Wisconsin Senator's Social Media Bill Aims To Save The First Amendment By Violating The First Amendment

from the [headed-to-the-ER-to-get-my-third-degree-stupid-burns-treated] dept

Grandstands and bandwagons: that's what's headed to Social Media Town. Professional victims -- far too many of them earning public money -- have produced a steady stream of stupid legislation targeting social media platforms for supposedly "censoring" the kind of the content they really like: "conservative views." Convinced by failed-businessman-turned-failed-president Donald Trump (and his herd of Capitol Hill toadies) that social media has it in for anyone but the leftiest leftists, a bunch of legislators have hacked up "anti-censorship" bills that aim to protect free speech by trampling on free speech.

The latest (but surely not the last) legislator to grab his bandstand and board the bandwagon is Wisconsin state Senator Julian Bradley. Bradley seems convinced his low Twitter polling must be due to social media companies keeping him down.

“Big tech is silencing the things I say,” Bradley explained Monday morning. “They are silencing and shadow banning, they’re blocking any information that I am putting out.”

And he has a message for Big Social Media:

"Free expression is one of the most vital components of our democratic republic. We must ensure our citizens can engage in political speech unfiltered and uncensored by Big Tech. It's time for Facebook and Twitter to consistently and fairly enforce their own rules."

How does Bradley hope to protect free speech from the censorship private companies can't actually commit? By violating their free speech rights, of course. From the bill [PDF] Bradley says he's filing but actually has yet to file [as of July 14th, anyway]:

The bill prohibits a social media platform from using post prioritization (prioritizing certain content ahead of, below, or in a more or less prominent position than others in a newsfeed, feed, view, or search results) on content or material posted by or about a candidate for state or local office or an elected official who holds a state, local, or national office.

The bill also prohibits a social media platform from knowingly censoring, deplatforming (deleting or banning from the social media platform for more than 60 days), or shadow banning (limiting or eliminating the exposure of a user, or content posted by a user, to other users of the social media platform) a candidate for state or local office or an elected official who holds a state, local, or national office.

This compelled speech that favors only certain people is shoved into the bill alongside language that says social media companies must treat everyone equally.

Under the bill, a social media platform must publish the standards it uses for determining how to censor, deplatform, and shadow ban users on the platform. A social media platform must apply censorship, deplatforming, and shadow banning standards in a consistent manner among its users on the platform.

All social media patrons must be treated equally... except for politicians and would-be politicians, who will be statutorily more equal than others. Failure to carry compelled speech or apply rules "consistently" will potentially cost social media companies hundreds of thousands of dollars (if not millions per claim). And "consistency" will be defined literally on a case-by-case basis since the new law would create a private cause of action against qualifying social media platforms.

Bradley doesn't seem to know or care whether his proposal is constitutional. All he knows is he's pretty sure it's ok for the government to compel speech when courts have ruled government officials can't cut off citizens from interacting with them.

Bradley is quick to point-out that judges have ruled lawmakers and other elected officials cannot block or ban people from commenting on their posts, even if those comments are negative or ugly. The courts have ruled, essentially, that social media is the new public town hall and some online speech is protected.

Bradley is right... at least as far as getting the gist of recent court decisions. But he's wrong when he clarifies his own position:

Bradley said he is using this same logic to say that social media platforms shouldn't be able to ban elected officials, no matter the language they use.

Ah. Well then. Good luck using that "same logic" in court. This isn't junior high debate class, you rube. This is the Constitution. "This same logic" doesn't apply when there are two very clear and very distinct sets of rules that govern private companies and public servants. Public servants can't prevent the public from participating in their own governance. Private companies are free to pick and choose whose content they'll host. And social media services have cut elected officials a lot of slack over the years, keeping accounts alive that would have been shut down much earlier if platforms enforced rules consistently.

