NetChoice v. Paxton
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 21, 2022, 04:29:20 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: Broodmare #B7563857US, The Harlot of Versailles)
  NetChoice v. Paxton
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: NetChoice v. Paxton  (Read 180 times)
GeneralMacArthur
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,402
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: May 13, 2022, 10:30:13 AM »

Yesterday, the Fifth Circuit reinstated the Texas law HB 20 which attempts to regulate social media platforms.  You can read the bill here:  https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/872/billtext/html/HB00020S.htm

Specifically, the bill prevents social media companies from "censoring" people, with the following definition:

Quote
Sec. 143A.002.  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.
           (b)  This section applies regardless of whether the
    viewpoint is expressed on a social media platform or through any
    other medium.

it applies to not just Texans, but also anyone who does business in Texas (potentially including anyone working for a company that operates in Texas) or some vague notion of "shares or receives expression in this state."

Quote
Sec. 143A.004.  APPLICABILITY OF CHAPTER. (a)  This chapter
    applies only to a user who:
                 (1)  resides in this state;
                 (2)  does business in this state; or
                 (3)  shares or receives expression in this state.

If you're censored, you can claim $10 for every censored message, or $25,000 for each day you spend being censored.

The decision to uphold this law, which is clearly unconstitutional, was a 2-1 Fifth Circuit decision.  Since the court had one normal conservative W appointee and two MAGA Trump appointees, most people are assuming this decision is basically a consequence of Trump's impact on the judiciary.

Since the definition of "censorship" is so broad and vague, it is basically impossible for social media companies to operate.  For instance, Texas could immediately start fining Twitter $25,000 per person for every day that Trump, Milo, MTG, Alex Jones, Jacob Wohl, Laura Loomer, Roger Stone, Michael Flynn, Steve Bannon, Sidney Powell, Mike Lindell, James O'Keefe, etc. are banned from Twitter.  Plus all the racist yahoos who will claim they were banned just for being conservative.

Will the decision stand?  Since it's brazenly unconstitutional, my guess is no.  But hey, with a judiciary and supreme court like this, you never know.  We're living in Mitch McConnell's dream world right now and the Texas state legislature forcing Twitter to add all the 1/6ers back is every MAGA's fantasy.  Of course Twitter will probably just stop operation in Texas before that happens, in the unlikely event that this law is allowed to stand.
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,908
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: May 13, 2022, 10:32:36 AM »

Yesterday, the Fifth Circuit reinstated the Texas law HB 20 which attempts to regulate social media platforms.  You can read the bill here:  https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/872/billtext/html/HB00020S.htm

Specifically, the bill prevents social media companies from "censoring" people, with the following definition:

Quote
Sec. 143A.002.  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.
           (b)  This section applies regardless of whether the
    viewpoint is expressed on a social media platform or through any
    other medium.

it applies to not just Texans, but also anyone who does business in Texas (potentially including anyone working for a company that operates in Texas) or some vague notion of "shares or receives expression in this state."

Quote
Sec. 143A.004.  APPLICABILITY OF CHAPTER. (a)  This chapter
    applies only to a user who:
                 (1)  resides in this state;
                 (2)  does business in this state; or
                 (3)  shares or receives expression in this state.

If you're censored, you can claim $10 for every censored message, or $25,000 for each day you spend being censored.

The decision to uphold this law, which is clearly unconstitutional, was a 2-1 Fifth Circuit decision.  Since the court had one normal conservative W appointee and two MAGA Trump appointees, most people are assuming this decision is basically a consequence of Trump's impact on the judiciary.

Since the definition of "censorship" is so broad and vague, it is basically impossible for social media companies to operate.  For instance, Texas could immediately start fining Twitter $25,000 per person for every day that Trump, Milo, MTG, Alex Jones, Jacob Wohl, Laura Loomer, Roger Stone, Michael Flynn, Steve Bannon, Sidney Powell, Mike Lindell, James O'Keefe, etc. are banned from Twitter.  Plus all the racist yahoos who will claim they were banned just for being conservative.

Will the decision stand?  Since it's brazenly unconstitutional, my guess is no.  But hey, with a judiciary and supreme court like this, you never know.  We're living in Mitch McConnell's dream world right now and the Texas state legislature forcing Twitter to add all the 1/6ers back is every MAGA's fantasy.  Of course Twitter will probably just stop operation in Texas before that happens, in the unlikely event that this law is allowed to stand.


How do you stop your application from being accessed from a particular area?
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,676
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: May 13, 2022, 12:01:13 PM »

Conservatives rely on ignorance and misinformation to propound their views in the 2020s. Constitutionality doesn't matter to them.
Logged
Old School Republican
Computer89
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 33,188


Political Matrix
E: 3.48, S: 2.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: May 13, 2022, 04:44:00 PM »

Either social media companies should have to abide by the first amendment OR they should have section 230 protections removed from them
Logged
GeneralMacArthur
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,402
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: May 13, 2022, 04:48:21 PM »

Either social media companies should have to abide by the first amendment OR they should have section 230 protections removed from them

When you become a Republican do you have to get your brain wiped to erase any basic understanding of American civics, or are you guys just born f---ing braindead?  How many times do people have to tell you that the first amendment doesn't apply to private corporations regulating usage of their own software?  A hundred?  Ten thousand?  A million?  I have to self-censor in this very post -- can't say "f--king" like I want to -- do you honestly believe that this is Dave and Virginia violating my first amendment rights?
Logged
Old School Republican
Computer89
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 33,188


