Abbott signs social media "censorship" bill into law

4,369 Views | 47 Replies | Last: 2 yr ago by richardag
Waffledynamics
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-social-media-bill-signed-law-governor-abbott/

Quote:

The new law requires social media companies with more than 50 million monthly users to disclose their content moderation policies and institute an appeals process. It would also require such social media companies to remove illegal content within 48 hours.

Under the state legislation, users may sue the platforms to get their accounts reinstated, and the Texas attorney general would be able to file suits on behalf of users.
Quote:

The new law would affect companies including Facebook, Twitter and YouTube.

It's the latest Republican effort to take on the social media giants; Florida recently passed a law that would have prohibited social media platforms from banning political candidates, but a federal judge blocked the law before it was supposed to take effect.
The last part is what I'm concerned about. Any lawyers know if this law is just going to get immediately struck down, or if it's got an actual chance?
rgag12
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
If it's seen as partisan there's a good chance some dem group is gonna take it to court because they have nothing better to do and they need something for the next fundraiser
texagbeliever
How long do you want to ignore this user?
rgag12 said:

If it's seen as partisan there's a good chance some dem group is gonna take it to court because they have nothing better to do and they need something for the next fundraiser


If big tech doesn't like it, there is a good chance they fund some dem group to challenge it. Fify
Martin Q. Blank
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Quote:

The new law requires social media companies with more than 50 million monthly users to disclose their content moderation policies and institute an appeals process.
How many monthly users to Texags currently have?
techno-ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Don't like it, get your own state law.
Buy a man eat fish, he day, teach fish man, to a lifetime.

- Joe Biden

I think that, to be very honest with you, I do believe that we should have rightly believed, but we certainly believe that certain issues are just settled.

- Kamala Harris
Martin Q. Blank
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Martin Q. Blank said:


Quote:

The new law requires social media companies with more than 50 million monthly users to disclose their content moderation policies and institute an appeals process.
How many monthly users to Texags currently have?
The Dirty Sock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Fun fact and not really anything to do with the original subject but on our neighborhood HOA page a poster put a picture of a large spider on their wall. I responded they should "burn the house down". Facebook banned my account for 24 hours. Just an idea of what we're dealing with here.
Kenneth_2003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
They sure as hell don't get satire
azul_rain
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Does this mean staff can't ban me anymore
you may all go to hell and i will go to Texas
HTownAg98
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The law has no chance at success of surviving a legal challenge. The First Amendment and Section 230 will protect them.
HTownAg98
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Preliminary injunction granted, because it's a stupid ****ing law that facially violates the First Amendment.

https://netchoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/51.-ORDER.pdf
Rapier108
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Good to know you support censorship because that is what the law was designed to prevent.
"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." - Sir Winston Churchill
HTownAg98
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Incorrect. If this law were allowed to stand, there would be even more censorship, not less.
Marcus Brutus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HTownAg98 said:

Incorrect. If this law were allowed to stand, there would be even more censorship, not less.


Not at all.

The portion that requires removal of illegal content doesn't seem like it violates the constitution, and nothing else certainly does.

This doesn't allow sueing for damages, it allows sueing in the context of the TOS to get your account reinstated.

You are way off the mark here.
agz win
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It's just political pandering by Abbott. No chance it survives.
Marcus Brutus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
agz win said:

It's just political pandering by Abbott. No chance it survives.


Its a law, not an order. How can it be pandering by Abbott?
agz win
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
His name is on it.
Marcus Brutus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
agz win said:

His name is on it.


Duh. Because he's the governor and the governor signs bills into law.
Get Off My Lawn
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I like the wild west concept overlaid with personal filter choice. If you enjoy 230 status, anything (legal) must be permitted within standard space/accomodations practices. Then, you can allow access by separate companies who aren't 230 protected and do publish / promote / curate content via algorithms. The end user gets to pick which type of feed they subscribe to.

Effectively bookface and twit would be data silos which the "Trump Feed" or the "Lincoln Project Perspective" or the "DU Bubble" would be able to tap into in order to show their subscribers the fibers of that conglomerate which interest them. Those publishers would then hold legal responsibly for the content which they promote, and the source programs would have no play other than purging legitimately illegal content (or content that malicious such as bots uploading huge files in order to expend server space).
sleepybeagle
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The only answer to any censorship is "more free speech". I used to argue for limits, but I don't anymore.
No matter how dangerous any speech may be - the counter to this is far more dangerous.

Of course I'd love to live in a world where we could all be guided by a somewhat common moral compass - but those days are long in the rearview mirror.
blacksox
How long do you want to ignore this user?
That Order was an absolute beatdown of Abbott's silly "law."
chjoak
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Martin Q. Blank said:


Quote:

The new law requires social media companies with more than 50 million monthly users to disclose their content moderation policies and institute an appeals process.
How many monthly users to Texags currently have?
Texags moderation policies are posted in a thread pinned at the top of this board.
Ag with kids
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
blacksox said:

That Order was an absolute beatdown of Abbott's silly "law."
What order?
RGLAG85
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
blacksox said:

That Order was an absolute beatdown of Abbott's silly "law."
You Marxist are, if nothing else, consistent.
blacksox
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It was posted above but here it is again. Legally speaking, the judge took a baseball bat and beat the law about the head and body until it was unrecognizable pulp.


https://netchoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/51.-ORDER.pdf
Marcus Brutus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
blacksox said:

It was posted above but here it is again. Legally speaking, the judge took a baseball bat and beat the law about the head and body until it was unrecognizable pulp.


https://netchoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/51.-ORDER.pdf



The judge is an Obama appointee, of course he ruled against it.