Bradley wants to create a carve-out for public officials in both the Constitution and social media platforms' terms of service. That's utter bullshit and shouldn't be tolerated by either his government cohorts or the people he's supposed to be representing.

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, content moderation, julian bradley, section 230, social media, wisconsin


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    icon
    Koby (profile), 15 Jul 2021 @ 10:04am

    Not Compelled

    Most platforms claim that the speech posted by its users is not the speech of the platform in order to avoid liability. Therefore social media corporations are not doing the speaking, and are not being compelled. Social media is not being compelled anymore than a paper company is being compelled if someone writes something with which they disagree on a piece of their paper. There is no first amendment right to censor others.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2021 @ 10:09am

      Re: Not Compelled

      Interesting point...there's someone looking for your comment on GETTR doing the same thing....

      https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20210709/17144347141/it-appears-that-jason-millers-gettr -is-speed-running-content-moderation-learning-curve-faster-than-parler.shtml#c3910

      What say you? Care to comment about first amendment right with respect to GETTR? Seems like they're the same people who continually complain on one hand, then do the same thing on the other, no?

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2021 @ 10:12am

      Re: Not Compelled

      They're also wondering what you think here too...

      https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20210713/09513247161/florida-man-governor-wastes-more-flori da-taxpayer-money-appealing-ruling-about-his-unconstitutional-social-media-law.shtml#c459

      Seems like anytime one of your own either loses spectacularly, or makes you look like hypocritical morons, you disappear.

      Care to enlighten us as to why?

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

    • icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), 15 Jul 2021 @ 10:29am

      Re: Not Compelled

      Most platforms claim that the speech posted by its users is not the speech of the platform in order to avoid liability. Therefore social media corporations are not doing the speaking, and are not being compelled.

      Koby, this is wrong (again). This has been explained to you repeatedly. The 1st Amendment ALSO bars the government from interfering with the right of association. Forcing someone to host speech they disagree with is compelled violation of the 1st Amendment's right of free association.

      There is no first amendment right to censor others.

      You're so wrong it's laughable.

      Why do you hate the 1st Amendment? Why do you support the government takeover of websites? Koby, you're so anti-American it hurts.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2021 @ 1:05pm

        Re: Re: Not Compelled

        Koby isn’t wrong. Masnick, show us the part of the 1st Amendment about protecting the right to censor others. Here it is in its entirety. Show us the part. Go ahead. Thanks in advance.

        “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.“

        Standing by for your answer….

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2021 @ 2:43pm

          Re: Re: Re: Not Compelled

          Huh, I didn't know Facebook had been nationalized. I'm assuming this was after Biden got into office?

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

        • identicon
          Rocky, 21 Jul 2021 @ 9:59pm

          Re: Re: Re: Not Compelled

          Koby isn’t wrong. Masnick, show us the part of the 1st Amendment about protecting the right to censor others. Here it is in its entirety. Show us the part. Go ahead. Thanks in advance.

          What you call "censor" is just someone kicking the assholes out because they don't want to be associated with them, ie exercising their freedom of association thing.

          That you fail to understand this is just because you are an stupid asshole that's screaming about how your rights are being violated while you are forcing your odious person upon others.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2021 @ 10:48am

      Re: Not Compelled

      Social media is not being compelled anymore than a paper company is being compelled if someone writes something with which they disagree on a piece of their paper.

      Do you think you'll be able to write on THEIR paper without purchasing it first, thus making it YOUR paper?

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

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        icon
        Koby (profile), 15 Jul 2021 @ 11:24am

        Re: Re: Not Compelled

        Do you think you'll be able to write on THEIR paper without purchasing it first, thus making it YOUR paper?

        After you make the purchase, it's yours. And every time you click the Submit button, the speech is yours and the transaction is complete.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2021 @ 11:38am

          Re: Re: Re: Not Compelled

          And every time you click the Submit button, the speech is yours and the transaction is complete.

          But the website (paper) that it's written on was never mine to begin with. So what exactly did I purchase that I would have a property interest in?

