Federal Court rules Big Tech has no 'freewheeling
First Amendment right to censor'
Fox News,
by
Brianna Herlihy
Original Article
Posted By: Moritz55,
9/19/2022 5:27:49 PM
A federal appeals court upheld a Texas law on Friday that seeks to curb censorship by social media platforms. The ruling, a major victory for Republicans who charge companies like Twitter and Facebook are limiting free speech, is a step in a major legal battle that could end up at the Supreme Court. The lawsuit is challenging HB 20, a Texas bill signed into law by Gov. Greg Abbott that regulates social media platforms with more than 50 million monthly users, which includes Google, Facebook and Twitter, and says they cannot censor or limit users’ speech based on viewpoint expression.
Reply 1 - Posted by:
kono 9/19/2022 7:03:43 PM (No. 1282222)
Does this nationalize social media? Even though they seem to have a semi-monopoly on communications, they are still private enterprises, which I don't see mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, including the First Amendment. This feels too analogous to the way the Fairness Doctrine imposed on Conservative Talk Radio, when the Left just couldn't compete in that arena.
14 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
davew 9/19/2022 7:03:55 PM (No. 1282223)
John Stuart Mill is the philosopher associated with Utilitariansism and one of the intellectual pillars of the ideas that ended up in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. He was adamant that civil society should defend free speech EVEN WHEN IT WAS WRONG because it resulted in the people using their rational powers and thereby improved society.
The radicals of the time that opposed this were followers of Jean-Jaque Rousseau who believed one function of government was to force non-conformists to renounce their mistakes and accept the "truth" of the majority which was considered more virtuous. This is clearly the position of the Big Tech oligarchs.
34 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
Jesuslover54 9/19/2022 7:39:07 PM (No. 1282245)
Why is it limited to platforms with 50 million monthlies, they should all be banned. Even the little guys.
24 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
Penney 9/19/2022 8:45:29 PM (No. 1282272)
Bell telephone didn't have this problem. Big tech apparently doesn't have enough integrity to respect the Constitution.
25 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
DVC 9/20/2022 12:21:58 AM (No. 1282336)
But, it will require many state laws to make this work.
8 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
MSUDoc 9/20/2022 6:25:01 AM (No. 1282443)
We know Democrats meet with Big Tech regularly and dictate whose voices get to be heard and who is “dangerous,” or “misinformation.”
They are doing an end around the 1st Amendment by having BT creeps do the censorship for them.
26 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
msjena 9/20/2022 7:20:15 AM (No. 1282477)
The issue is whether the government can say that corporations like Facebook cannot censor free speech. This is the kind of anti-censorship principle that liberals used to champion when TV shows were censoring opposition to the Viet Nam war. Facebook and Twitter are careful to say they are not news media and thus cannot invoke the free press provisions of the 1st amendment. It will be interesting to see what the Supreme Court says about this. Of course, they can always punt and say the law violates the Commerce Clause.
7 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
Clinger 9/20/2022 7:51:10 AM (No. 1282496)
Since we handed the power over to government to pick winners and losers, dole out special favor via regulation and discretionary tax policy, the lines between public and private have become hopelessly blurred. Now we at the point where in order to apply the constitutionally established limits on government we can't completely protect and respect the rights of the private sector. What a bloody mess.
The answer is to rededicate ourselves to putting government back in its lane but that won't happen since the biggest source of income for the ruling class comes from selling favor which shouldn't be for sale.
13 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
Vitaman 9/20/2022 8:14:40 AM (No. 1282512)
So, John Stuart Mill, the "philosopher of Unitarianism" provided many of the pillars of the current Constitution even though he wasn't born until 1806 while the Constitution was written in 1787, 19 years before his birth. He wasn't writing on philosophy until his mid-twenties making it 1830 at a minimum, making it at least 43 years. The Founders had many talents. Clairvoyance was not among them. I get what #2 is trying to convey but...
The bill of rights does not protect a corporate-government collusion to deprive a significant portion of the citizens of their right of freedom of speech by using their right to freedom of the press, especially when that right is used, with the help of the Justice Dept and regulatory agencies, to deplatform the competition. This is, of course, Fascism in its economic sense (not the left's favorite pejorative sense but actual picking winners and losers using the power of government). It is government-private partnership run amok. Hardly what the Bill of Rights was meant to guarantee in the 1st Amendment.
20 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
NamVet70 9/20/2022 8:30:21 AM (No. 1282531)
When I first watched the movie The President's Analyst in which the villain was the telephone company (TPC) I thought it was fiction. I now know that the media is exactly what was portrayed in the movie.
10 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
TLCary 9/20/2022 8:34:22 AM (No. 1282534)
There is demonstrable evidence that all platforms with over 50 million users a month have colluded with the Democrats to censor Republican content, and therefore it is government censorship via proxy. If Facebook can't censor users from Texas their game is over. Send everything you want to say to a user in Texas and have them post it. I'm sure many Texas users will be glad to be the reflection point.
12 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
swarfer 9/20/2022 8:39:18 AM (No. 1282541)
Could never understand how censorship got this far since the internet is regulated by the federal government and therefore basic constitution law applies. Since the internet is so large, Texas law zeroed in on the major corporations as test cases. Note that this could result in multi-billion dollar class action lawsuits and was intended to put other internet news companies on notice. If SCOTUS upholds it, get ready for a avalanche of individual and state backed lawsuits, the lawyers are going to love it. Can’t wait to see the legal commercials. “Have you been a victim of internet censorship? You may be entitled to compensation.” Keep your finger’s crossed.