This ain't over.
HTownAg98
How long do you want to ignore this user?
CCP Joe Veggie said:

blacksox said:

It was posted above but here it is again. Legally speaking, the judge took a baseball bat and beat the law about the head and body until it was unrecognizable pulp.


https://netchoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/51.-ORDER.pdf



The judge is an Obama appointee, of course he ruled against it.

This ain't over.
There's a non-zero chance it's not over. The Fifth Circuit and SCOTUS are generally not fond of laws that restrict the free speech rights of companies or individuals (see FFRF v. Abbott and Manhattan Cmty. Access Corp. v. Halleck for reasons why).
richardag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Might be worth the effort to assign Texas law enforcement to monitor social media. As soon as a threat of violence is made against any Texas citizen take the social media and the person/people/organization making the threats of violence to court. Any threats of violence against the state of Texas would also result in lawsuits.
-We understand why children are afraid of darkness ... but why are men afraid of light?
Plato
TAMUallen
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Drop the number to 7.5 million users
BigRobSA
How long do you want to ignore this user?
chjoak said:

Martin Q. Blank said:


Quote:

The new law requires social media companies with more than 50 million monthly users to disclose their content moderation policies and institute an appeals process.
How many monthly users to Texags currently have?
Texags moderation policies are posted in a thread pinned at the top of this board.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!


****GASP****

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!
"The Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution was never designed to restrain the people. It was designed to restrain the government."
TheEternalPessimist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sleepybeagle said:

The only answer to any censorship is "more free speech". I used to argue for limits, but I don't anymore.
No matter how dangerous any speech may be - the counter to this is far more dangerous.

Of course I'd love to live in a world where we could all be guided by a somewhat common moral compass - but those days are long in the rearview mirror.

I agree.

If it's racist, anti-semitic, sexist, transphobic, islamophobic, christophobic, or Q anon conspiracies...... IT SHOULD ALL BE ALLOWED! And then people can decide for their own individual accounts what they block and/or subscribe too. In the open marketplace, the best ideas will win out.

The only thing that should be banned is threats or libel. Period.
LOYAL AG
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
richardag said:

Might be worth the effort to assign Texas law enforcement to monitor social media. As soon as a threat of violence is made against any Texas citizen take the social media and the person/people/organization making the threats of violence to court. Any threats of violence against the state of Texas would also result in lawsuits.
LOL. Ummm...no it most definitely would not be worth the effort. Do you have any idea how many vacancies there are in Texas police departments? Last thing I heard there were 20 just in College Station. Extrapolate that to the rest of the state and it's an incredible number. We aren't going to assign them to monitor social media. This is what you form non-profits for and let them turn over real threats to law enforcement with the added benefit of monitoring FB/Twitter/YouTube so that when they ban content against their own Terms of Service you assist the injured party in getting their content restored.

The much, much bigger threat from social media is their willingness to ban content that doesn't violate their terms of service but does hurt their feelings. In the wake of the Rittenhouse verdict Colion Noir reminded us that Instagram banned a video he released in the wake of the shooting. Why? Because he offered up a legal analysis of the shooting and where he expected the case to end up. He is a lawyer, after all. And guess what? He was right but Instagram banned that video and told him they viewed the event as a mass shooting and they were actively suppressing any content friendly to Rittenhouse. IMO Rittenhouse should be suing all social media companies that took a similar approach and we should see people like Noir suing for suppressing content that was well within the TOS but hurt their feelz. This is the real threat posed by social media and this is what really has to be addressed.
C@LAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
blacksox said:

It was posted above but here it is again. Legally speaking, the judge took a baseball bat and beat the law about the head and body until it was unrecognizable pulp.


https://netchoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/51.-ORDER.pdf


At least it wasn't beaten as bad as Biden's policy the judge overturned to force illegals back South of the Border. Not enough aloe vera in all of Mexico for the mark that left on president ****shispants.
Marcus Brutus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HTownAg98 said:

CCP Joe Veggie said:

blacksox said:

It was posted above but here it is again. Legally speaking, the judge took a baseball bat and beat the law about the head and body until it was unrecognizable pulp.


https://netchoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/51.-ORDER.pdf



The judge is an Obama appointee, of course he ruled against it.

This ain't over.
There's a non-zero chance it's not over. The Fifth Circuit and SCOTUS are generally not fond of laws that restrict the free speech rights of companies or individuals (see FFRF v. Abbott and Manhattan Cmty. Access Corp. v. Halleck for reasons why).


The dumbass Marxist appointed by Obama struck this down. He's wrong. You're wrong. Fifth will confirm you are wrong.

I could have predicted this ruling the moment it was kicked to that court.
Marcus Brutus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
C@LAg said:

blacksox said:

It was posted above but here it is again. Legally speaking, the judge took a baseball bat and beat the law about the head and body until it was unrecognizable pulp.


https://netchoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/51.-ORDER.pdf


At least it wasn't beaten as bad as Biden's policy the judge overturned to force illegals back South of the Border. Not enough aloe vera in all of Mexico for the mark that left on president ****shispants.


This ain't over.
Page 1 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.