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

          • icon
            That One Guy (profile), 15 Jul 2021 @ 12:32pm

            It's my corkboard now supermarket owner

            Didn't you know, if someone allows use of their property the second you make use of it that property(or at least that part) becomes yours and the previous owner has no right to remove any changes or additions you might have made, therefore it is not and would not be in any way a violation of their rights for the government to step in and tell them they have to leave your stuff up.

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

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 15 Jul 2021 @ 12:31pm

      Therefore social media corporations are not doing the speaking, and are not being compelled.

      They may not be compelled into speaking, sure. But they’d be compelled into hosting speech they don’t want to host. Yes or no, Koby: Do you believe the government should have the legal right to compel any privately owned interactive web service into hosting legally protected speech that the owners/operators of said service don’t want to host?

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2021 @ 12:40pm

        Re:

        Let me answer for him, as we were talking about exactly that...you see, a website is like a piece of paper. He doesn't own it, but he thinks having a pen entitles him to use it, whether the owner of said paper likes it or not.

        As such he believes that he has a fundamental right to use his pen whenever and wherever he wants, irrespective of whose paper he's writing on. And he asks, nay DEMANDS that if he can't use the paper, then someone must force the paper owner to let him use it.

        Do I have it right, Koby?

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2021 @ 1:11pm

        Re:

        “They may not be compelled into speaking…”

        Exactly. So Techdirt needs to stop whining about ‘compelled speech’, which Cushing uses several times here.

        (Masnick usually has Cushing on the mad-at-daddy anti-law enforcement beat…wonder what’s going on at Techdirt HQ.)

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2021 @ 1:59pm

      Re: Not Compelled

      They're looking for you here too Bud!

      https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20210709/15172947139/exactly-right-youre-not-entitled-to-plat form-boomer.shtml#c28

      This time it's the Washington Examiner, which I'm sure you would agree caters to you oppressed folks...

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

  • identicon
    MathFox, 15 Jul 2021 @ 10:06am

    Smells like a certain Florida law

    When I read the description this proposed law reminds me of that Florida bill that Techdirt recently wrote a lot about. Yes the one where the state appeals the ruling that its law was non-constitutional.

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

  • icon
    Rico R. (profile), 15 Jul 2021 @ 10:07am

    As a Wisconsinite...

    Can we please add a theme park exception to this bill? I really would like more theme parks in my state, even if it is run by Google or Facebook!

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

  • icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 15 Jul 2021 @ 10:10am

    Why do I have the feeling that if I gave a damn and pulled up his Twitter feed it would be filled with all sorts of openminded loving... bwhahaahahahahahaha oh sorry even I couldn't pull that off.

    He is a walking caricature of GQP talking points.
    Only the GQP cares about you, the border must be sealed, poor people should be forced back to work for the economy...

    No mention of vaccines, masks...
    Its the liberals making everything bad, they won't let us cut business taxes which are holding them back...

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

    • icon
      That Anonymous Coward (profile), 15 Jul 2021 @ 11:04am

      Re:

      "they’re blocking any information that I am putting out."

      Nope, I checked.
      His twitter feed is there, full of blaming liberals and immigrants for all the problems in the nation while he is on the side of those who can solve them despite having had control of the nation for a couple of years.

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

  • identicon
    teka, 15 Jul 2021 @ 10:14am

    At this time I would like to formally announce my candidacy for a state or local office. Any and or all of them that may apply now or in the future.

    With that announcement made, I am now a candidate, obviously, meaning I can do whatever I want on social media. Forever, or they will be hearing from my lawyers and we'll all be laughing about this all the way to the bank.

    /s

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2021 @ 10:17am

    (prioritizing certain content ahead of, below, or in a more or less prominent position than others in a newsfeed, feed, view, or search results)

    What's the alternative, a random order where he might appear on the last page?

