Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's only a victory for those that are against the 1st Amendment. Social media companies like Facebook and Twitter are privately owned. The 1st Amendment only provides protections from government infringements of free speech, not private companies. Tulsi Gabbard sued Google a few years ago and lost for that very reason.
Texas's law itself violates the 1st Amendment by telling private social media companies how to moderate or not moderate their sites. That's meddling by the state government. I'd like to know what the hell the judges on the 5th Circuit were smoking when they made this ruling.
I expect this to end up in SCOTUS and overturned. I can't see Gorsuch and Roberts going along with this BS.
It's only a victory for those that are against the 1st Amendment. Social media companies like Facebook and Twitter are privately owned. The 1st Amendment only provides protections from government infringements of free speech, not private companies. Tulsi Gabbard sued Google a few years ago and lost for that very reason.
Texas's law itself violates the 1st Amendment by telling private social media companies how to moderate or not moderate their sites. That's meddling by the state government. I'd like to know what the hell the judges on the 5th Circuit were smoking when they made this ruling.
I expect this to end up in SCOTUS and overturned. I can't see Gorsuch and Roberts going along with this BS.
So it's ok for the left to meddle but not the right...
Texas's law is a blatant violation of the 1st Amendment since the state government is interfering in how private social media companies moderate or not moderate their sites.
Seriously. How can anyone claiming to be for the "party of small government" support this crap? Does anyone else not see what a slippery slope this creates if these laws stand?
Sure, they did, which I readily admitted. But they were a small amount comparatively speaking; it was miniscule compared to the total US citizen social media presence from both sides during the election season.
As they do when they sign up for phone service. The terms may be somewhat different, but that's entirely my point. That the law as it exists today requires that the terms be different as the telecommunications companies are common carriers, so the law already prohibits exactly what they can and can't do.
And, as I noted, Congress has already established that platforms aren't "speaking" when they host others on their platforms:
"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."
Fundamentally, people can agree to whatever they want. That doesn't mean that government cannot separately regulate and create causes of action between private parties, which Texas has chosen to do here with the social media law. So long as a law in question doesn't violate the Constitution (which it doesn't here as the law regulates the social media companies' conduct vice speech), then the law will generally be allowed to stand.
As to the differences between telecommunications and social media, yes they are there. But, as I mentioned before, in today's world social media has taken on an even more important role in communications (depending on the society/country/etc.) than traditional communications mediums, which means that these principles should apply even more to social media companies.
The Texas law does a pretty good job on this point. It prohibits viewpoint discrimination by platforms on account of:
Quote:
(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.
That is still pretty broad and would have still allowed things like Pizza Gate, Sandy Hook and Seth Rich.
I would not compare a telecommunications company to social media sites since they are more influential.
You should watch that video again. She clearly said that the decision was ultimately up to the social media companies because the companies are private sector. Urging social media companies to ban people isn't a violation of the 1st Amendment. Issuing executive orders or Congress passing laws to FORCE social media companies to do just that IS a violation of the 1st Amendment.
Show me a law that Congress passed, or even an executive order, that is the same as Texas or California.
Oh, to be fair about it, you wouldn't mind if a far leftist posted his political agenda on a big sign posted in your front yard. As for me, I'd guarantee you right and left that I would sure as hell mind.
If I advertised my yard as being available for political signs then I would expect differing signs to be placed there. If the government contacted me and told me to remove all right leaning signs, who would/should have a problem with that? Especially if I didn't make it known that only left leaning signs were allowed and continued to imply that all signs were fair game.
You should watch that video again. She clearly said that the decision was ultimately up to the social media companies because the companies are private sector. Urging social media companies to ban people isn't a violation of the 1st Amendment. Issuing executive orders or Congress passing laws to FORCE social media companies to do just that IS a violation of the 1st Amendment.
Show me a law that Congress passed, or even an executive order, that is the same as Texas or California.
When the government "suggests" something or "urges" a behavior and then says "but it's up to you" how do you take that?
If I advertised my yard as being available for political signs then I would expect differing signs to be placed there. If the government contacted me and told me to remove all right leaning signs, who would/should have a problem with that? Especially if I didn't make it known that only left leaning signs were allowed and continued to imply that all signs were fair game.
Do you have some specific examples of posts that were removed that should have been allowed. I assume Texas has some specifics.
This law also only targets the large social media companies not the smaller groups, would City Data get a pass.
Last edited by Goodnight; 09-19-2022 at 06:30 AM..
When the government "suggests" something or "urges" a behavior and then says "but it's up to you" how do you take that?
Free speech.
For example, the government can spend all day suggesting or urging me to listen to a certain radio station only, but there ain't a damn thing they can do about it if I decide not to.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
