Even if the ruling doesn’t directly apply to social media, the reasoning could easily be applied that way. The law doesn’t generally give the government a right to make content-based regulations; trying to force a certain kind of speech onto a privately owned platform that doesn’t want to host that speech is a content-based regulation, regardless of whether the regulation is written with overtures to “the public good” and “neutrality”.
I’ll make my own decisions, with help from members of the medical community far more versed than I, and far smarter.
Seems like the only members you’ll listen to are the ones who placate your biases. 🤔
No, it was a potential tool that wasn’t properly investigated by the FDA.
How many lives should the FDA have put at risk for a “proper investigation” into whether hydroxychloroquine was going to help people survive COVID-19, and which lives deserved to be put at risk for that study? I don’t think you have the answers to that—or, at least, answers that won’t make you sound any more heartless than you’ve already made yourself sound by prioritizing property rights over public health.
No. No, it isn’t. Far more evidence shows hydroxychloroquine is an ineffective treatment for COVID-19 than shows it is an effective treatment. Even the FDA yanked its EUA for the drug after studying it long enough to make a determination on the matter. Do you not trust the FDA, or do you not trust people who don’t comfort your biases?
it no longer matters
Except to you, who keeps trying to push the idea that the drug is some sort of fucking miracle worker in stopping the spread of COVID (despite all evidence to the contrary) and hoping we’ll get so sick of debunking your bullshit that we’ll finally agree with you.
The question is, should it have been given a far more extensive look in way, last Feb? Or March?
See my point above.
The drug was given as extensive a look as possible without unnecessarily risking lives to test whether it was an effective COVID-19 treatment. It was generally found to be ineffective, edge cases notwithstanding. You’re the one so obsessed with the idea that it could’ve stopped COVID that you’re still trying to find ways to make us agree with you on that point.
Give up, man. Nobody here with any credibility is buying your bullshit. Go sell it on Facebook or Parler or fucking 8kun; at least there, you might find a few assholes willing to say “you’re 100% right”, which is probably all you really want anyway.
Aren’t you fond of ‘if you don’t like it go somewhere else’?
I’m also fond of the idea of public health—which means that any public-facing business willing to make itself a disease vector shouldn’t have the right to do so. But you care more about property than people, so of course you don’t think that’s a good idea.
One person is all it takes to spread COVID-19 to countless others. If a business isn’t willing to take any preventative measures against that possibility for the sake of protecting every single person who comes into the store—regardless of whether they agree with mask mandates and other such measures, regardless of whether they prioritize their personal liberty to make other people sick over the health and well-being of themselves and others—that business can and should go out of business.
I’m pretty sure Chozen is referencing the idea of literally kicking someone out of a business—i.e., using physical force to remove someone from the premises.
They’re still probably full of shit in that regard. But, y’know, may as well be accurate about what they’re bullshitting about.
I guess you don’t believe in the process of law creation here?
We believe in the process. We believe in it more when it isn’t used to pass blatantly unconstitutional laws that a state government will spend taxpayer monies to defend even when they’re all but told such laws are bound to be overturned in the courts.
Quick question for you: For what reason should any and all interactive web services be forced by law to host all legally protected speech, regardless of whether the people who own and operate the service want to host that speech? Please note that I said “interactive web service”, not “cable TV provider”, and that “legally protected speech” includes racial slurs, anti-queer propaganda, and any speech you might find offensive (e.g., “Black Lives Matter”).
The Supreme Court has already ruled on the constitutionality of forcing cable provides to host channels they don't agree with.
FYI: The must-carry rules apply to broadcast networks and their local affiliates. A cable company has to carry a local CBS affiliate; it doesn’t have to carry Cartoon Network.
Since Twitter, Facebook, and other interactive web services aren’t broadcast networks or cable/satellite TV providers and don’t operate under the auspices of the FCC—as well they shouldn’t—those must-carry rules don’t apply to them. They’re free to moderate speech however they wish, and you can’t do shit about that but complain. Or, y’know, start your own service with blackjack and hookers and all the 4chan-esque content your heart desires to host.
I haven’t see[n ]a Supreme Court case that covers this specifically.
The ruling gave you an example:
The First Amendment does not restrict the rights of private entities not performing traditional, exclusive public functions. See, e.g., Manhattan Cmty. Access Corp. v. Halleck, 139 S. Ct. 1921, 1930 (2019). So whatever else may be said of the providers’ actions, they do not violate the First Amendment.
Under the Court’s cases, a private entity may qualify as a state actor when it exercises “powers traditionally exclusively reserved to the State.” … It is not enough that the federal, state, or local government exercised the function in the past, or still does. And it is not enough that the function serves the public good or the public interest in some way. Rather, to qualify as a traditional, exclusive public function within the meaning of our state-action precedents, the government must have traditionally and exclusively performed the function.
