someone tries.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 8 Jul 2021 @ 5:22pm

    Since someone else called you out on your the first half of your disingenuous bullshit, I’ll handle the second half because fuck you that’s why.

    California Civil Rights code also protects political affiliation.

    Partly correct on both halves.

    California laws protect against employer retaliation for political activity. Labor Codes 1101 and 1102 LC prohibit employers from doing the following:

    • setting any policy that prevents employees from engaging in political activity or running for political office, or that tries to control or direct employees’ political activity
    • attempting to control employees’ political activities by threatening to engage in political activity retaliation
    • retaliating in any way (including through wrongful termination) against an employee for his/her political beliefs or activities

    That law doesn’t protect anyone from discriminaton based on political affiliation/activity outside of those situations. An anti-abortion employer in California can legally refuse to hire someone who is pro-choice⁠—but if that employer hires that person, the employer cannot then retaliate against their new employee over those pro-choice views.

    Nothing in California law currently protects anyone from being kicked off a social media service operating in California on the basis of political affiliation/activity/belief. The same goes for federal law. Cite the exact law, statute, or “common law” court ruling that directly and explicitly says otherwise, and I’ll concede the point⁠. But I’d bet money you can’t…if I took sucker bets, that is.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    icon
    Koby (profile), 8 Jul 2021 @ 5:28pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Publisher vs Platforms

    Koby, how the fuck is it "unconscionable" to say "you can post on our site as long as you obey our rules"?!?

    Because saying that the corporation can make up whatever rules they want has never flown before. Dentists can't just say "you're not allowed to post a bad review" in their contract. Or "you are not allowed to modify the device that you bought and own". Claiming that you can make up any rule whatsoever is insufficient. States can say that service providers must give notice to customers prior to disconnection. States can say that service providers must enforce rules equally and not selectively. States have been overriding service contracts for years to protect consumers.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 8 Jul 2021 @ 5:30pm

    Civil rights are not contingent upon choice, or the lack thereof.

    Anti-discrimination protections are, though. They’re generally written to prohibit discrimination based on factors of a person’s existence that are out of their control⁠—race, age, gender/biological sex, and disability being primary amongst those factors. Religion comes into play because while people can choose their religion, that choice isn’t as simple as choosing what shirt to wear in the morning⁠—and because if discrimination based on religion was legal, Christians in this country could force every other religious group (including the irreligious) out of polite society by sheer force of numbers.

    I can’t think of any good reason, other than sheer unadulterated privilege, to treat political affiliation as we would treat religion vis-á-vis anti-discrimination laws. Or would you like to see lawsuits over that particular type of bullshit flood the courts across the country and turn the judiciary into an even bigger exercise in partisan fuckery?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44. icon
    TaboToka (profile), 8 Jul 2021 @ 5:52pm

    Re: Publisher vs Platforms

    Fox News is a publisher, and not a platform

    So you say, so let's go to their "platform": FoxNews.com uses OpenWeb to host comments on their website.

    Interestingly enough, the OpenWeb TOS include these provisions (emphasis mine);

    5.3 You shall not ... post ... any User Content ... that ...
    (ii) you know is false, misleading, untruthful or inaccurate;

    (iii) is unlawful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, libelous, deceptive, fraudulent, invasive of another’s privacy, tortious, obscene, vulgar, pornographic, offensive, profane, ... or is otherwise inappropriate as determined by Us in Our sole discretion; ....

    5.4 ... We reserve the right to, but do not have any obligation to
    (i) remove, edit or modify any User Content in our sole discretion, at any time, without notice to you and for any reason ... or for no reason at all; ....

    Thus under this soon-to-be-short-lived Texas Law, foxnews.com has to lift all the above restrictions on their platform.

    Be careful what you wish for!

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 8 Jul 2021 @ 6:04pm

    Because saying that the corporation can make up whatever rules they want has never flown before.

    Neither has compelled speech on communications platforms, yet here you are, arguing for exactly that.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2021 @ 6:04pm

    Re: Dis I stutter?

    “So if you would just be so kind as to point to any court ruling saying such a proviso is unconscionable please, enlighten us.”

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47. icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 8 Jul 2021 @ 6:45pm

    Aren't these the same people who want to censor critical race theory, sex education, facts about covid, facts about the insurrection Jan 6, facts about Transgender people, facts about teh gays, evolution, .... the list just goes on and on and on....

