HUGE First Amendment Win For Texas, Ken
Paxton and All Americans!
Gateway Pundit,
by
Brian Lupo
Original Article
Posted By: Imright,
9/16/2022 9:59:23 PM
Today in Federal Court, Attorney General Ken Paxton and the American people scored a huge victory regarding censorship and banning of individuals based on their viewpoint. The Gateway Pundit is also involved in a free speech lawsuit of their own in Missouri v. Biden. This victory from AG Paxton will certainly help TGP’s case moving forward. (Tweet) The case before the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit was regarding House Bill 20, which “generally prohibits large social media platforms from censoring people based on the viewpoint of its speaker.” Judge Andrew S. Oldham opined that
Reply 1 - Posted by:
itsonlyme 9/16/2022 10:03:46 PM (No. 1279659)
Attorney General Merrick "Gestapo" Garland is probably not happy. Will he send his armed goons?
61 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
velirotta 9/16/2022 10:05:49 PM (No. 1279662)
Hang on folks! This might be the big one.
44 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
jeffkinnh 9/17/2022 6:35:44 AM (No. 1279828)
I absolutely LOVE the clarity in the thinking that "if the companies are given protection against suite for their user's content" then "there is no reason to restrict their user's content" except perhaps in the case of illegal activities.
Liberal snowflakes want to have "safe places" where they cannot be insulted for their stupid ideas and won't have to be exposed to points of view (truth) that differ from their own (delusions). Yet, if they were in a room with people who disagreed with them and called them a jerk, that is free speech. Their solution, if upset, is to leave. Or to start screaming, a method used by many of them but appalled when they are given a similar response. Their response on online platforms should be the same, leave or engage. Either way, these platforms are not required to be speech "safe" zones. ESPECIALLY for political discussions AND for political candidates.
And, to repeat, the platform owners have special legal protections against responsibility for what their users say. There is no need to censor their users. If they take the responsibility to "protect" the conversations then they don't need protection from lawsuits.
This could be YUGE!
51 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
Msquared112 9/17/2022 7:04:23 AM (No. 1279836)
There are many good sign abroad in the land these days. We will win. Keep praying. Keep writing, phoning, emailing, protesting.
37 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
Jesuslover54 9/17/2022 7:22:08 AM (No. 1279853)
So, can we wave by-bye to all those bulls**t "community standards"?
18 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
Ruhn 9/17/2022 7:41:06 AM (No. 1279867)
Somehow, I suspect that these platforms will circumvent the ruling and still censor those who post views that cuts against the grain of their groupthink.
32 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
PCMM 9/17/2022 8:05:02 AM (No. 1279885)
LOL. The TGP is every bit as guilty as Facebook re: censorship. Pffftt …
7 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
Lake Dweller 9/17/2022 8:30:22 AM (No. 1279905)
#7, that seems like news to me. An example please?
18 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
JackBurton 9/17/2022 9:22:08 AM (No. 1279938)
I remember when, in the 60s, I first heard the 'common carrier' argument. Basically, then, if you had a business, you were expected to follow common rules like not excluding people from getting service if they didn't fit your race/religion requirements.
I've been saying that that rule should be applied to google/facebook/twitter for a couple years now.
Score one for Thomas.
18 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
Zigrid 9/17/2022 9:42:59 AM (No. 1279953)
Score another one for MAGA...little by little our voices are being heard...and the hypocrites in Martha's Vineyard was a huge win for US...it showed the world just how the ruling elite feel about illegal aliens...good for thee...but not for me...the elites ran the migrants out quickly with the help of the army....
24 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
Ida Lou Pino 9/17/2022 10:33:04 AM (No. 1280012)
I'd like to comment on this decision - - but - - I'm afraid I'll be banned if this site's administrator doesn't like what I write.
So - - never mind - - I won't write anything - - I'm too a-scared.
1 person likes this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
MDConservative 9/17/2022 10:35:44 AM (No. 1280016)
It's not a "First Amendment Win" for anyone. Certainly not a "MASSIVE VICTORY for the Constitution & Free Speech." Government wasn't suppressing speech or anything else in this case, it was the private owners of the platforms. The argument was based on whether or not these social media giants (50 million or more subscribers) were common carriers, thus subject to such regulation. The appeals court found they were, and remanded the case.
That said, if anyone takes the time to read the opinion, there are some interesting aspects beyond this case. For example, the opinion notes: "On (sic) the platforms’ view, email providers, mobile phone companies, and banks could cancel the accounts of anyone who sends an email, makes a phone call, or spends money in support of a disfavored political party, candidate, or business." Hmmm, none of that going on, is there? The appeals panel seems to be opening some new avenues to slap down "woke" administration of business.
Let's see whether or not this heads to SCOTUS, or not. The next step for the Texas "lege" is to pass transparency laws regarding the sale or transfer of personal information generated by credit card, store discount card, or similar transactions, with customers notified on a regular basis what information was sold/transfered by whom to whom and when. Wouldn't you like to know DOJ is gathering your stuff, maybe the IRS? I know, you got nothing to hide...still...
7 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
Omen55 9/17/2022 11:37:25 AM (No. 1280108)
Is Meta about to be Face slapped?
5 people like this.
Reply 14 - Posted by:
Blackfeet 9/17/2022 4:38:33 PM (No. 1280353)
https://onlinefreedomact.org/
Online Freedom Act (OFA)
What does it do?
1. Establishes new and precise obligations on service providers to maintain Section 230 civil liability protection.
2. Returns Section 230 to its original intent and purpose including a "forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development".
3. Obliges service providers to censor unlawful expression or illegal conduct and report to authorities when imminent harm is likely.
4. Stops viewpoint censorship and promotes an uninhibited marketplace of ideas.
5. Permits domestic political, religious, and scientific dissent.
6. Requires plainly stated content-neutral rules which promote speech rather than discouraging it.
7. Allows Service Providers to retain civil liability protection only when they act as a "Good Samaritan" and in "Good Faith".
8. Clarifies who is a passive Interactive Computer Service provider and who is an active Service Provider.
9. Institutes a prompt enforcement mechanism when disputes arise.
10. Restore public confidence in the legislator's willingness to repair Section 230 which has permitted a few private companies to limit what we can see, hear, and speak.
1 person likes this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "Imright"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)