"Your other bullshit aside, I have another question for you: Do you believe the government should make you host speech you don’t want to host on an interactive web service you own and operate? For example: If you don’t want to host Ku Klux Klan propaganda—or Black Lives Matter propaganda, for that matter—on a Mastodon instance you run, do you really believe the government should make you host it “or else”?"
That's a consequence of entering the speech industry by my own free will. Im the one that chose to own and operate a virtual public square. By putting my private property to the public interest I submit to the control of the public. That's the law.
"Shouldn’t the FDA have done one before, y’know, potentially killing people as part of a “test run” of whether a given drug could actually treat COVID-19?"
There are two kinds of testing safety and efficacy. I know your English sucks but efficacy means effectiveness not safety. When a drug is first introduced it must pass both efficacy and safety testing. Originally government felt it had a compelling public interest in making sure that drug companies don't introduce drugs that while safe are not effective. They didn't want pharmaceutical companies swindling people out of their retirement savings.
It seemed like a good idea at the time during the early days of the pharmaceutical industry. The efficacy requirement became law in 1962. But as time went on the cost of efficacy testing became a problem. A drug would be introduced to the market for a specific treatment like how hydroxychloroquine can treat both malaria and lupus. Or how antiparasitic like ivermectin tend to also have antiviral properties.
Now lets go back to that 1962. The FDA approved hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of lupus in 1955, 7 years before the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1962. So hydroxychloroquine never went through the efficacy testing to treat lupus that you are demanding for COVID-19. It was tested for safety and doctors believed it could be effective for also treating lupus. That was the basis for its approval. It was never proven effective at treating lupus or malaria. But during 2020 we had casandras like yourself screaming both that we cant use HCQ to treat COVID-19 because it would take the drug away from lupus patients and HCQ isn't proven effective, yet HCQ isn't "proven" effective against lupus either.
Many common drugs we use never went through FDA efficacy testing because they predate 1962. But taking them is not dangerous because they did go through safety testing.
As more and more drugs moved to generic by the 1980s we had a problem. There were many drugs that were off patent and available as generics that were most likely effective to treat many different ailments but because there were generic no drug company was willing to spend the money, about $20M, to move a generic through FDA efficacy testing. There is no money to be made if they cant patent the drug.
This came to a major head during the AIDS crisis as we saw the revolving door between the FDA/NIH and the major pharmaceutical companies. More and more it became obvious that the FDA/NIH were using efficacy testing to keep alternative treatments off the market. Hell AIDS crisis aside the FDA still argues against low dose aspirin.
Ultimately what had been intended in 1962, to protect sick people from swindled out of their finances, had the opposite effect. People were being denied access to safe cheep alternatives and were losing their life's savings paying through the nose for patented medicines that were arguably no more effective than cheep generics. Or in the worst instance with AZT a drug that was developed in 1964 was given a use patent in 1987 this patent on a 20+ year old drug for the treatment of a 100% fatal illness made allowed AZT to be the most expensive drug of all time despite the fact alone it wasn't very effective against AIDS, it slowed progress a little but AIDS was still 100% fatal.
In 2017 congress with unanimous consent from the senate passed The Right to Try Act because it was clear that the intent of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1962 had been turned on its head and the act was being used for the exact purpose it was intended to stop, swindling desperate people out of their money for drugs that don't work.
Today once a drug has passed FDA testing once, it is free to be used for any other treatment with the informed consent of the patient. Once a drug has been proven safe a doctor can prescribe it for any treatment. The benefits of informed consent far outweigh the risks.
"They did no such thing. They filed days after the law was signed, because they needed to get an injunction before it went into effect. There was no judge shopping. They had a random draw of any of the judges in the northern district of Florida."
Random Draw lol. It doesn't work that way. The next judge is chosen by the docket and its very easy to predict which judge you will draw based on the docket.
Surly someone as big of a complainer on patent abuse would know about the honorable Judge James Rodney Gilstrap who at his peek handled around 40% of all national patent cases in his lowly West Texas district court. Don't piss on my back and tell me its raining. I'm certain you are very anti-judge shopping on issues you agree with like patent abuse.