    Proposals like that show no understanding of the basic problems of indexing and listing things, or a world view where the propose is the most important person in the world, and nobody else is of any importance.

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

  • icon
    Bloof (profile), 15 Jul 2021 @ 10:18am

    Wisconsin is a state where democrats won 54% of the votes yet republicans, who are very much the minority, kept two thirds of the seats and moved immediately to gut the powers of the governor, the one seat they couldn't retain through gerrymandering. No Wisconsin republican has any right to pretend they're a champion of freedom and democracy, they're champions of selfish power grabs, nothing more.

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

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2021 @ 10:26am

    innoc first try because BLOCKED

    they see me quein', they hatin'!

    This known by mentions from minions and Maz that they see the queue filled -- but they don't ever let any of mine out, proving viewpoint discrimination!

    I just have to hammer away until TD admin either okays or I find an unblocked Tor exit node...

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

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2021 @ 10:26am

      Re: innoc first try because BLOCKED

      AND I'm IN, see?

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2021 @ 10:43am

        Re: Re: innoc first try because BLOCKED

        Yeah, we're all just marveling at the lengths you go to post, just so we can all flag it.

        Just thought I'd tell you - it's not your viewpoint. It's you.

        HTH

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

        • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2021 @ 10:55am

          Re: Re: Re: innoc first try because BLOCKED

          Yeah, we're all just marveling at the lengths you go to post, just so we can all flag it.

          HOW do you KNOW unless see the queue, minion pretending to be AC?

          Just thought I'd tell you - it's not your viewpoint. It's you.

          And you're WRONG as usual!

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

          • icon
            Mike Masnick (profile), 15 Jul 2021 @ 10:58am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: innoc first try because BLOCKED

            I see the queue. And you're wrong. We have always let comments through, even those from ignorant fools and morons who disagree with us. The only reason YOUR comments don't get through is because you submit 100 of the exact same comment. So by the time we check the queue to see your ignorant foolish nonsense, you've already figured out some way to get your comment through anyway. And we don't want to have the entire comments flooded with 100 copies of you posting the same ignorant bullshit over and over again.

            If you just had some modicum of self-control and patience, we'd let your stupid, ignorant, foolish, comments through. But you don't. So, you waste your time spamming, and we waste our time having to pick through a queue dominated by your nonsense.

            Knock if off.

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

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2021 @ 11:45am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: innoc first try because BLOCKED

            HOW do you KNOW unless see the queue, minion pretending to be AC?

            Are you lying when you complain about having to spam so many times to get a post through, Mr. Random Capitalization?

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

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 16 Jul 2021 @ 12:18am

            Re: That or your unmedicated mental illness

            "And you're WRONG as usual!"

            Nah they aren't wrong.

            You are.

            In fact it's you inability to accept that fact, that most likely, continues to be the singe greatest thing that holds you back in life.

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

            • icon
              Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 19 Jul 2021 @ 5:33am

              Re: Re: That or your unmedicated mental illness

              "In fact it's you inability to accept that fact, that most likely, continues to be the singe greatest thing that holds you back in life."

              To be fair, him being a general moron unable to learn kindergarten-level logic probably contributes a lot.

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

  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 15 Jul 2021 @ 10:28am

    Naked hypocrisy strikes again

    Take a little 'Everyone is equal, but some animals are more equal than others', mix in a dash of 'consequences are for other people' and throw in a heaping pile of 'my imaginary constitutional rights are more important than your actual constitutional rights!' and you've got one of the core 'conservative' pillars these days.

    How very quickly the party of 'let the free market decide', 'small government' and 'personal responsibility' pivots into heavy regulations when the market decides that it doesn't care for them thanks to their words and actions...

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

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2021 @ 10:32am

    Your assertions are utterly invalid.

    Corporations aren't in The Constitution.

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

    • icon
      sumgai (profile), 15 Jul 2021 @ 12:01pm

      Re: Your assertions are utterly invalid.

