When you just copy and paste a decision that means you dont understand it. Halleck is not the droids you are looking for. Halleck is anything moved that ball closer to regulation of social media. Halleck established that social media is in the public interest. That is the legal term that triggers regulation. What Halleck also said is that just calling social media a state actor would be judge made law. It does not prohibit statute from regulating social media in the public interest. It actually encourages it.
See now you are just being too smart by half. You are playing a linguistic game. platform is a general term used to describe the large collections of bodies that the courts had determined were not publishers and also not distributors.
In the late 90s the term platform started being used to describe these 'not publishers.'
So yes it is not a term created by an act of congress, it began as a commonly used vernacular.
Now here is where you get too smart by half. The courts started using the word which makes it law genius. It was just recently used in Joe Biden Jr. v. Knight First Amendment Institute ~ April 2021
So since the highest court in the land has used and defined the term it is law.
And yes I know leftwing legal blogs have said there is no such thing ... those people are idiots.
"Because the groups/individuals being discriminated against were facing that due to factors outside of their control"
I see you left religion out. Why? Surry it was just an honest error. It couldn't possible be because it didn't fit your narrative? You are such a good honest person you couldn't possibly engage is just deliberate deceit.
P.S. FYI California Civil Rights code also protects political affiliation. Big Tech has really really fought to get his repealed in California because they realize that if they ever get on the wrong side of a State AG they are up @#$% creek without a paddle.
"That seems to be his argument, because he's falsely conflating a tenant with a guest."
Its conflated because its all the same thing. If you try and kick someone out is battery. It doesn't matter if its a guest, a tenant, or a patron. Its battery. Only a cop or permitted security can kick someone out. I don't really care what you have seen in a dive bar. There is a reason dive bars employ bouncers and high class night clubs employ security. Those trust fund brats have an army of lawyers behind them and you don't just "kick them out" or their parents lawyers will legally kick our ass.
Moving the goal posts is all you 4 do. You go from someone being obnoxious to someone committing physical battery of another. The 4 of you move the goal posts anytime you are proven wrong. And even then you are wrong. Anyone in a bar has a legal right, generally, to break up a fight and diffuse the situation. That has nothing to do with property rights. A random patron has just as much right to get involved as the owner. You only have a right to use force when force is used upon you or in defense of another whom force is being used upon.
"Even if he were saying that—and I don’t grant that he is—he’d still be right: The Florida law is motivated by a bias against, and unfairly targets, “Big Tech”. "
That isn't what "content neutral" means in the law we are talking about here. That is a separate issue of equal protection which the courts have held for decade yes regulations are allowed such discrimination. That's why businesses smaller than 50 employees are exempt for the Affordable Care Act.
"The “theme park” carveout and the fact that it doesn’t target smaller companies/services is proof enough of that."
And labor unions are exempt from the affordable care act. I'm not a fan of such regulatory carve outs but they haven't been found to be unconstitutional.
"The Florida law isn’t written to the same standard of fairness, as I’ve pointed out already."
Again you are arguing an equal protection argument not a free speech argument. You keep confusing the two.
"So long as they don’t discriminate in a way that violates the law of the state they operate in (or federal law), they can pick and choose what speech and which persons to host all the live-long day. "
See this is how you pachinko logic is amazing at time. This is the law. This is the law the state passed regulating how social media operates.
"f you’d like to argue otherwise, by all means, tell me why a privately owned open-to-the-public Black Lives Matter–centric forum should be made to host pro-Klan propaganda. I sincerely can’t wait to see you make that argument."
Why should they? They shouldn't. This law didn't. That doesn't mean that state couldn't. People forget that in the Colorado baker case the courts ruled that the baker did have to sell the gay couple a cake from his inventory. He just didn't have to bake a specific one for their wedding. His services only amounted to his speech when the act was specific to the event. I know that this concept is tough you for you. You can only extrapolate or reduce to absurdity.
Did you know that in the state of California their civil rights law extends to political affiliation? You cant refuse a nazi service in California just because he is a nazi. Not that the Peoples Democratic Republic California enforces this provision fairly.
"No interactive web service is legally required to remain “content neutral”"
That is not what content neutral means here. I've explained it to you plenty you don't get it. The law has to be content neutral. I've read the law. The judge read the law, we both agree it was content neutral.
"And now it’s not. That it hasn’t been revived in the years since its repeal should tell you something."
I think in the case of social media you would be surprised. The justification for the Fairness Doctrine was scarcity. In 1949 we had 4 national networks. NBC, ABC, CBS, and DuMont, we also tended to have at least 1 local regional network, see WGN Chicago.