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  48. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2021 @ 7:09pm

    DMCA, anyone?

    Or "you are not allowed to modify the device that you bought and own".

    I rather like this example, Koby, though I wonder if you missed the entire "Right to repair" movement. Or, perhaps, simply forgot what it was about.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  49. identicon
    Rocky, 8 Jul 2021 @ 7:42pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Publisher vs Platforms

    Because saying that the corporation can make up whatever rules they want has never flown before.

    They can make up any rules they want, as long as they are within the law. If you believe otherwise, please show us what laws are being broken by a TOS. I don't expect you can, all you have are a persecution complex for being an asshole.

    But let me point something out, if you click "agree" on a TOS with the intent of not following the rules set forth in it, regardless of what the rules are, there is no contract - you have no right to use the service then, you can't complain about anything since by your own actions you rendered the contract null and void.

    And I have to ask, how fucking stupid do you have to be to agree to a contract and then complain how unfair it is? You read it first, and if you don't agree with it or find it unfair, you don't fucking agree to it. But no, you choose to be a stupid fucker while having a meltdown that you aren't allowed to shit all over someone's private property.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  50. icon
    Toom1275 (profile), 8 Jul 2021 @ 7:52pm

    Re: Re: Re: Publisher vs Platforms

    those people are idiots.

    [Projects facts not in evidence]

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  51. icon
    Toom1275 (profile), 8 Jul 2021 @ 7:56pm

    Live-updating counter of claims made by Koby, Jhon, and Bobmail/Chozen/Portent that have the backing of real-world law:

    000

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  52. icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 8 Jul 2021 @ 8:00pm

    Re: Go ahead and fucking try

    The parents will leave their children alone...
    Kids have already seen their parents browser histories & mutually assured destruction keeps everyone happy.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  53. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2021 @ 8:16pm

    The problem is services need to be able to block trolls block spam and remove or block users who post racist or hate speech or fake news or else the bad users will drive out the good
    Eg every site that allows posts or comments will turn into a
    4chan type website

    No one wants to scroll thru pages of garbage to find genuine
    good content

    Republicans are passing bills to make basic standard moderation practices illegal
    Or startups will be forced to follow arcane rules that are pointless and expensive to follow laws that make no sense
    made by Politicans who don't understand how the Internet works
    Imagine having the laws on content moderation
    made by someone who has never used Facebook or Seen a YouTube video and does not use a smartphone

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  54. icon
    That One Guy (profile), 8 Jul 2021 @ 8:53pm

    Re:

    Ah but you see much like everything else that they don't agree with or that disagrees with them all of that falls right into the category of 'fake news' and therefore doesn't count, it's only their speech and their content that deserves to be protected against any consequences.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  55. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jul 2021 @ 5:48am

    Re: Re: Go ahead and fucking try

    You are overlooking an important point

    Understood - it will definitely be a pissing contest, that's for sure. But the minority crowd isn't the only target here - it's everyone else that isn't the simple-minded savage who blames everyone else for why they live in a trailer park. Those middle of the road folks will have a lot more to deal with, and with more skin in the game, it'll be interesting to see how sides get chosen once each end goes all in.

    One group will surely be the bigger asshole. I'm just betting on the biggest asshole to be the whiny fucks who are constantly complaining on social media that they're being kicked off social media.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  56. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    icon
    Chozen (profile), 9 Jul 2021 @ 6:49am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Publisher vs Platforms

    Samuel Abram,

    When you just copy and paste a decision that means you dont understand it. Halleck is not the droids you are looking for. Halleck is anything moved that ball closer to regulation of social media. Halleck established that social media is in the public interest. That is the legal term that triggers regulation. What Halleck also said is that just calling social media a state actor would be judge made law. It does not prohibit statute from regulating social media in the public interest. It actually encourages it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  57. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jul 2021 @ 7:15am

    Re: Re: Re: Go ahead and fucking try

    The only winners will be those willing to swim in a cess pool, and they also lose because they won't be able to get at those they want to target. 8kun remains small for a reason.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  58. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jul 2021 @ 7:27am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Go ahead and fucking try

    RIght! And then what?

