It was Paxton issuing a new opinion that state agencies aren't bound by court-ordered gender marker changes since they weren't technically parties to the suit that resulted in the order. It's one of the most infuriating examples of "potentially technically correct" I've seen in a while.
And once again, the source you provide directly contradicts the point you failed spectacularly to make. Stick to making fake AI. 1A law is clearly not your strong spot.
How many courts have had to explain to you why your understanding of the first amendment is completely wrong? Heck, you just answered your own question with the very question. Government (court) abridging speech is against the first amendment. The fact that the subject is also government doesn't change that.
The NEA does not "recommend" Gender Queer be read by children at all. Why on earth would you believe that? And why is it the only example you can ever think of?
For defamation specifically, I don't know. But knowingly using your office's power like this is a pretty clear violation of the First Amendment.
For reference, here's what happened when Texas governor Greg Abbott tried using his position to stomp out the FFRF. https://ffrf.org/news/news-releases/item/38830-breaking-news-ffrf-wins-major-court-victory-against-gov-abbott-censorship
And do note that this case found itself in front of the notoriously government-abuse-friendly Fifth Circuit multiple times. They sided AGAINST Abbott every single one of them.
The only person claiming that social media companies don't editorialize is YOU. THEY are telling the courts that they do. And the courts are confirming that it is their right. Not because of 230, but because of 1A.
How many times does it need to be explained to you before you finally realize you're wrong? Almost all of the things subject to moderation are Constitutionally OK, and always have been. There is no policy argument for why they should be legally required to be hosted.
Because he doesn't want his own platform. He wants the existing platforms to do his bidding, and he has no interest in accepting anything less than complete loyalty.
Hi! I see you've discovered that lawsuit filed by Moronity in Media. Perhaps you should try reading it before anything else, because it doesn't actually accuse them of any of that. Nor does Twitter's motion to dismiss make those claims.
Please stop stanning for the censorship brigade.
It was Paxton issuing a new opinion that state agencies aren't bound by court-ordered gender marker changes since they weren't technically parties to the suit that resulted in the order. It's one of the most infuriating examples of "potentially technically correct" I've seen in a while.
Full Metal Jacket
There are only two things that come from Texas. And they both taste delicious. Or however that quote goes.
BREAKING: Airplane lands safely without incident
Note: fill in later. Yet ANOTHER set of employees survived their drive home, so I have to go write an article about each of them first.
There is no such thing as "anti-White hate speech."
And once again, the source you provide directly contradicts the point you failed spectacularly to make. Stick to making fake AI. 1A law is clearly not your strong spot.
How many courts have had to explain to you why your understanding of the first amendment is completely wrong? Heck, you just answered your own question with the very question. Government (court) abridging speech is against the first amendment. The fact that the subject is also government doesn't change that.
Uhhh, no?
The NEA does not "recommend" Gender Queer be read by children at all. Why on earth would you believe that? And why is it the only example you can ever think of?
"Beware the nature of online debates. They often contain quotes that aren't attributed properly."
Which board member are you talking about?
For defamation specifically, I don't know. But knowingly using your office's power like this is a pretty clear violation of the First Amendment. For reference, here's what happened when Texas governor Greg Abbott tried using his position to stomp out the FFRF.
https://ffrf.org/news/news-releases/item/38830-breaking-news-ffrf-wins-major-court-victory-against-gov-abbott-censorship And do note that this case found itself in front of the notoriously government-abuse-friendly Fifth Circuit multiple times. They sided AGAINST Abbott every single one of them.
Re: Re: Re: Officially They're A Publisher
The only person claiming that social media companies don't editorialize is YOU. THEY are telling the courts that they do. And the courts are confirming that it is their right. Not because of 230, but because of 1A.
the twist
If you find the photos and look really carefully at the background, you'll see the outline of a private beach house owned by Barbara Streisand.
Probably not, but it's not like any other explanation makes any more sense.
Re: Re: Re: Glad To Help
Re: Glad To Help
How many times does it need to be explained to you before you finally realize you're wrong? Almost all of the things subject to moderation are Constitutionally OK, and always have been. There is no policy argument for why they should be legally required to be hosted.
Re: Serious question
Because he doesn't want his own platform. He wants the existing platforms to do his bidding, and he has no interest in accepting anything less than complete loyalty.
Hi! I see you've discovered that lawsuit filed by Moronity in Media. Perhaps you should try reading it before anything else, because it doesn't actually accuse them of any of that. Nor does Twitter's motion to dismiss make those claims. Please stop stanning for the censorship brigade.
Re: Handoff
There has never been any credible evidence suggesting "conservative censorship." Why do you keep insisting otherwise?
Guys, please stop trying to connect your genitals to the Internet.
Re: The First Amendment is to guarantee free and open Public For
Ahhhh, blue. I was beginning to worry about you, but it's good to see you haven't changed one bit. Glad to have you back!