The Court has stressed that “very few” functions fall into that category. … Under the Court’s cases, those functions include, for example, running elections and operating a company town. … The Court has ruled that a variety of functions do not fall into that category, including, for example: running sports associations and leagues, administering insurance payments, operating nursing homes, providing special education, representing indigent criminal defendants, resolving private disputes, and supplying electricity. …
When the government provides a forum for speech (known as a public forum), the government may be constrained by the First Amendment, meaning that the government ordinarily may not exclude speech or speakers from the forum on the basis of viewpoint, or sometimes even on the basis of content[.]
By contrast, when a private entity provides a forum for speech, the private entity is not ordinarily constrained by the First Amendment because the private entity is not a state actor. The private entity may thus exercise editorial discretion over the speech and speakers in the forum. This Court so ruled in its 1976 decision in Hudgens v. NLRB. There, the Court held that a shopping center owner is not a state actor subject to First Amendment requirements such as the public forum doctrine[.]
The Hudgens decision reflects a commonsense principle: Providing some kind of forum for speech is not an activity that only governmental entities have traditionally performed. Therefore, a private entity who provides a forum for speech is not transformed by that fact alone into a state actor. After all, private property owners and private lessees often open their property for speech. Grocery stores put up community bulletin boards. Comedy clubs host open mic nights. As Judge Jacobs persuasively explained, it “is not at all a near-exclusive function of the state to provide the forums for public expression, politics, information, or entertainment[”.]
In short, merely hosting speech by others is not a traditional, exclusive public function and does not alone transform private entities into state actors subject to First Amendment constraints.
If the rule were otherwise, all private property owners and private lessees who open their property for speech would be subject to First Amendment constraints and would lose the ability to exercise what they deem to be appropriate editorial discretion within that open forum. Private property owners and private lessees would face the unappetizing choice of allowing all comers or closing the platform altogether. “The Constitution by no means requires such an attenuated doctrine of dedication of private property to public use.” … Benjamin Franklin did not have to operate his newspaper as “a stagecoach, with seats for everyone.” … That principle still holds true. As the Court said in Hudgens, to hold that private property owners providing a forum for speech are constrained by the First Amendment would be “to create a court-made law wholly disregarding the constitutional basis on which private ownership of property rests in this country.” … The Constitution does not disable private property owners and private lessees from exercising editorial discretion over speech and speakers on their property. …
A private entity … who opens its property for speech by others is not transformed by that fact alone into a state actor.
Gee, I can’t imagine why a law intended to protect the civil rights of marginalized peoples was written in a way that would show bias towards the idea of protecting the civil rights of marginalized peoples~.
I'm amazed that you think a restaurant can just 'kick out a disruptive customer.' Have you ever owned such a business or worked such a job?
I’ve seen disruptive customers led out of businesses before. Nobody has ever had to wait five weeks and fill out a hundred forms in triplicate before they could tell someone to leave a convenience store.
In the real world if I'm a restaurant owner and I ever want to be able to 'kick out a disruptive customers' I can't do that myself.
You can’t physically pick someone up by the neck and drag them out of the store, sure. But you can still ask them to leave and usher them towards the door.
The authority to 'kick out a disruptive customers' does not come from private property rights.
No, it does. Nobody is owed a spot on private property they don’t own, and they can be asked to leave by the owner of that property (or a legally recognized representative thereof).
Why is Big Tech exempt from such common place regulation?
Because the government shouldn’t have the right to force any interactive web service of any size into hosting racial slurs and anti-queer speech despite your best efforts to defend the idea without saying you’re defending the idea.
Its met that way because its is a response intended to shutdown debate and not worthy of a response.
No, insults like “go back to your mother’s basement” are intended to shut down debate. A plea for a citation of fact is an invitation to continue a discussion so long as you can provide actual facts instead of defaulting ot what your feelings say is true.
That ruling has no bearing on the moderation of social media services because the FCC doesn’t (and shouldn’t) govern the speech hosted on websites, first- or third-party. That you view Facebook as being equivalent to an NBC affiliate—and that you believe the government should be able to compel the hosting of speech from any website, service, or social interaction network—is a “you” problem.
It’s still a choice. Would you choose to keep your integrity and die or sacrifice it for the sake of committing violence? Then again, I don’t know why I’m asking you—you’d probably kill other people without so much as a second thought, since they’re not property.
Because of course you believe that the deaths of millions of people who don’t share your political views is “salvation”. I don’t like Republican/conservative voters (or libertarians, for that matter…), but you don’t see me seriously wishing for all of them to suffer whatever would be the real-life equivalent of getting dusted by Thanos.