      You're correct in that they aren't directly mentioned, but...

      The Supremes declared long ago that corporations are persons for the sake of applicable portions of the Constitution and laws derived therefrom. Hence, those assertions you deny are indeed applicable.

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

    • icon
      Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 19 Jul 2021 @ 5:36am

      Re: Your assertions are utterly invalid.

      "Corporations aren't in The Constitution."

      Corporations = private property.

      So yes, corporations are indeed in the constitution.
      It's not a good look when a US right-winger tries to argue that the concept of private property isn't enshrined in the national charter.

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

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    icon
    xaxxon (profile), 15 Jul 2021 @ 10:41am

    It's ironic that you respect "free speech for companies"

    Companies shouldn't have constitutional protections.

    You shouldn't be able to violate "facebook's first amendment rights". It shouldn't have any.

    That decision was almost as bad as citizen's united.

    People have rights, companies don't.

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

    • icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), 15 Jul 2021 @ 10:56am

      Re: It's ironic that you respect "free speech for companies"

      Companies shouldn't have constitutional protections.

      Why not? That would be an absolute fucking disaster. Think of how often companies would be sued for absolutely garbage reasons.

      That decision was almost as bad as citizen's united.

      What decision? And what was "bad" about CU? What do you think CU was actually about?

      People have rights, companies don't.

      You may wish that to be true, but it is not. And if you took the time to understand why, you'd recognize that removing rights from corporations would be a total disaster of epic proportions. Say goodbye to any decent reporting, for example.

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

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 15 Jul 2021 @ 12:13pm

      The funny thing is even if you were right you'd still be wrong, as unless you support the government seizing the means of production(now where was that idea from...?) the site owners still have their property rights which would allow them to give you the boot from their property at their discretion, an act which would in no way infringe upon your rights because you never had a right to use their property to begin with.

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

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2021 @ 10:48am

    a meaningless one-liner

    sometimes breaks through...

    **The "Back the Story" link is certainly apt! Nothing but fictional tales here, impossibly of corporations being "persons"!

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

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2021 @ 10:50am

      Re: a meaningless one-liner

      Corporate personhood is only "court doctrine" made up out of the blue by a HANDFUL OF LAWYERS, like qualified immunity.

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

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2021 @ 10:51am

    In ANY conflict of "natural" persons versus corporations...

    the latter, MERE FICTIONS, have no Rights and don't matter!

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

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2021 @ 10:51am

      Re: In ANY conflict of "natural" persons versus corpor

      And now apparently I'm let run for a while! After was one comment, then block upon block.

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

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2021 @ 10:52am

    As practical fact We The People can change the Constitution!

    AT WORST, even if you were correct!

    Corporations CANNOT. They -- and their paid shills like YOU -- can only ASSERT FICTIONS CONSTANTLY.

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

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2021 @ 10:52am

    Corporations are intended to SERVE The Public, not rule over!

    Otherwise, all ANY gov't need do according to YOU to be entirely "Constitutional", is set up corporations and authorize with power. -- Like Nazi Germany, not coincidentally!

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

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2021 @ 10:53am

      Re: Corporations are intended to SERVE The Public, not rule over

      Bedrock law as any American know -- not romneys and masnicks --

      therefore again showing you corporatists just LIE about "Constitutional" to support your goals.

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

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2021 @ 10:53am

    On other hand, here's GOOD NEWS from modern Germany:

    Germany Fines YouTube Six Figures for Removing Video of Anti-Lockdown Protest

    https://www.mediaite.com/news/germany-fines-youtube-six-figures-for-removing-video-of-anti-l ockdown-protest/

    A regional court in Dresden ordered to pay the 100,000 Euro fine last week more than a year after the company ran afoul of German laws. The court ordered YouTube to put the video online in May 2020, a month after YouTube removed it, but the company took weeks to comply. YouTube unsuccessfully argued the video violated its policies on Covid-19 "misinformation."