So in 1949 with 5 choices the FCC concluded and the courts agreed that scarcity nessicated regulation. In 2021 in stead of 4 national companies controlling 80% of the market 3 national companies control almost 100% of the market.
I would love to go to court with a scarcity rationale. There is less choice today than there was then.
"How could the government regulate speech on platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube without (A) regulating speech on all such platforms and (B) standing on the wrong side of the First Amendment, right of association jurisprudence, and property rights laws?"
Same way they regulate how large a company has to be before they offer insurance. The larger you are the more regulations you have. I just cant bring yourself to face this reality. Yes regulations are not applied equally. The larger the company the more effect it has on the public interest and the more capable it is on dealing with the regulation. That is the jurisprudence if you must know.
How come so many people with income dont pay income tax? How come the elderly get property tax breaks? Its not fair!
"Because “common carrier” rules are about the pipes"
Thank you Senator Stevens.
'Its a bunch of tubes' lol
No common carrier is about boats. It was then extended to planes, trains, automobiles, wired communication, wireless communication etc. etc.
Put your hands on a guest who engaged in no force against you or a another if that person is a lawyer or someone with means you will be the one going to jail.
"Thats why we keep seeing the dive bar anecdote."
Yeah battery is common in dive bars. You dont see high end establishments doing that @#%^ because you never know who you are screwing with. They hire permitted security.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Very Dumb, example of Du
"Yes, and most people would rather the establishment eject those people before it happens, whereas you seem to think it requires months of waiting for paperwork. Again, thankfully the real world is different from the idiotic strawmen you're ejecting to pretend that people can't kick guests out of their property."
No you are a smart business owner and you plan ahead. You make sure your security is permitted. Or you call the cops and have the cops remove the person. You cant do it yourself.
FYI you see this kind of paranoia that the people who disagree with you are all sock puppets bots etc only on the most insane websites. People who think like that are clinical and really need to see a psychiatrist.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Very Dumb, example of Dumb
"You are no longer welcome" comes 100% from property rights."
But the right to kick them out does not. They can continue to be as obnoxious as they want. Until someone shows up who has the legal authority to kick them out they don't' have to leave. And that someone is not the property own. Its either a cop or permitted security.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Very Dumb, example of Dumb
"Where is your "real world", because it sounds like a right shit hole. In my experience, a bar owner can kick out a drunken asshole without filling in paperwork, and I've seen this happen in at least 6 different countries. No cops or private security involved unless they refuse to leave when asked."
I saw lots of people speeding and getting away with it this morning. Witnessing someone getting away with battery doesn't make it legal.
"Possibly, but I have also been to enough dive bars in my life where I have seen a bartender jump over the bar to stop a fight and literally drag somebody out of said bar."
Anyone in the bar has a right to a fight and drag somebody out of said bar. Just as anyone on the street has that right, well maybe not in deep blue states but generally.
That has nothing to do with property rights.
But again we started with kicking out someone who is being obnoxious to breaking up a physical assault. That goal posts have moved. The examples extend more and more to the extreme as previous more applicable examples are shot down.
"So, just to be clear: If the government told you that you had to host—had to associate yourself and your private property—which racial slurs, anti-queer propaganda, and even pro-Nazi speech, you would willingly (and perhaps even ecstatically) host that speech despite your property being private and the government having absolutely no right to tell you that you must host such speech?"
I would have to that is the law. If I wish to remove myself from the public control I need only remove my property from the public interest.
Now I have more faith in the people than you.
The solution would be legislative not judicial. Just like a cable provider if a person meets whatever requirements the law sets I haven no right to deny them use. I knew that when I opened my business.
But again your argument is extrapolation to absurdity.
Can the government force me to "had to associate yourself and your private property—which racial slurs, anti-queer propaganda, and even pro-Nazi speech," Yes they do. The check against this is the people. It would be political suicide to use the governments power in that way and the Florida law did not and the people would not allow the Florida legislature to pass a law without extreme consequences.
There are lots of things the elected government can do that it should not do that it does not do because its political suicide. Elections are why your argumentum absurdum is in a word absurd.
People like you always engage in argumentum absurdum because you simple are not smart enough to debate the real issues.
"The law isn’t neutral, though. As the ruling itself points out:"
What he said
“Laws that are facially content-neutral, but that cannot be justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, or that were adopted because of disagreement with the speaker’s message, also must satisfy strict scrutiny,”
"The Governor’s signing statement and numerous remarks of legislators show rather clearly that the legislation is viewpoint-based."