    Social media will either lose users, turn into the functional equivalent of 8kun, and the swimmers in the shit will once again lose their audience, or there will be a demand to get rid of said losers, affirming once again that they're not wanted.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  59. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    icon
    Chozen (profile), 9 Jul 2021 @ 8:09am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Publisher vs Platforms

    "They can make up any rules they want, as long as they are within the law. If you believe otherwise, please show us what laws are being broken by a TOS. I don't expect you can, all you have are a persecution complex for being an asshole."

    That is only one thing that voids a contract. 3 things void a contract.

    1. Violation of public policy ~ That is what you got.

    2. Parties not legal persons ~ A minor cannot enter into a contract.

    3. No meeting of the minds the contract is ambiguous ~ This is where all social media TOS fall flat on their face. They are all intentionally ambiguous and therefore not legal. Due to their ambiguity a typical TOS isn't worth the paper its not printed on.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  60. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jul 2021 @ 8:30am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Go ahead and fucking try

    Given the political support being given to those loser, the damage will be extensive before the political winds change, assuming the increased noise from the those losers does not result in the US turning into a one part fascist state, because those are the voices that can make themselves heard.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  61. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jul 2021 @ 9:13am

    Re: Re: Go ahead and fucking try

    But can they shout louder than the Kpop stans? They might be outmatched and I look forward to the nazis being confused by what BTS means.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  62. icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), 9 Jul 2021 @ 9:36am

    Re: Re: Re: Publisher vs Platforms

    In the late 90s the term platform started being used to describe these 'not publishers.'

    Your timeline is off by... about 20 years. But okay.

    So yes it is not a term created by an act of congress, it began as a commonly used vernacular.

    Platform meant something very differently until recently. It used to mean something you could build apps on top of. Only recently (within the last 10 years or so) did it shift to mean a website for user generated content.

    Now here is where you get too smart by half. The courts started using the word which makes it law genius. It was just recently used in Joe Biden Jr. v. Knight First Amendment Institute ~ April 2021

    Justice Thomas used it in an unbriefed, random thought burp. Not as part of an actual ruling on a case he was briefed on. There is nothing in the law, which is the point that was made which you ignored.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  63. icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), 9 Jul 2021 @ 9:40am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Publisher vs Platforms

    Because saying that the corporation can make up whatever rules they want has never flown before.

    Corporations can make up rules for participating within their property, so long as they don't contravene a few very limited restrictions. Saying "don't be an asshole, don't harass people" is not, in anyway, unconscionable. I mean, seriously, Koby.

    Claiming that you can make up any rule whatsoever is insufficient

    I see you moving the goalposts, Kobes, and I won't allow it. There's a world of difference between "this website says you need to not harass people or we'll kick you off" and "you're not allowed to post a bad review anywhere online." If you can't tell the difference, you're too stupid to be here. Go away and wallow in your own stupidity elsewhere.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  64. icon
    ladyattis (profile), 9 Jul 2021 @ 9:54am

    Oh not this again...

    Seriously, they just don't like how they can't yell at random people online it seems. I just wish they get a clue and maybe actually update their message to make it acceptable to their target audience rather than shouting down and forcing themselves onto unwilling audiences.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  65. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jul 2021 @ 10:18am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Go ahead and fucking try

    because those are the voices that can make themselves heard

    They can only make themselves heard because they play the victim card.

    What happens when everyone else feels the same way because now they have to listen to these assholes? Do they just get to say 'oh well, we just need to live with it' or do they ask 'why do I have to put up with this shit?'

    All it's going to take is one of these narrow-minded 'family values' groups to have to allow content that runs afoul of their dogma. Then we're right back to moderation.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  66. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    icon
    Chozen (profile), 9 Jul 2021 @ 11:15am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Publisher vs Platforms

    "Justice Thomas used it in an unbriefed, random thought burp. Not as part of an actual ruling on a case he was briefed on. There is nothing in the law, which is the point that was made which you ignored."

    The law is all acts passed by congress and all decisions by the courts. A decision by the court is law. As for the use of the term "Platform" it was also used by the court in Halleck.

    The cat is out of the bag so to speak. Too many courts SCOTUS included have used "platform" for you to say it means nothing. Sometimes courts create law. Tough @#% go cry on your pillow.