    "With the historically high fine, the Higher Regional Court makes it very clear that court decisions must be observed without restriction, regardless of whether YouTube assumes a violation of its guidelines or not," an attorney for the plaintiff, Joachim Steinhoefel, said in a statement on Twitter.

    SO at least modern democracy holds that corporations CAN BE ORDERED TO HOST SPEECH.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2021 @ 11:13am

      Re: On other hand, here's GOOD NEWS from modern Germany:

      In Germany, yes.. probably most of Europe. No First Amendment in Europe though.

      I would say maybe you would be happier over here but, then again we are all liberal socialists so maybe not!

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2021 @ 11:17am

      Re: On other hand, here's GOOD NEWS from modern Germany:

      If corporations can be ordered to host speech, they can also be ordered to remove speech: then your ability to post online then relies on government approval, otherwise known as censorship.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2021 @ 11:01am

    The bill prohibits a social media platform from using post prioritization ... on ... an elected official who holds a state, local, or national office.

    Well then, Julian Bradley. I hope you enjoy goat.se and furry porn.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2021 @ 11:14am

      Re:

      I clipped a bit more than I should have from that quote, but it still holds, re content about or directed to said official.

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

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 15 Jul 2021 @ 12:17pm

      'Trolls'? Never heard of them

      Balderdash, I'm not aware of any such group or type of person who would deliberately post such content just to poke at and mock a politician for fun and/or to to show how stupid their arguments were, who would dare be so very mean to a member of the nobility after all?

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

  • icon
    ECA (profile), 15 Jul 2021 @ 11:30am

    OK,its time.

    We need abit of backup with the state and Gov. but.

    Lets make a channel, that there are NO censorship. and let it run for 30-60 days and Lets see all the complaints.
    We can invite Anyone that wants to come, and no one will be kicked.
    BUT, we want your real name and data, WHICH will not be shared to anyone joining.

    Then we collect all the DMCA, and abuse, and BS. And show it to them. If they can get anything said or done while in the forums, I will LOL myself to sleep.
    We can make sections for different comments and Maybe get them to stick to 1 comment?
    We can collect all the RIAA/MPAA and everyone companies complaints and SHOW them to them.

    Show them the What happened in the past, when the Internet Took off.
    Also collect the data on the REAL nuts out there. SHOW them what Humans Look like in the wild.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2021 @ 11:34am

      Re: OK,its time.

      I doubt that would work, as many Repugnant politicians are bigots who have learnt that they need to tone it down to get elected.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2021 @ 11:33am

    The flat-out Leftist BIASED garbage this site keeps putting out is pretty disgusting. It's all 100% leftist views. So all we see is their biased views.

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

  • identicon
    Bobvious, 15 Jul 2021 @ 3:11pm

    It's very clear

    that so many Americans CRAVE, CRAVE, CRAVE the good old days of the English Aristocracy and 18th century Monarchy, where the ruling class lorded it over the peasants.

    It's almost as if there wasn't a war to rid themselves of that.

    Gormless morons who pontificate about FREEDOM, while enslaving their fellow people.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2021 @ 7:30pm

    They just have no clue that they are meant to be public servants, or what public service is. They are petty warlords who think god appointed them kings.

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

  • icon
    Toom1275 (profile), 15 Jul 2021 @ 10:08pm

    Reminder: "No spam allowed" remains lawful free speech.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Jul 2021 @ 4:01am

    All social media patrons must be treated equally...

    So... we'll end up with the widest possible website since all Twitter posts will be put next to each other. That's gonna be fun to navigate.

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

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 16 Jul 2021 @ 10:05pm

      Re:

      Even side-by-side could be said to be biased as those on the left are more likely to be seen than those you have to scroll over to see. For true equality the platforms will need to replace any sorting with a 'Random account' button where you click it and are taken to a random account selected from the entire user base.

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


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
Special Affiliate Offer

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.