On December 27, 2012, the Supreme Court of California reaffirmed Pruneyard but narrowed its applicability to the facts of the original case. The entire court concurred in Associate Justice Joyce Kennard's holding that Pruneyard applies only to "common areas" of shopping centers that are designed and furnished to encourage shoppers to linger, congregate, relax, or converse at leisure, but does not apply to any other open portions of shopping centers merely intended to facilitate the efficient movement of shoppers in and out of tenants, including concrete aprons and sidewalks which shoppers simply walk across as they move between parking lots and big-box stores. In other words, the court effectively immunized most (but not all) strip malls and shopping centers from Pruneyard, except for those with areas analogous to public gathering areas such as plazas, atriums, or food courts. Miriam Vogel, a former Court of Appeal justice who argued for the shopping center tenant (Kroger subsidiary Ralphs), characterized the decision "a great victory for retailers as far as putting another nail in the Pruneyard coffin." However, the decision was not a complete loss for free speech advocates, as the court separately upheld the right of a union to protest on the employer's premises under the state Moscone Act by a 6–1 majority (the majority, though, was badly split as to why).
Pruneyard has been identified as possible case law by conservative politicians in challenging the protections from liability of Internet service providers, like Facebook and Twitter, under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Section 230 immunizes such providers from liability for content generated by their users, as well as for decisions to remove or moderate content they deem objectionable, language which has enabled the Internet to flourish since its passage in 1996. In the years leading up to and after Donald Trump was elected president in 2016, conservatives claimed that Internet sites were unfairly moderating against their viewpoints and have sought ways to try to weaken Section 230 as applied to sites allegedly engaged in nonneutral practices. Pruneyard has been cited in litigation by conservatives seeking to coerce Internet sites to cease moderation or restrictions on their content, such as in a 2019 case of PragerU seeking to stop YouTube from demonetizing its videos, by equating such sites as the equivalent of shopping malls, but these attempts have been so far rejected by courts. Nevertheless, Trump himself cited Pruneyard in Executive Order 13925, "Preventing Online Censorship", signed in May 2020, which seeks to modify the application of Section 230.
Pruneyard is not the magic bullet you thought it was; invoking its name doesn’t scare me. Try another argument or get lost.
No, you’ve actually got it inverted. 230 protects “Big Tech” from liability for third-party speech—i.e., speech that doesn’t come from “Big Tech”. Any speech that comes from “Big Tech” isn’t protected by 230 in any way, shape, or form; it’s the big reason why Backpage got in so much trouble.
Granted, speech from “Big Tech” itself is still protected by the First Amendment (until it’s been ruled unlawful). Anyone filing a lawsuit against “Big Tech” over its own speech would still need to climb that steep 1A cliff for even the chance of seeing the summit that is a favorable judgment. But 230 wouldn’t be an obstacle before that climb because 230 doesn’t grant immunity to first-party speech.
Yes, there is. Or do you want to argue that local coffeehouses aren’t competition to Starbucks because Starbucks gets far more “users” per day than a local coffeehouse?
If you’re implying that Twitter has no competition and should thus be subjected to government seizure…holy shit, dude, you are so fucking wrong that it wraps around from being hilarious to being sad and back to being hilarious.
More speech is clearly not an abridgment of speech.
Yes or no, Koby: Do you believe the government should have the legal right to compel any privately owned interactive web service into hosting legally protected speech that the owners/operators of said service don’t want to host?
Primarily it's Section 230, with judges dismissing prior to establishing whether the corporations have made bad faith moderation choices based upon politics and not their own rules.
Even if those corporations made their moderation decisions based on politics, that would still be a legal moderation decision and thus protected under 230. The law doesn’t protect people from discrimination based on political affiliation or ideology.
If they allow all political speech, platforms ought not be able to go back and begin banning those with whom they disagree.
Conservative: I have been censored for my conservative views Me: Holy shit! You were censored for wanting lower taxes? Con: LOL no…no not those views Me: So…deregulation? Con: Haha no not those views either Me: Which views, exactly? Con: Oh, you know the ones
I view the selective enforcement, demonetization, and shadow banning practices of social media to be demonstrative of their unwritten bias.
The bias is against bigoted speech. If people are being banned for being bigots and you’re associating that with people being banned for being conservatives, what does that say about conservatives—and conservative speech?
On the post: Tesla Urged Chinese Government To Censor Critics In China
Awww, someone’s upset at another person spitting in the direction of the ruling class! Who’s a good little bootlicker? You are! Yes, you!
(fuck Elon Musk, the jackass deserves mockery and scorn)
On the post: Tesla Urged Chinese Government To Censor Critics In China
understandable, have a nice day
On the post: Florida
ManGovernor Wastes More Florida Taxpayer Money Appealing Ruling About His Unconstitutional Social Media LawI’ll believe that when it refuses to take the case. Until then: There’s always a chance, no matter how small.