10 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
Pinkpanther 9/20/2022 8:48:16 AM (No. 1282553)
Can someone explain what this means? Does this only apply to Texas citizens and what’s the rights of a Texan if they were or are being censored? Can they sue big tech? I’m asking because my daughter is being shadowbanned on Instagram and her posts are being deleted. She runs a Catholic account with 110k followers and we live in Texas.
7 people like this.
Reply 14 - Posted by:
bighambone 9/20/2022 9:03:02 AM (No. 1282563)
Chances are in the end the Supreme Court will make the controlling decision relating to Big Tech deciding what politicized propaganda they allow on their sites.
2 people like this.
Reply 15 - Posted by:
PrayerWarrior 9/20/2022 9:34:10 AM (No. 1282590)
I trace most of this back to Obama who said the Constitution was a bill of negative rights.
From U.S. News: Obama in his 2001 interview disparages the Constitution as merely "a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf." He believes—and he's right—that changing this is the way to bring about "redistributive change."
This is what Obama was talking about before his election...fundamentally transforming our Country!
7 people like this.
Reply 16 - Posted by:
HisHandmaiden 9/20/2022 10:26:36 AM (No. 1282643)
No one has a 'freewheeling
First Amendment right to censor’ in America, period.
Reason enough to teach American History using our Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights and Constitution… again!
9 people like this.
Reply 17 - Posted by:
Blackfeet 9/20/2022 10:49:33 AM (No. 1282671)
Poster #3. Agree totally. That is why I wrote the "Online Freedom Act" https://onlinefreedomact.org/
1 Clarifies the ambiguous text of Section 230,
2 Prevents unlawful, arbitrary and capricious censorship.
3 Promotes uniform enforcement.
4 Provides obligations and procedural safeguards.
Now supported by over thirty Congressional Candidates
7 people like this.
Reply 18 - Posted by:
MDConservative 9/20/2022 10:56:02 AM (No. 1282680)
#1 raises a serious point. It's always great to gore the other guy's ox...until it's your turn for goring.
I am a supporter of free speech. That is a right, no less than 2A. I expect, like our Founders, that the public marketplace of ideas will do with it what it will. What the Founders failed to anticipate was an uninformed, even stupid citizenry, and its elected government. Where the Constitution built in political conflict with three branches of government and two chambers in Congress - one representing "the people", the other the states - it has been replaced with a UNIPARTY that maintains the trappings for the boobs while it mines this prosperous nation for special interests and their own apparent enrichment.
Of course, we could have speech restricted to protect the nation from radical thought. Those radicals are on both sides of the ideological divide. People don't want to hear conflicting ideas or debate points because it makes things complex. Cognitive dissonance sets in, and heads begin to hurt inside from too much thinking. Different thoughts must be shut down, destroyed...and we have the current COVIDS experience to offer as proof. And that propaganda mill worked under PDT as it does in FJB. (FPDT still endorses his Operation Warp Speed magic elixir vaccinations as safe and effective.)
But don't believe for a minute that those American oligarchs are limited to "big tech." The developed world has been enveloped in a drumroll of "existential crises" that have reshaped how we live. Let's take "environmentalism" and all its shadings and fears. Like terrorism, it is aimed at reshaping our lives to conform to their magic formulae for a perpetually perfect world. See any changes wrought by this idea of "green"? As for the terrorists, look at all those security cameras, metal detectors, scanning machines, and inspectors...even at ballparks.
As the saying goes, you can't fix stupid. And that's the scarier part. "Free speech" is withering because it's a social inconvenience. Don't like someone's viewpoints, call them a troll..."cancel" them...but DON'T consider the merits of what was said. Isn't that how it works?
4 people like this.
Reply 19 - Posted by:
stablemoney 9/20/2022 10:59:36 AM (No. 1282687)
Big Tech has growing concerns. India has also passed constrictions. Big Tech already conforms to China and Russia's constrictions.
7 people like this.
Reply 20 - Posted by:
JackBurton 9/20/2022 6:09:23 PM (No. 1283067)
Back in the fight for civil rights in the 60s, restaurants, bars, and more were ruled to be common carriers. Like utilities and the post office, they could not refuse to serve people of a race that they didn't favor. Since FB is a defacto town square for many discussions and announcements, I think the common carrier designation is apt. Also, Twitter has some monetizing aspects, right? So the argument that they can't pick and choose between the people they allow to make money also applies. It's a wonder no one has sued them for damages yet.
1 person likes this.
The problem is the wording in 47 U.S.C. § 230 Communications Decency Act. It allows the interactive computer websites to remove or restrict access to anything they want through the vague wording "...or otherwise objectionable..." It also allows them to remove or restrict access, "...whether or not such material is constitutionally protected;” This should be interesting since the Federal Law allows exactly what they are doing.
0 people like this.
Reply 22 - Posted by:
msjena 9/21/2022 7:58:47 AM (No. 1283556)
#9, I think the poster means John Locke.
0 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "Moritz55"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)