Zuckerberg and "Tony" have gotten so buddy buddy that big tech is going to ban any discussion of off-label use even though off-label use is perfectly legal and safe.
Even if this were true, so what? Facebook is 100% legally allowed to decide what speech it will and won’t host on its servers, even if that speech is protected by the First Amendment.
Racial slurs are legally protected. Anti-queer slurs are legally protected. So is porn, spam, and all other kinds of reprehensible speech. Make the argument that Facebook must host one type of legally protected speech that you want forced upon Facebook, and you’ll have to stand on the side of the people who are arguing for all those other types of speech to be forced upon Facebook and all its social media brethren. Yes or no: 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: As Expected: Judge Grants Injunction Blocking Florida's Unconstitutional Social Media Law
Even if the ruling doesn’t directly apply to social media, the reasoning could easily be applied that way. The law doesn’t generally give the government a right to make content-based regulations; trying to force a certain kind of speech onto a privately owned platform that doesn’t want to host that speech is a content-based regulation, regardless of whether the regulation is written with overtures to “the public good” and “neutrality”.
On the post: Marco Rubio Jumps To The Head Of The Line Of Ignorant Fools Pushing Dumb Social Media Regulation Bills
The phrase “every accusation, a confession” comes to mind.
On the post: Florida Steps Up To Defend Its Unconstitutional Social Media Law And It's Every Bit As Terrible As You'd Imagine
Seems like the only members you’ll listen to are the ones who placate your biases. 🤔
How many lives should the FDA have put at risk for a “proper investigation” into whether hydroxychloroquine was going to help people survive COVID-19, and which lives deserved to be put at risk for that study? I don’t think you have the answers to that—or, at least, answers that won’t make you sound any more heartless than you’ve already made yourself sound by prioritizing property rights over public health.
On the post: Sony Hates You: EarthBound Let's Plays Flagged For Copyright Infringement Due To Soundtrack
Maybe the Sony lawyers should listen to “Pollyanna” and take a few lessons from the lyrics.
On the post: Florida Steps Up To Defend Its Unconstitutional Social Media Law And It's Every Bit As Terrible As You'd Imagine
No. No, it isn’t. Far more evidence shows hydroxychloroquine is an ineffective treatment for COVID-19 than shows it is an effective treatment. Even the FDA yanked its EUA for the drug after studying it long enough to make a determination on the matter. Do you not trust the FDA, or do you not trust people who don’t comfort your biases?
Except to you, who keeps trying to push the idea that the drug is some sort of fucking miracle worker in stopping the spread of COVID (despite all evidence to the contrary) and hoping we’ll get so sick of debunking your bullshit that we’ll finally agree with you.
See my point above.
The drug was given as extensive a look as possible without unnecessarily risking lives to test whether it was an effective COVID-19 treatment. It was generally found to be ineffective, edge cases notwithstanding. You’re the one so obsessed with the idea that it could’ve stopped COVID that you’re still trying to find ways to make us agree with you on that point.
Give up, man. Nobody here with any credibility is buying your bullshit. Go sell it on Facebook or Parler or fucking 8kun; at least there, you might find a few assholes willing to say “you’re 100% right”, which is probably all you really want anyway.
On the post: Florida Steps Up To Defend Its Unconstitutional Social Media Law And It's Every Bit As Terrible As You'd Imagine
I’m also fond of the idea of public health—which means that any public-facing business willing to make itself a disease vector shouldn’t have the right to do so. But you care more about property than people, so of course you don’t think that’s a good idea.
One person is all it takes to spread COVID-19 to countless others. If a business isn’t willing to take any preventative measures against that possibility for the sake of protecting every single person who comes into the store—regardless of whether they agree with mask mandates and other such measures, regardless of whether they prioritize their personal liberty to make other people sick over the health and well-being of themselves and others—that business can and should go out of business.
On the post: Florida Steps Up To Defend Its Unconstitutional Social Media Law And It's Every Bit As Terrible As You'd Imagine
I did. But unlike you, I’m not wishing for the deaths of millions to create an imagined paradise, you bloodthirsty sociopathic libertarian asshole.
On the post: Marco Rubio Jumps To The Head Of The Line Of Ignorant Fools Pushing Dumb Social Media Regulation Bills
I’m pretty sure Chozen is referencing the idea of literally kicking someone out of a business—i.e., using physical force to remove someone from the premises.
They’re still probably full of shit in that regard. But, y’know, may as well be accurate about what they’re bullshitting about.
On the post: As Expected: Judge Grants Injunction Blocking Florida's Unconstitutional Social Media Law
We believe in the process. We believe in it more when it isn’t used to pass blatantly unconstitutional laws that a state government will spend taxpayer monies to defend even when they’re all but told such laws are bound to be overturned in the courts.
