CCP Joe Veggie said:

---

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.

---

So you didn't read FFRF v. Abbott then. That's a fifth circuit first amendment case with a similar fact pattern.

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).

---

Except that the law seems to PROHIBIT the restriction of free speech.

Which is a restriction on the social media platform's freedom of speech by limiting their right to choose what speech is on their platform.
The case is only tangentially about the free speech of the users. The main point in the case is about the free speech rights of the social media platforms.

LOYAL AG said:

---

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.

---

Works for me, let me know when social media stops censoring posts that meet the posting guidelines.

Not a fan of any government telling private business how they must operate. Seems like pandering. If you don't like how Big Tech treats you, don't use Big Tech.

richardag said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

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.

---

Works for me, let me know when social media stops censoring posts that meet the posting guidelines.

---

I doubt it happens but that has nothing to do with the fact that we should not task LE with monitoring social media.

_mpaul said:

---

Not a fan of any government telling private business how they must operate. Seems like pandering. If you don't like how Big Tech treats you, don't use Big Tech.

---

I generally dismiss arguments that the founders couldn't have foreseen XYZ but in this case it's true. It's impossible to think they would have envisioned a world where private entities would own the public square yet that's effectively what has happened. I'm actually ok with that fact until those private orgs become highly partisan to the point of trampling the rights of people they disagree with. No Facebook doesn't have to respect the First Amendment but I do think there's a argument to be made that if you're going to own the public square you have to respect everyone's s right to access that square. Honestly this is a far more complex issue than my typical libertarian response about private companies controlling their products. It's a complicated issue.

You are correct that there is an argument to be made for that. If you read Manhattan Community Access Corp. et al. v. Halleck, It's one that Sotomayor would agree with based on her dissent. Luckily, the conservative majority rejected that argument.

So you are in good company with the wise Latina

Rapier108 said:

---

Good to know you support censorship because that is what the law was designed to prevent.

---

laws that try to combat technology typicality do more harm than good, hth

here is any idea, stop using said social network.

BMX Bandit said:

---

You are correct that there is an argument to be made for that. If you read Manhattan Community Access Corp. et al. v. Halleck, It's one that Sotomayor would agree with based on her dissent. Luckily, the conservative majority rejected that argument.

So you are in good company with the wise Latina

---

Well that's amusing. I think my posting history makes it incredibly obvious that were I king for a day I wouldn't empower the government to change FB's moderation practices. I'm as anti-government as anyone here.

Serious question, is there a solution to the habit of the social media giants of suppressing conservatives and if so what is it? I know we always say "make a new company" and I guess in the strictest sense that's it but obviously that's a lot easier said than done but maybe there's not a better one. The right has lost control of almost everything at this point so if the answer to everything that we've lost is to "blow it up and start over" then we're gonna need a lot of C4. Note to our FBI friends, I don't have any so don't come sniffing around my house looking for some.

LOYAL AG said:

---

_mpaul said:

---

Not a fan of any government telling private business how they must operate. Seems like pandering. If you don't like how Big Tech treats you, don't use Big Tech.

---

I generally dismiss arguments that the founders couldn't have foreseen XYZ but in this case it's true. It's impossible to think they would have envisioned a world where private entities would own the public square yet that's effectively what has happened.

---

Is it? Seems like the public square is still pretty public. It's just that nobody goes there anymore. That doesn't mean the public square and social media are the same thing.

Quote:

---

I'm actually ok with that fact until those private orgs become highly partisan to the point of trampling the rights of people they disagree with. No Facebook doesn't have to respect the First Amendment but I do think there's a argument to be made that if you're going to own the public square you have to respect everyone's s right to access that square. Honestly this is a far more complex issue than my typical libertarian response about private companies controlling their products. It's a complicated issue.

---

I don't think it's complicated at all. First, it's bad policy to have the government messing around with private enterprise. Second, the "couldn't have foreseen it" argument is irrelevant because the founders gave us a system for adjusting to society as it changes.

The Dirty Sock said:

---

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.

---

I mentioned someone "got their teeth kicked in with facts" and got the same.

LOYAL AG said:

---

richardag said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

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.

---

Works for me, let me know when social media stops censoring posts that meet the posting guidelines.

---

I doubt it happens but that has nothing to do with the fact that we should not task LE with monitoring social media.

---

They are already monitoring social media, your argument is moot.