On the post: Florida
ManGovernor Wastes More Florida Taxpayer Money Appealing Ruling About His Unconstitutional Social Media LawAlternate headline:
DeSantis Tries to Route Around the First Amendment in Preparation for 2024 Campaign
On the post: Trump Notifies Attorney General He's Challenging The Constitutionality Of Section 230 On The Dumbest Grounds Possible
One, two percent at most have ’em. The rest run on hubris and greed.
On the post: Tesla Urged Chinese Government To Censor Critics In China
Sounds like they didn’t have the energy for a fight.
On the post: Trump Notifies Attorney General He's Challenging The Constitutionality Of Section 230 On The Dumbest Grounds Possible
For someone who claims to only hire “the best people”, Old 45 sure does employ a lot of ignorant assholes.
On the post: Texas Legislature Sees Florida's Social Media Bill Go Down In Unconstitutional Flames; Decides 'We Can Do That Too!'
In re: Pruneyard (emphasis mine):
Pruneyard is not the magic bullet you thought it was; invoking its name doesn’t scare me. Try another argument or get lost.
On the post: Section 230 Continues To Not Mean Whatever You Want It To
No, you’ve actually got it inverted. 230 protects “Big Tech” from liability for third-party speech—i.e., speech that doesn’t come from “Big Tech”. Any speech that comes from “Big Tech” isn’t protected by 230 in any way, shape, or form; it’s the big reason why Backpage got in so much trouble.
Granted, speech from “Big Tech” itself is still protected by the First Amendment (until it’s been ruled unlawful). Anyone filing a lawsuit against “Big Tech” over its own speech would still need to climb that steep 1A cliff for even the chance of seeing the summit that is a favorable judgment. But 230 wouldn’t be an obstacle before that climb because 230 doesn’t grant immunity to first-party speech.
On the post: House Republican's Entire 'Big Tech' Platform Is 'We Must Force Big Tech To Display Our Conspiracy Theories And Lies'
Wow, an actual goddamn Nazi.
Hitler killed himself like a cowardly bitch, you know.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
[citation needed]
On the post: It Appears That Jason Miller's GETTR Is Speed Running The Content Moderation Learning Curve Faster Than Parler
“Congratulations, you played yourself.”
🤡: “Patreon is censoring people!”
🤔: “Who’s being censored?”
🤡: “I’unno.”
🤔: “Why are they being censored?”
🤡: “I’unno.”
🤔: “Why should we care about your claim, then?”
🤡: “Because I said so.”
On the post: House Republican's Entire 'Big Tech' Platform Is 'We Must Force Big Tech To Display Our Conspiracy Theories And Lies'
One of them is the First Amendment.
On the post: Utah Deputy Arrests Person For Destroying 'Back The Blue' Sign, Adds Hate Crime Enhancement For 'Smirking'
Slight correction: This is a hefty cash settlement in the making.
On the post: House Republican's Entire 'Big Tech' Platform Is 'We Must Force Big Tech To Display Our Conspiracy Theories And Lies'
Yes, there is. Or do you want to argue that local coffeehouses aren’t competition to Starbucks because Starbucks gets far more “users” per day than a local coffeehouse?
On the post: Remembering Sherwin Siy
You have my condolences for your loss, Cathy.
On the post: It Appears That Jason Miller's GETTR Is Speed Running The Content Moderation Learning Curve Faster Than Parler
“No, it’s the spamfilter that’s wrong.”
On the post: It Appears That Jason Miller's GETTR Is Speed Running The Content Moderation Learning Curve Faster Than Parler
Don’t get mad because you got what you needed instead of what you wanted.
On the post: House Republican's Entire 'Big Tech' Platform Is 'We Must Force Big Tech To Display Our Conspiracy Theories And Lies'
If you’re implying that Twitter has no competition and should thus be subjected to government seizure…holy shit, dude, you are so fucking wrong that it wraps around from being hilarious to being sad and back to being hilarious.
Yes or no, Koby: Do you believe the government should have the legal right to compel any privately owned interactive web service into hosting legally protected speech that the owners/operators of said service don’t want to host?
On the post: House Republican's Entire 'Big Tech' Platform Is 'We Must Force Big Tech To Display Our Conspiracy Theories And Lies'
Even if those corporations made their moderation decisions based on politics, that would still be a legal moderation decision and thus protected under 230. The law doesn’t protect people from discrimination based on political affiliation or ideology.
Conservative: I have been censored for my conservative views
Me: Holy shit! You were censored for wanting lower taxes?
Con: LOL no…no not those views
Me: So…deregulation?
Con: Haha no not those views either
Me: Which views, exactly?
Con: Oh, you know the ones
(All credit to Twitter user @ndrew_lawrence.)
The bias is against bigoted speech. If people are being banned for being bigots and you’re associating that with people being banned for being conservatives, what does that say about conservatives—and conservative speech?
Next >>