He is saying that the law is neutrally written but motivated by bias. It is a completely incorrect opinion and will be overturned like many of this dolts other decisions. Your intentionally judge shopped the most biased judge but also got one of the most frequently overturned because he is too stupid to write a good decision that will withstand review. Like I said I couldn't be happier. There was no way Hinkle of all people was going to side with the state. The best my side could hope for was a poorly written decision that was just a hanging curve ball for when it goes to the 11th circuit. That is what we got. The question was never if Hinkle would issue the injunction. The question was if it would be competently written. It wasn't, it mirrors his decision in Jones et al v. DeSantis which was obliterated by the 11th circuit.
"Anti-discrimination laws are neutral in application towards both the marginalized and the majority. Their existence can be justified without reference to whether a given group protected under such laws is the marginalized or the majority. They generally have no restrictions on speech, so “disagreement with [a] speaker’s message” is ultimately irrelevant. Anti-discrimination laws don’t need “strict scrutiny” in the same sense that laws purporting to regulate speech in some way need that level of scrutiny."
Please go back to the 1960s and find justification for the Civil Rights act without reference to black people. The law is neutral the justification was not. The justification doesn't' make the law any less neutral. It is private actors acting from a place of bias that leads to the legislation to force neutrality. We generally do not force neutral regulations on industries that are already neutral. There is cause and effect. The cause is almost always private actors being biased.
"The law is clearly meant to disfavor one group of service providers (“Big Tech”) over all others"
That has to do with equal protection not content neutrality which is the issue of scrutinize.
The SCOTUS has always held that size and market power play a roll in regulation. The bigger you are the more regulation. Frequently regulations do not kick in until a business is of a certain size. For example the affordable care act only kicks in if you have 50 or more employees. This is very very common and is not a violation of equal protection.
"every accusation, a confession” comes to mind, and what you’d be confessing to probably isn’t a position you’d want to express outside of the Deep South."
I'm Hispanic you moron. Go to hell. That is the only response you deserve.
"If this were true, the government could force Fox News—a major part of the news industry, which is clearly in the public interest—to carry all of Joe Biden’s speeches and press conferences. That the government hasn’t done so (and wouldn’t dare to try) is a clear rebuke of your flawed logic."
The government hasn't done so? The Fairness Doctrine was FCC regulation for almost 4 decades, and before you spout Mikes "broadcast only" myth yes it applied to cable as well. In fact the early cable companies were in litigation over the regulation when it was repealed in 1987.
"You have no such rights on the property of others. To say otherwise would be to upend an untold amount of jurisprudence for both the First Amendment and property rights."
No it wouldn't actually. Not regulating an industry as much in the public interest as Big Tech would and is upending an untold amount of jurisprudence. Big Tech is the exception for no logical reason other than we don't want to. It is the lack of regulation and any attempt to thwart regulation common to other similar industries that upends the jurisprudence. We can go the mile to extend common carrier, a common law that originated as part of maritime law, to electronic communications. We can go that logical mile, but we cannot extend it an inch to social media?
"Then why hasn’t any state government or the federal government attempted to declare Facebook a state actor"
State actor means action done if the government "coerces, influences, or encourages" the action. The government is not going report itself.
"which would force Facebook into becoming a true public forum and restrict it from both blocking anyone in the United States from using it and blocking any kind of speech Facebook otherwise wouldn’t host? Why hasn’t Joe Biden signed an executive order or a bill passed by Congress that makes Facebook a state actor and federalizes the company and its operations?"
You clearly dont understand what you are talking about. They cant take control of Facebook because they have back channels with Fauci and secretary of states offices. A judge adjudicates on an action by action basis and fines, penalties, other restitution occur. The right frequently get state actor incorrect and doesn't get that its case by case action by action. You do too apparently.
Mike I told you this before and I will tell you this again. When a government official contacts Facebook, twitter ect. to get them to take down constitutionally protected speech, the correct response form Facebook, Twitter etc. is "No we cannot legally conspire with government officials to censor legally protected speech." They should then forward the request to the DOJ's Civil Rights Division for attempted violation of 18 U.S. Code § 241 - Conspiracy against rights.
"Yes, I’m well aware of that. But you said (and I quote):
While the Civil Rights acts are racially neutral their passage was clearly out of bias and intended to specifically protect black people.
Again: I simply can’t imagine why a law passed to protect the civil rights of a given group of people might be somehow biased in favor of that group of people, even if the language of the law is itself neutral~. It’s almost as if the majority group doesn’t necessarily need those protections on a regular basis because they’re not being marginalized on a regular basis~. Imagine that~"
Again you don't get the point. The judges reasoning in this case is that since the motivation for creating the law was biased the law even though it is neutral is not constitutional because of the biased motivation.