    What is is.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  67. icon
    techflaws (profile), 9 Jul 2021 @ 11:34am

    Re: Re: Re: Publisher vs Platforms

    those people are idiots.

    Sounds like you would no, huh?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  68. icon
    techflaws (profile), 9 Jul 2021 @ 11:35am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Publisher vs Platforms

    know

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  69. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 9 Jul 2021 @ 7:17pm

    Halleck established that social media is in the public interest.

    No, it doesn’t⁠—because Halleck isn’t about social media. It’s about a public access television station. The logic expressed in Halleck vis-á-vis private entities and state actors can be applied to social media, though. Even the Wikipedia page for the decision says this:

    The opinion also stated that even if a private organization creates a public forum for speech, the fact that it is a private company means the First Amendment is not applicable. An example the opinion gives is that private organizations such as grocery stores and comedy clubs allow public forums such as bulletin boards or open mic sessions, but only topics that are relevant to these organizations are allowed to be expressed.

    That said…

    It does not prohibit statute from regulating social media in the public interest.

    …this is true. On the other hand…

    It actually encourages it.

    [citation required]

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  70. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 9 Jul 2021 @ 7:18pm

    A decision by the court is law.

    And if you could please point to the law, statute, or “common law” court ruling that explicitly says what you think Halleck says about social media, you would have a point.

    But you can’t.

    So you don’t.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  71. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 9 Jul 2021 @ 7:31pm

    They are all intentionally ambiguous and therefore not legal. Due to their ambiguity a typical TOS isn't worth the paper its not printed on.

    If a TOS isn’t a binding contract, how can you thus complain about Twitter or Facebook banning people? I mean, by your own logic, the parties haven’t entered into a contract, so the banned users can’t make the courts legally enforce a contract-that-isn’t.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  72. icon
    That One Guy (profile), 9 Jul 2021 @ 10:57pm

    Re:

    If TOS' had to be specific to be considered legal then by that argument someone could take a dump in the middle of a club and so long as the rules for said club didn't specifically say that that wasn't allowed then the club would have no grounds to eject the person, and given I feel very confident that that argument if raised by the disgusting person in question would never fly in court I can't help but think it might not be as strong an argument as those making it think it is.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  73. identicon
    Rocky, 10 Jul 2021 @ 4:48am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Publisher vs Platforms

    1. Violation of public policy is about employee - employer contracts. Which has zero to do with social media.
    2. If you are a minor there is no contract - hence you aren't allowed to use the service any way.
    3. If the TOS isn't legal you have no rights at all to use the service. Also, please give us examples of this "ambiguity".

    You think if there is no "legal contract" you are entitled to use a service as you see fit, which is a particular interesting position to take. Does a lack of a legal contract mean you are entitled to use someone else's property without repercussions?

    Thank you for playing, but shooting your feet off isn't the correct way to win a race.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  74. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Jul 2021 @ 8:02am

    Re: Oh not this again...

    I just wish they get a clue and maybe actually update their message to make it acceptable to their target audience

    How do they make their message acceptable when the target audience is the also the target of their hatred?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  75. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Jul 2021 @ 8:46am

    Shorter article: Texas Legislature embezzles $150 million in fake "censorship" bill.

    Senator and Governors make out like kings.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  76. icon
    Tanner Andrews (profile), 11 Jul 2021 @ 12:41am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Publisher vs Platforms

    Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck

    That one was regrettable. The law as stated appears correct, but the application on those particular facts may have been unfortunate. The cable service was transferred from the govt to a private entity in part to allow for viewpoint-based decisions. The govt could not prevent access by critics, where the corp could.

    I am not sure how the supremes could reach a different result without some serious pretzel logic. Given how much we pay them to be smart, it might have been nice to see a more useful result. Making careful distinctions is part of their job. Compare Hall v. DeCuir, 95 U.S. 485, and Chiles v. C&O Ry, 218 U.S. 71, , to Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 210.

    Still, genuinely private corps such as the operators of twitter or daily stormer are even more legitimately entitled to control the use of their respective properties.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  77. icon
    Tanner Andrews (profile), 11 Jul 2021 @ 1:40am

    Re: Go ahead and fucking try

    they're not prepared for what happens once they fucking get it

    Most likely they will not get their bill in effect. A bill to similar effect here was struck down even before it could become effective. No doubt the state will appeal, but even the U.S. 11th Circuit is not going to uphold the stink-bomb that is SB 2021-7072.