Political Matrix
E: 3.48, S: 2.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: May 13, 2022, 04:49:18 PM »

Either social media companies should have to abide by the first amendment OR they should have section 230 protections removed from them

When you become a Republican do you have to get your brain wiped to erase any basic understanding of American civics, or are you guys just born f---ing braindead?  How many times do people have to tell you that the first amendment doesn't apply to private corporations regulating usage of their own software?  A hundred?  Ten thousand?  A million?  I have to self-censor in this very post -- can't say "f--king" like I want to -- do you honestly believe that this is Dave and Virginia violating my first amendment rights?

do you know what the word Or means
Logged
Southern Delegate and Atlasian AG Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Politician
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,243
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: May 13, 2022, 04:53:02 PM »

Either social media companies should have to abide by the first amendment OR they should have section 230 protections removed from them
Section 230 being removed is a road to a way more controlled internet and would accomplish the opposite of what you intend. Section 230 being gone would be WORSE than the status quo.
Logged
Old School Republican
Computer89
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 33,188


Political Matrix
E: 3.48, S: 2.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: May 13, 2022, 04:55:31 PM »

Either social media companies should have to abide by the first amendment OR they should have section 230 protections removed from them
Section 230 being removed is a road to a way more controlled internet and would accomplish the opposite of what intend. Section 230 being gone would be WORSE than the status quo.

Sure but social media companies who censor the way twitter has become cannot reasonably say they aren't responsible for what is posted on their platforms.

Logged
GeneralMacArthur
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,402
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: May 13, 2022, 04:56:59 PM »

Either social media companies should have to abide by the first amendment OR they should have section 230 protections removed from them

When you become a Republican do you have to get your brain wiped to erase any basic understanding of American civics, or are you guys just born f---ing braindead?  How many times do people have to tell you that the first amendment doesn't apply to private corporations regulating usage of their own software?  A hundred?  Ten thousand?  A million?  I have to self-censor in this very post -- can't say "f--king" like I want to -- do you honestly believe that this is Dave and Virginia violating my first amendment rights?

do you know what the word Or means

They are already "abiding by the first amendment" because the first amendment says absolutely nothing about how private companies self-regulate usage of their platforms.
Logged
Southern Delegate and Atlasian AG Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Politician
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,243
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: May 13, 2022, 04:57:57 PM »

Either social media companies should have to abide by the first amendment OR they should have section 230 protections removed from them
Section 230 being removed is a road to a way more controlled internet and would accomplish the opposite of what intend. Section 230 being gone would be WORSE than the status quo.

Sure but social media companies who censor the way twitter has become cannot reasonably say they aren't responsible for what is posted on their platforms.


Agree to disagree on that, but - I'd argue companies will not be as hurt if Section 230 is removed.
It will be users who suffer the most, bar none.
Logged
Sestak
jk2020
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,006
Ukraine



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: May 13, 2022, 05:00:50 PM »

Either social media companies should have to abide by the first amendment OR they should have section 230 protections removed from them
Section 230 being removed is a road to a way more controlled internet and would accomplish the opposite of what intend. Section 230 being gone would be WORSE than the status quo.

Sure but social media companies who censor the way twitter has become cannot reasonably say they aren't responsible for what is posted on their platforms.



That's ridiculous. Just because you have some standards doesn't mean that by default you are saying literally everything that meets those standards.

Atlas Forum moderates posts. Does that mean that Atlas Forum should be liable for everything posted by its members? You are essentially killing all remotely free portions of the internet by asserting this.
Logged
Old School Republican
Computer89
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 33,188


Political Matrix
E: 3.48, S: 2.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: May 13, 2022, 05:04:10 PM »

Either social media companies should have to abide by the first amendment OR they should have section 230 protections removed from them

When you become a Republican do you have to get your brain wiped to erase any basic understanding of American civics, or are you guys just born f---ing braindead?  How many times do people have to tell you that the first amendment doesn't apply to private corporations regulating usage of their own software?  A hundred?  Ten thousand?  A million?  I have to self-censor in this very post -- can't say "f--king" like I want to -- do you honestly believe that this is Dave and Virginia violating my first amendment rights?

do you know what the word Or means

They are already "abiding by the first amendment" because the first amendment says absolutely nothing about how private companies self-regulate usage of their platforms.

I was obviously meaning by the principles of it . Anyway if these companies want liability protections then yes they should not be able to censor the way they have been.
Logged
г-н Cмит
MormDem
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,236
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: May 13, 2022, 10:29:26 PM »

Either social media companies should have to abide by the first amendment OR they should have section 230 protections removed from them

When you become a Republican do you have to get your brain wiped to erase any basic understanding of American civics, or are you guys just born f---ing braindead?  How many times do people have to tell you that the first amendment doesn't apply to private corporations regulating usage of their own software?  A hundred?  Ten thousand?  A million?  I have to self-censor in this very post -- can't say "f--king" like I want to -- do you honestly believe that this is Dave and Virginia violating my first amendment rights?

do you know what the word Or means

Non-sequitur.
Logged
politicallefty
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,367
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -9.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: May 14, 2022, 08:17:00 AM »

This decision was brought to you by ultraconservative Reagan-appointee Edith Jones and Trump-appointee Andrew Oldham. Judge Leslie Southwick, a GWB-appointee and a more moderate conservative, appeared to be in dissent.

I'm not surprised to see those on the right argue for more limitations on the right to freedom of speech. It's been the Trump dogma for years now. Section 230 repeal would hardly be an issue if the Supreme Court rightly eliminated all libel and defamation laws.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.051 seconds with 11 queries.