Under Judge Hinkle's legal reasoning the entire Civil Rights acts are equally unconstitutional.
“Laws that are facially content-neutral, but that cannot be justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, or that were adopted because of disagreement with the speaker’s message, also must satisfy strict scrutiny,”
He could as easily be talking about the Civil Rights Acts here.
Now I don't agree with the frequently overturned Judge Hinkle I'm pointing out the inconsistency in his legal reasoning.
Do you have a source more credible than Micheal Wolff. Even the NYT wasn't buying Wolf's fantasies in "Fire and Furry"
"“I believe parts of it, and then there are other parts that are factually wrong ... “He believes in larger truths and narratives. So he creates a narrative that is notionally true, that’s conceptually true. The details are often wrong.” ~NYT Maggie Haberman
So even someone as left wing admits that Wolf tends to create narratives that are factually untrue.
Wolf is one of those 'fake but true' kind of scum.
You keep confusing a state actor with being subject to regulation. The Florida law does not make big tech a state actor. It regulates Big Tech in the public interest the same way bars, taxis, shopping malls, lodging, cable, etc. etc. etc. are regulated in the public interest. In the ruling Kavanaugh admits that private public forums are in the public interest. Those two words "public interest" make them subject to regulation just like any other industry deemed to be in the public interest.
A state can legally require an industry to host content they don't agree with, if the industry is in the public interest, as is in the case of California where all people may peacefully exercise their right to free speech in private shopping centers. This isn't an enforcement of the 1st Amendment its is a regulation placed upon shopping centers, and it has withstood Constitutional challenges on both 1st and 4th Amendment grounds all the way up to the SCOTUS.
State Actor is another question entirely. That isn't an act of the legislature. That is a judge saying that the private entity is in that instance acting as the state of at the behest of the state. That is generally a case by case act by act basis. No operating a public forum doesn't make big tech a state actor. Just like a shopping center is not a state actor. That is what you don't get. Not being a state actor doesn't mean you cant be forced to respect customers free speech rights just like any California shopping center by law.
Now in the instance of "State Actor" yes big tech is towing a closer and closer line. When Zuckerberg is personally e-mailing Fauci, calling him Tony, giving Fauci his personal cell number, and ostensibly offering Tony access to Facebook's algorithm to censor content Fauci doesn't' like, that crosses the line of State Actor.
We saw a big line crossed in 2020 with Big Tech giving sectary of states offices back channels to flag content, back channels between state agents like Fauci and Zuckerberg. Yes in 2020 we clearly crossed the state actor line.
"And? A judge referencing a case that involves a cable TV provider doesn’t turn an interactive web service into a cable TV provider. My god, how are you that ignorant?"
Perhaps you can explain why a cable TV provider can be subject to must carry laws without it being a violation of their 1st Amendment Rights but if interactive web services are subject to the same must carry rights it is a violation of their 1st Amendment Rights.
Either must carry is constitutional or it is not. Your reasoning either violates the First Amendment or it violates the 14th Amendment. That Big Tech is exempt from what is common regulation is a violation of equal protection.
On the post: Texas Legislature Sees Florida's Social Media Bill Go Down In Unconstitutional Flames; Decides 'We Can Do That Too!'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Publisher vs Platforms
Samuel Abram,
When you just copy and paste a decision that means you dont understand it. Halleck is not the droids you are looking for. Halleck is anything moved that ball closer to regulation of social media. Halleck established that social media is in the public interest. That is the legal term that triggers regulation. What Halleck also said is that just calling social media a state actor would be judge made law. It does not prohibit statute from regulating social media in the public interest. It actually encourages it.
On the post: Texas Legislature Sees Florida's Social Media Bill Go Down In Unconstitutional Flames; Decides 'We Can Do That Too!'
Re: Re: Publisher vs Platforms
See now you are just being too smart by half. You are playing a linguistic game. platform is a general term used to describe the large collections of bodies that the courts had determined were not publishers and also not distributors.
In the late 90s the term platform started being used to describe these 'not publishers.'
So yes it is not a term created by an act of congress, it began as a commonly used vernacular.
Now here is where you get too smart by half. The courts started using the word which makes it law genius. It was just recently used in Joe Biden Jr. v. Knight First Amendment Institute ~ April 2021
So since the highest court in the land has used and defined the term it is law.
And yes I know leftwing legal blogs have said there is no such thing ... those people are idiots.
On the post: Texas Legislature Sees Florida's Social Media Bill Go Down In Unconstitutional Flames; Decides 'We Can Do That Too!'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Publisher vs Platforms
"Because the groups/individuals being discriminated against were facing that due to factors outside of their control"
I see you left religion out. Why? Surry it was just an honest error. It couldn't possible be because it didn't fit your narrative? You are such a good honest person you couldn't possibly engage is just deliberate deceit.