    If things move more slowly in Texas, or they do not provide an effective date, it may kick in. In such a case, I imagine that the bill will be so short-lived as to be of no real effect.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  78. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    icon
    Chozen (profile), 12 Jul 2021 @ 6:51am

    Re: You Lose

    "First Amendment is not applicable. An example the opinion gives is that private organizations such as grocery"

    You just lost the argument because grocery stores are the prime example of private companies being forced by regulation to respect their customers first amendment rights Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins (1980). So if as the Helleck decision says, social media is like a grocery store, then the states have just like the State of California has every right to regulate them to protect the free speech rights of their customers.

    You lose good day sir!

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  79. icon
    Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 12 Jul 2021 @ 8:29am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Publisher vs Platforms

    "When you just copy and paste a decision that means you dont understand it"

    ...says the disingenious idiot who started using Munn as an argument - A legal precedent in a case which was overturned in 1886.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  80. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2021 @ 9:08am

    In one of my favorite books a character observed that if they were going to tilt at windmills they should at least pick windmills where they at least stood some chance of success. The Texas legislature should take heed.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  81. icon
    Blake C. Stacey (profile), 12 Jul 2021 @ 10:24am

    The story of the special legislative session has heated up: It sounds like Texas Democrats are skipping the state to deny the Republicans a quorum.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  82. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 13 Jul 2021 @ 3:25am

    In re: Pruneyard (emphasis mine):

    On December 27, 2012, the Supreme Court of California reaffirmed Pruneyard but narrowed its applicability to the facts of the original case. The entire court concurred in Associate Justice Joyce Kennard's holding that Pruneyard applies only to "common areas" of shopping centers that are designed and furnished to encourage shoppers to linger, congregate, relax, or converse at leisure, but does not apply to any other open portions of shopping centers merely intended to facilitate the efficient movement of shoppers in and out of tenants, including concrete aprons and sidewalks which shoppers simply walk across as they move between parking lots and big-box stores. In other words, the court effectively immunized most (but not all) strip malls and shopping centers from Pruneyard, except for those with areas analogous to public gathering areas such as plazas, atriums, or food courts. Miriam Vogel, a former Court of Appeal justice who argued for the shopping center tenant (Kroger subsidiary Ralphs), characterized the decision "a great victory for retailers as far as putting another nail in the Pruneyard coffin." However, the decision was not a complete loss for free speech advocates, as the court separately upheld the right of a union to protest on the employer's premises under the state Moscone Act by a 6–1 majority (the majority, though, was badly split as to why).

    Pruneyard has been identified as possible case law by conservative politicians in challenging the protections from liability of Internet service providers, like Facebook and Twitter, under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Section 230 immunizes such providers from liability for content generated by their users, as well as for decisions to remove or moderate content they deem objectionable, language which has enabled the Internet to flourish since its passage in 1996. In the years leading up to and after Donald Trump was elected president in 2016, conservatives claimed that Internet sites were unfairly moderating against their viewpoints and have sought ways to try to weaken Section 230 as applied to sites allegedly engaged in nonneutral practices. Pruneyard has been cited in litigation by conservatives seeking to coerce Internet sites to cease moderation or restrictions on their content, such as in a 2019 case of PragerU seeking to stop YouTube from demonetizing its videos, by equating such sites as the equivalent of shopping malls, but these attempts have been so far rejected by courts. Nevertheless, Trump himself cited Pruneyard in Executive Order 13925, "Preventing Online Censorship", signed in May 2020, which seeks to modify the application of Section 230.

    Pruneyard is not the magic bullet you thought it was; invoking its name doesn’t scare me. Try another argument or get lost.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  83. icon
    That One Guy (profile), 13 Jul 2021 @ 10:07am

    Re:

    Normally I'd be against politicians pulling such stunts but when a political party sees that they lost an election and decides that the proper way to deal with that is to make it harder for their opposition to vote screw 'em.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

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



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Make this the First Word or Last Word. No thanks. (get credits or sign in to see balance)    
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

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



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Make this the First Word or Last Word. No thanks. (get credits or sign in to see balance)    
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Sponsored Promotion
Public Money, Public Code - Sign The Open Letter at publiccode.eu
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.