On the post: As Expected: Judge Grants Injunction Blocking Florida's Unconstitutional Social Media Law
Quick question for you: For what reason should any and all interactive web services be forced by law to host all legally protected speech, regardless of whether the people who own and operate the service want to host that speech? Please note that I said “interactive web service”, not “cable TV provider”, and that “legally protected speech” includes racial slurs, anti-queer propaganda, and any speech you might find offensive (e.g., “Black Lives Matter”).
On the post: Creating State Action Via Antitrust Law And Making The People Who've Been Wrong About The Constitutionality Of Content Moderation Suddenly Right
FYI: The must-carry rules apply to broadcast networks and their local affiliates. A cable company has to carry a local CBS affiliate; it doesn’t have to carry Cartoon Network.
Since Twitter, Facebook, and other interactive web services aren’t broadcast networks or cable/satellite TV providers and don’t operate under the auspices of the FCC—as well they shouldn’t—those must-carry rules don’t apply to them. They’re free to moderate speech however they wish, and you can’t do shit about that but complain. Or, y’know, start your own service with blackjack and hookers and all the 4chan-esque content your heart desires to host.
On the post: As Expected: Judge Grants Injunction Blocking Florida's Unconstitutional Social Media Law
The ruling gave you an example:
And in case you need reminding of what that ruling said, let’s go to the words of Supreme Court Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh:
On the post: As Expected: Judge Grants Injunction Blocking Florida's Unconstitutional Social Media Law
The First Amendment is the law in the United States, you insufferable dick.
On the post: As Expected: Judge Grants Injunction Blocking Florida's Unconstitutional Social Media Law
Gee, I can’t imagine why a law intended to protect the civil rights of marginalized peoples was written in a way that would show bias towards the idea of protecting the civil rights of marginalized peoples~.
On the post: Marco Rubio Jumps To The Head Of The Line Of Ignorant Fools Pushing Dumb Social Media Regulation Bills
I’ve seen disruptive customers led out of businesses before. Nobody has ever had to wait five weeks and fill out a hundred forms in triplicate before they could tell someone to leave a convenience store.
You can’t physically pick someone up by the neck and drag them out of the store, sure. But you can still ask them to leave and usher them towards the door.
No, it does. Nobody is owed a spot on private property they don’t own, and they can be asked to leave by the owner of that property (or a legally recognized representative thereof).
Because the government shouldn’t have the right to force any interactive web service of any size into hosting racial slurs and anti-queer speech despite your best efforts to defend the idea without saying you’re defending the idea.
On the post: Marco Rubio Jumps To The Head Of The Line Of Ignorant Fools Pushing Dumb Social Media Regulation Bills
No, insults like “go back to your mother’s basement” are intended to shut down debate. A plea for a citation of fact is an invitation to continue a discussion so long as you can provide actual facts instead of defaulting ot what your feelings say is true.
On the post: Florida Steps Up To Defend Its Unconstitutional Social Media Law And It's Every Bit As Terrible As You'd Imagine
That ruling has no bearing on the moderation of social media services because the FCC doesn’t (and shouldn’t) govern the speech hosted on websites, first- or third-party. That you view Facebook as being equivalent to an NBC affiliate—and that you believe the government should be able to compel the hosting of speech from any website, service, or social interaction network—is a “you” problem.
On the post: Florida Steps Up To Defend Its Unconstitutional Social Media Law And It's Every Bit As Terrible As You'd Imagine
It’s still a choice. Would you choose to keep your integrity and die or sacrifice it for the sake of committing violence? Then again, I don’t know why I’m asking you—you’d probably kill other people without so much as a second thought, since they’re not property.
On the post: Florida Steps Up To Defend Its Unconstitutional Social Media Law And It's Every Bit As Terrible As You'd Imagine
Because of course you believe that the deaths of millions of people who don’t share your political views is “salvation”. I don’t like Republican/conservative voters (or libertarians, for that matter…), but you don’t see me seriously wishing for all of them to suffer whatever would be the real-life equivalent of getting dusted by Thanos.
On the post: Florida Steps Up To Defend Its Unconstitutional Social Media Law And It's Every Bit As Terrible As You'd Imagine
Even if this were true, so what? Facebook is 100% legally allowed to decide what speech it will and won’t host on its servers, even if that speech is protected by the First Amendment.
Racial slurs are legally protected. Anti-queer slurs are legally protected. So is porn, spam, and all other kinds of reprehensible speech. Make the argument that Facebook must host one type of legally protected speech that you want forced upon Facebook, and you’ll have to stand on the side of the people who are arguing for all those other types of speech to be forced upon Facebook and all its social media brethren. Yes or no: 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?
Next >>