P.S. FYI California Civil Rights code also protects political affiliation. Big Tech has really really fought to get his repealed in California because they realize that if they ever get on the wrong side of a State AG they are up @#$% creek without a paddle.
On the post: Marco Rubio Jumps To The Head Of The Line Of Ignorant Fools Pushing Dumb Social Media Regulation Bills
"That seems to be his argument, because he's falsely conflating a tenant with a guest."
Its conflated because its all the same thing. If you try and kick someone out is battery. It doesn't matter if its a guest, a tenant, or a patron. Its battery. Only a cop or permitted security can kick someone out. I don't really care what you have seen in a dive bar. There is a reason dive bars employ bouncers and high class night clubs employ security. Those trust fund brats have an army of lawyers behind them and you don't just "kick them out" or their parents lawyers will legally kick our ass.
Moving the goal posts is all you 4 do. You go from someone being obnoxious to someone committing physical battery of another. The 4 of you move the goal posts anytime you are proven wrong. And even then you are wrong. Anyone in a bar has a legal right, generally, to break up a fight and diffuse the situation. That has nothing to do with property rights. A random patron has just as much right to get involved as the owner. You only have a right to use force when force is used upon you or in defense of another whom force is being used upon.
On the post: As Expected: Judge Grants Injunction Blocking Florida's Unconstitutional Social Media Law
Re: Pachinko Arguemnts
"Even if he were saying that—and I don’t grant that he is—he’d still be right: The Florida law is motivated by a bias against, and unfairly targets, “Big Tech”. "
That isn't what "content neutral" means in the law we are talking about here. That is a separate issue of equal protection which the courts have held for decade yes regulations are allowed such discrimination. That's why businesses smaller than 50 employees are exempt for the Affordable Care Act.
"The “theme park” carveout and the fact that it doesn’t target smaller companies/services is proof enough of that."
And labor unions are exempt from the affordable care act. I'm not a fan of such regulatory carve outs but they haven't been found to be unconstitutional.
"The Florida law isn’t written to the same standard of fairness, as I’ve pointed out already."
Again you are arguing an equal protection argument not a free speech argument. You keep confusing the two.
"So long as they don’t discriminate in a way that violates the law of the state they operate in (or federal law), they can pick and choose what speech and which persons to host all the live-long day. "
See this is how you pachinko logic is amazing at time. This is the law. This is the law the state passed regulating how social media operates.
"f you’d like to argue otherwise, by all means, tell me why a privately owned open-to-the-public Black Lives Matter–centric forum should be made to host pro-Klan propaganda. I sincerely can’t wait to see you make that argument."
Why should they? They shouldn't. This law didn't. That doesn't mean that state couldn't. People forget that in the Colorado baker case the courts ruled that the baker did have to sell the gay couple a cake from his inventory. He just didn't have to bake a specific one for their wedding. His services only amounted to his speech when the act was specific to the event. I know that this concept is tough you for you. You can only extrapolate or reduce to absurdity.
Did you know that in the state of California their civil rights law extends to political affiliation? You cant refuse a nazi service in California just because he is a nazi. Not that the Peoples Democratic Republic California enforces this provision fairly.
"No interactive web service is legally required to remain “content neutral”"
That is not what content neutral means here. I've explained it to you plenty you don't get it. The law has to be content neutral. I've read the law. The judge read the law, we both agree it was content neutral.
"And now it’s not. That it hasn’t been revived in the years since its repeal should tell you something."
I think in the case of social media you would be surprised. The justification for the Fairness Doctrine was scarcity. In 1949 we had 4 national networks. NBC, ABC, CBS, and DuMont, we also tended to have at least 1 local regional network, see WGN Chicago.
So in 1949 with 5 choices the FCC concluded and the courts agreed that scarcity nessicated regulation. In 2021 in stead of 4 national companies controlling 80% of the market 3 national companies control almost 100% of the market.
I would love to go to court with a scarcity rationale. There is less choice today than there was then.
"How could the government regulate speech on platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube without (A) regulating speech on all such platforms and (B) standing on the wrong side of the First Amendment, right of association jurisprudence, and property rights laws?"
Same way they regulate how large a company has to be before they offer insurance. The larger you are the more regulations you have. I just cant bring yourself to face this reality. Yes regulations are not applied equally. The larger the company the more effect it has on the public interest and the more capable it is on dealing with the regulation. That is the jurisprudence if you must know.
