HTownAg98 said:

---

I'm not a lawyer and never have claimed to be.
I'm not a concerned moderate, no matter how hard you try to stick that label on me.
You're not very good at this.

---

Great, good to get that out in the open, makes it easier for the rest of us to disregard your legal takes even more than is already done.

You could have looked at my profile and found this out for yourself instead of making a bad take. And a couple of minutes of Google research by you would have shown that the attorneys that filed this with SCOTUS are a who's who of conservative attorneys and former clerks of conservative justices on SCOTUS.

HTownAg98 said:

---

Artorias said:

---

While I like the idea, don't see this holding up.

---

The Fifth Circuit just said they have a likelihood of success on the merits. That's scary as ****. They literally said that Twitter doesn't have a first amendment right to moderate their own site as they see fit. One of the judges in oral arguments even said that Twitter is an ISP and not a website. They've lost their damn minds.

---

I disagree. Twitter may be a "Company Town" where the company owns the buildings, streets, abd sidewalks but they canot limit free speech in the public space where citizens/residents/workers/netizens express themselves. This was affirmed in the SCOTUS decision in Marsh v. Alabama in 1946. If te Constitution protected the rights of a Jehovah's Witness to proselytize on the streets of a company town then it protects political speech on Twitter and other platforms.

The owners hide behind the Section 230 like it's a Shroedinger's Cat conceptual exercise and switch back and forth between platform and publisher at their whim. I am glad 5th Ciruit is providing the means to nail their feet to the floor. I would love to see a Thomas, Alito, or Gorsuch opinion citing Marsh v. Alabama.

but twitter does not own the roads, etc. there are other platforms for people to express their view. I don't get the argument twitter is a company town.

Sotomayor loves the Marsh v. Alabama case. should tell you a lot.

Ulysses90 said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Artorias said:

---

While I like the idea, don't see this holding up.

---

The Fifth Circuit just said they have a likelihood of success on the merits. That's scary as ****. They literally said that Twitter doesn't have a first amendment right to moderate their own site as they see fit. One of the judges in oral arguments even said that Twitter is an ISP and not a website. They've lost their damn minds.

---

I disagree. Twitter may be a "Company Town" where the company owns the buildings, streets, abd sidewalks but they canot limit free speech in the public space where citizens/residents/workers/netizens express themselves. This was affirmed in the SCOTUS decision in Marsh v. Alabama in 1946. If te Constitution protected the rights of a Jehovah's Witness to proselytize on the streets of a company town then it protects political speech on Twitter and other platforms.

The owners hide behind the Section 230 like it's a Shroedinger's Cat conceptual exercise and switch back and forth between platform and publisher at their whim. I am glad 5th Ciruit is providing the means to nail their feet to the floor. I would love to see a Thomas, Alito, or Gorsuch opinion citing Marsh v. Alabama.

---

They're not hiding behind Section 230. They're using the First Amendment when it comes to their own speech (which they are still responsible for), and using Section 230 to moderate their platform as they see fit.

ETA: Alito has ordered Texas to respond by 5:00 pm Wednesday.

BMX Bandit said:

---

but twitter does not own the roads, etc. there are other platforms for people to express their view. I don't get the argument twitter is a company town.

Sotomayor loves the Marsh v. Alabama case. should tell you a lot.

---

In 1946 if you tried to describe cyberspace as a concept that was outside three dimensional space no one would be able to understand it except as an abstract concept apart from reality. I believe that SCOTUS would rule that the first amendment applies in cyberspace to both the government and industry o e "information superhighways" of cyberspace just as it did to the streets of the company town in Alabama.

That is what Sotomayor said in Halleck. Thankfully the conservatives on the court found this to be foolish.

The Sotomayor wing might do that.

But based on past rulings, such as Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, don't see any way in hell the conservatives would rule that.

That doesn't mean these companies can't be regulated. They can. I don't know what will happen with this Texas case as there's no opinion from 5th circuit I've seen. SCOTUS may ignore for now. They may find it reasonable restriction later. That's a different issue.

Just that finding twitter to be restricted from censoring based on finding it's the government would be radically liberal.

The five justices who blocked the law: Roberts, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Sotomayor, Breyer.

— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) May 31, 2022

As everyone predicted.

You all realize this means either that social media sites will be required to allow port or they will turn off the state of Texas. In other words you will need tor networks to see Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram.

Once again Texas government steps on their citizen's private parts in an attempt to please the minority

Given that Texas lost, no such thing will be necessary.

Alito is a big government conservative, so no surprise there. I am a tad surprised Gorsuch signed on to the Alito opinion rather than just the same thing like Kagan.