How come so many people with income dont pay income tax? How come the elderly get property tax breaks? Its not fair!
"Because “common carrier” rules are about the pipes"
Thank you Senator Stevens.
'Its a bunch of tubes' lol
No common carrier is about boats. It was then extended to planes, trains, automobiles, wired communication, wireless communication etc. etc.
On the post: Marco Rubio Jumps To The Head Of The Line Of Ignorant Fools Pushing Dumb Social Media Regulation Bills
Re: Re:
Put your hands on a guest who engaged in no force against you or a another if that person is a lawyer or someone with means you will be the one going to jail.
"Thats why we keep seeing the dive bar anecdote."
Yeah battery is common in dive bars. You dont see high end establishments doing that @#%^ because you never know who you are screwing with. They hire permitted security.
On the post: Marco Rubio Jumps To The Head Of The Line Of Ignorant Fools Pushing Dumb Social Media Regulation Bills
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Very Dumb, example of Du
"Yes, and most people would rather the establishment eject those people before it happens, whereas you seem to think it requires months of waiting for paperwork. Again, thankfully the real world is different from the idiotic strawmen you're ejecting to pretend that people can't kick guests out of their property."
No you are a smart business owner and you plan ahead. You make sure your security is permitted. Or you call the cops and have the cops remove the person. You cant do it yourself.
On the post: Marco Rubio Jumps To The Head Of The Line Of Ignorant Fools Pushing Dumb Social Media Regulation Bills
Re: So smart lol
FYI you see this kind of paranoia that the people who disagree with you are all sock puppets bots etc only on the most insane websites. People who think like that are clinical and really need to see a psychiatrist.
On the post: Marco Rubio Jumps To The Head Of The Line Of Ignorant Fools Pushing Dumb Social Media Regulation Bills
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Very Dumb, example of Dumb
"You are no longer welcome" comes 100% from property rights."
But the right to kick them out does not. They can continue to be as obnoxious as they want. Until someone shows up who has the legal authority to kick them out they don't' have to leave. And that someone is not the property own. Its either a cop or permitted security.
That is that law!
On the post: Marco Rubio Jumps To The Head Of The Line Of Ignorant Fools Pushing Dumb Social Media Regulation Bills
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Very Dumb, example of Dumb
"Where is your "real world", because it sounds like a right shit hole. In my experience, a bar owner can kick out a drunken asshole without filling in paperwork, and I've seen this happen in at least 6 different countries. No cops or private security involved unless they refuse to leave when asked."
I saw lots of people speeding and getting away with it this morning. Witnessing someone getting away with battery doesn't make it legal.
On the post: Marco Rubio Jumps To The Head Of The Line Of Ignorant Fools Pushing Dumb Social Media Regulation Bills
Re: Re:
"Possibly, but I have also been to enough dive bars in my life where I have seen a bartender jump over the bar to stop a fight and literally drag somebody out of said bar."
Anyone in the bar has a right to a fight and drag somebody out of said bar. Just as anyone on the street has that right, well maybe not in deep blue states but generally.
That has nothing to do with property rights.
But again we started with kicking out someone who is being obnoxious to breaking up a physical assault. That goal posts have moved. The examples extend more and more to the extreme as previous more applicable examples are shot down.
On the post: Florida Steps Up To Defend Its Unconstitutional Social Media Law And It's Every Bit As Terrible As You'd Imagine
RE: I Would Have To
"So, just to be clear: If the government told you that you had to host—had to associate yourself and your private property—which racial slurs, anti-queer propaganda, and even pro-Nazi speech, you would willingly (and perhaps even ecstatically) host that speech despite your property being private and the government having absolutely no right to tell you that you must host such speech?"
I would have to that is the law. If I wish to remove myself from the public control I need only remove my property from the public interest.
Now I have more faith in the people than you.
The solution would be legislative not judicial. Just like a cable provider if a person meets whatever requirements the law sets I haven no right to deny them use. I knew that when I opened my business.
But again your argument is extrapolation to absurdity.
Can the government force me to "had to associate yourself and your private property—which racial slurs, anti-queer propaganda, and even pro-Nazi speech," Yes they do. The check against this is the people. It would be political suicide to use the governments power in that way and the Florida law did not and the people would not allow the Florida legislature to pass a law without extreme consequences.
There are lots of things the elected government can do that it should not do that it does not do because its political suicide. Elections are why your argumentum absurdum is in a word absurd.
People like you always engage in argumentum absurdum because you simple are not smart enough to debate the real issues.
On the post: As Expected: Judge Grants Injunction Blocking Florida's Unconstitutional Social Media Law
Re: You Just Don't Get it
"The law isn’t neutral, though. As the ruling itself points out:"
What he said
“Laws that are facially content-neutral, but that cannot be justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, or that were adopted because of disagreement with the speaker’s message, also must satisfy strict scrutiny,”
"The Governor’s signing statement and numerous remarks of legislators show rather clearly that the legislation is viewpoint-based."
He is saying that the law is neutrally written but motivated by bias. It is a completely incorrect opinion and will be overturned like many of this dolts other decisions. Your intentionally judge shopped the most biased judge but also got one of the most frequently overturned because he is too stupid to write a good decision that will withstand review. Like I said I couldn't be happier. There was no way Hinkle of all people was going to side with the state. The best my side could hope for was a poorly written decision that was just a hanging curve ball for when it goes to the 11th circuit. That is what we got. The question was never if Hinkle would issue the injunction. The question was if it would be competently written. It wasn't, it mirrors his decision in Jones et al v. DeSantis which was obliterated by the 11th circuit.
"Anti-discrimination laws are neutral in application towards both the marginalized and the majority. Their existence can be justified without reference to whether a given group protected under such laws is the marginalized or the majority. They generally have no restrictions on speech, so “disagreement with [a] speaker’s message” is ultimately irrelevant. Anti-discrimination laws don’t need “strict scrutiny” in the same sense that laws purporting to regulate speech in some way need that level of scrutiny."
Please go back to the 1960s and find justification for the Civil Rights act without reference to black people. The law is neutral the justification was not. The justification doesn't' make the law any less neutral. It is private actors acting from a place of bias that leads to the legislation to force neutrality. We generally do not force neutral regulations on industries that are already neutral. There is cause and effect. The cause is almost always private actors being biased.
"The law is clearly meant to disfavor one group of service providers (“Big Tech”) over all others"
That has to do with equal protection not content neutrality which is the issue of scrutinize.
The SCOTUS has always held that size and market power play a roll in regulation. The bigger you are the more regulation. Frequently regulations do not kick in until a business is of a certain size. For example the affordable care act only kicks in if you have 50 or more employees. This is very very common and is not a violation of equal protection.
"every accusation, a confession” comes to mind, and what you’d be confessing to probably isn’t a position you’d want to express outside of the Deep South."
I'm Hispanic you moron. Go to hell. That is the only response you deserve.
"If this were true, the government could force Fox News—a major part of the news industry, which is clearly in the public interest—to carry all of Joe Biden’s speeches and press conferences. That the government hasn’t done so (and wouldn’t dare to try) is a clear rebuke of your flawed logic."
The government hasn't done so? The Fairness Doctrine was FCC regulation for almost 4 decades, and before you spout Mikes "broadcast only" myth yes it applied to cable as well. In fact the early cable companies were in litigation over the regulation when it was repealed in 1987.
"You have no such rights on the property of others. To say otherwise would be to upend an untold amount of jurisprudence for both the First Amendment and property rights."
No it wouldn't actually. Not regulating an industry as much in the public interest as Big Tech would and is upending an untold amount of jurisprudence. Big Tech is the exception for no logical reason other than we don't want to. It is the lack of regulation and any attempt to thwart regulation common to other similar industries that upends the jurisprudence. We can go the mile to extend common carrier, a common law that originated as part of maritime law, to electronic communications. We can go that logical mile, but we cannot extend it an inch to social media?
"Then why hasn’t any state government or the federal government attempted to declare Facebook a state actor"
State actor means action done if the government "coerces, influences, or encourages" the action. The government is not going report itself.
"which would force Facebook into becoming a true public forum and restrict it from both blocking anyone in the United States from using it and blocking any kind of speech Facebook otherwise wouldn’t host? Why hasn’t Joe Biden signed an executive order or a bill passed by Congress that makes Facebook a state actor and federalizes the company and its operations?"
You clearly dont understand what you are talking about. They cant take control of Facebook because they have back channels with Fauci and secretary of states offices. A judge adjudicates on an action by action basis and fines, penalties, other restitution occur. The right frequently get state actor incorrect and doesn't get that its case by case action by action. You do too apparently.
On the post: It Can Always Get Dumber: Trump Sues Facebook, Twitter & YouTube, Claiming His Own Government Violated The Constitution
Re: Re: Correct
Correct,
I believe the common phrase in law is
'Sue them all and let the judge sort them out.'
On the post: It Can Always Get Dumber: Trump Sues Facebook, Twitter & YouTube, Claiming His Own Government Violated The Constitution
Its a Crime Mike
Mike I told you this before and I will tell you this again. When a government official contacts Facebook, twitter ect. to get them to take down constitutionally protected speech, the correct response form Facebook, Twitter etc. is "No we cannot legally conspire with government officials to censor legally protected speech." They should then forward the request to the DOJ's Civil Rights Division for attempted violation of 18 U.S. Code § 241 - Conspiracy against rights.
Nothing more and nothing less.
On the post: As Expected: Judge Grants Injunction Blocking Florida's Unconstitutional Social Media Law
Re: You MIss the Point
"Yes, I’m well aware of that. But you said (and I quote):
While the Civil Rights acts are racially neutral their passage was clearly out of bias and intended to specifically protect black people.
Again: I simply can’t imagine why a law passed to protect the civil rights of a given group of people might be somehow biased in favor of that group of people, even if the language of the law is itself neutral~. It’s almost as if the majority group doesn’t necessarily need those protections on a regular basis because they’re not being marginalized on a regular basis~. Imagine that~"
Again you don't get the point. The judges reasoning in this case is that since the motivation for creating the law was biased the law even though it is neutral is not constitutional because of the biased motivation.
Under Judge Hinkle's legal reasoning the entire Civil Rights acts are equally unconstitutional.
“Laws that are facially content-neutral, but that cannot be justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, or that were adopted because of disagreement with the speaker’s message, also must satisfy strict scrutiny,”
He could as easily be talking about the Civil Rights Acts here.
Now I don't agree with the frequently overturned Judge Hinkle I'm pointing out the inconsistency in his legal reasoning.
On the post: Trump Allegedly Demanded Parler Kick Off His Critics If It Wanted Him On The Platform
Sourc
Do you have a source more credible than Micheal Wolff. Even the NYT wasn't buying Wolf's fantasies in "Fire and Furry"
"“I believe parts of it, and then there are other parts that are factually wrong ... “He believes in larger truths and narratives. So he creates a narrative that is notionally true, that’s conceptually true. The details are often wrong.” ~NYT Maggie Haberman
So even someone as left wing admits that Wolf tends to create narratives that are factually untrue.
Wolf is one of those 'fake but true' kind of scum.
On the post: As Expected: Judge Grants Injunction Blocking Florida's Unconstitutional Social Media Law
Re: State Actor is not Regulation
You keep confusing a state actor with being subject to regulation. The Florida law does not make big tech a state actor. It regulates Big Tech in the public interest the same way bars, taxis, shopping malls, lodging, cable, etc. etc. etc. are regulated in the public interest. In the ruling Kavanaugh admits that private public forums are in the public interest. Those two words "public interest" make them subject to regulation just like any other industry deemed to be in the public interest.
A state can legally require an industry to host content they don't agree with, if the industry is in the public interest, as is in the case of California where all people may peacefully exercise their right to free speech in private shopping centers. This isn't an enforcement of the 1st Amendment its is a regulation placed upon shopping centers, and it has withstood Constitutional challenges on both 1st and 4th Amendment grounds all the way up to the SCOTUS.
State Actor is another question entirely. That isn't an act of the legislature. That is a judge saying that the private entity is in that instance acting as the state of at the behest of the state. That is generally a case by case act by act basis. No operating a public forum doesn't make big tech a state actor. Just like a shopping center is not a state actor. That is what you don't get. Not being a state actor doesn't mean you cant be forced to respect customers free speech rights just like any California shopping center by law.
Now in the instance of "State Actor" yes big tech is towing a closer and closer line. When Zuckerberg is personally e-mailing Fauci, calling him Tony, giving Fauci his personal cell number, and ostensibly offering Tony access to Facebook's algorithm to censor content Fauci doesn't' like, that crosses the line of State Actor.
We saw a big line crossed in 2020 with Big Tech giving sectary of states offices back channels to flag content, back channels between state agents like Fauci and Zuckerberg. Yes in 2020 we clearly crossed the state actor line.
On the post: As Expected: Judge Grants Injunction Blocking Florida's Unconstitutional Social Media Law
Re: What is your Point
"And? A judge referencing a case that involves a cable TV provider doesn’t turn an interactive web service into a cable TV provider. My god, how are you that ignorant?"
Perhaps you can explain why a cable TV provider can be subject to must carry laws without it being a violation of their 1st Amendment Rights but if interactive web services are subject to the same must carry rights it is a violation of their 1st Amendment Rights.
Either must carry is constitutional or it is not. Your reasoning either violates the First Amendment or it violates the 14th Amendment. That Big Tech is exempt from what is common regulation is a violation of equal protection.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: No
The 4 of you living in your own little bubble need someone to tell you how wrong and ignorant of the real world you are.
Next >>