Never denied that I was Portent. When I tried to create an account it said that Portent was taken so I used another handle. Don't know who the hell Bobmail is.
"You mean the Munn standard established in "Munn vs Illinois" which was then reversed in Wabash vs Illinois"?"
You read too much Wikipedia. The standard for regulation in Munn vs. Illinois wasn't reversed. The law regulation itself was ruled unconstitutional because it infringed on interstate commerce. States and the federal government still have every right to regulate things in the public interest which are within their sphere.
"This gets right back to the point you were responding to. Either you aren't providing consideration, and therefore you can't rely on a contract, or your consideration, your thing of value, is your content. And if that consideration in the opinion of the property holder does not have value, or has negative value, they have a right to remove you to protect the value of the property. This is well adjudicated in the courts."
Is this a joke? The thing of value is your personal data which is aggregated and sold. You cant turn around and sell something given to you by someone else and then say that person gave you nothing of value.
After reading the decision more thoroughly and having had the time to go over Judge Hinkle I really couldn't be happier with the decision. The liberal plaintiffs were always going to win the first round as the plaintiff gets to all but pick their judge these days.
Judge Hinkle doesn't have a very good track record on his rulings standing up to an 11th Circuit Appeal. Jones et al v. DeSantis where much like this one Judge Hinkle applied strict scrutiny rather than the legally appropriate scrutiny. On appeal Judge Hinkle lost quite easily as the 11th Circuit which concluded that only a rational basis scrutiny, the lowest level of scrutiny and two levels below strict scrutiny, applied.
Judge "Strick Scrutiny" Hinkle stands little chance on appeal.
As if oft the case where with Stephen T. Stone citing the Halleck decision while not understanding it. While Kavanaugh didn't declare Big Tech a state actor because it operated a public forum, he did declare big tech a public forum and opened the door for regulation in the public interest. As he said in his decision he didn't want the courts to do it as that would be judge made law.
So I'm fairly Happy with Judge "Strick Scrutiny" Hinkle's decision. With Judge Hinkle the best you could hope for is another hanging curve ball. And that is what he threw one hell of a hanging curve ball.
'We got another "Strick Scrutiny" Hinkle decision again.' ~Says the 11th circuit.
Mike Masnick, spends post upon post arguing that Big Tech is not like a cable company, Beg Tech is not like a cable company, blah blah blah he is like Pavlov's Dog at this point.
Judge makes a decision he agrees with which cites as its primary justification Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. FCC 1994 which is a decision about cable company regulation and suddenly Mike has no problem treating Big Tech like a cable company.
"Please note that I said “interactive web service”, not “cable TV provider”
You don't get to make that requirement..
You are on a thread praising a judge for issuing a preliminary injection where he based on Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. FCC 1994. Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. FCC 1994 is case involving a cable TV provider.
Can you understand how asinine your entire argument of not “cable TV provider” when you are defending a decision that relied on a case about a cable TV provider?
"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~."
Civil rights law doesn't just protect marginalized peoples. Its a neutral law. It protects all peoples. The motivation for passing it was to protect specific racial minorities but the law itself had to be and is neutral. The Civil Rights acts protect a a male white Anglo-Saxon protestant from discrimination just as much as they protect a female black Muslim.
"They 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."
First you are wrong. Second, that is distinction without difference. Even if you were correct and it was only local broadcast, which it is not, it would still void your argument. If local broadcast must carry is constitutional then forcing a private platform to carry content is not a 1st Amendment violation. As always your legal arguments are laughable. You seriously don't get it.
Now its not just broadcast. Every cable provider over a certain size has to provide a certain number of leased access to any network so long as the networks content is legal.
"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?"
There is no legal requirement for an efficacy study. Once a drug has been approved by the FDA for use it can be used with a prescription for any off-label us. That is our law.
"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"
The FCC is broad regulatory power of all wired and wireless communication under the communications act. Facebook does not communicate by ESP. They fall under FCC regulation. Stop making up law.
Its also no a valid point. The issue isn't does the government have the authority to regulate the question is if such a regulation is constitutional, the question assumes that the power to regulate is legal.
"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?
I keep answering that question and you ignore it. The answer is absolutely because it already does. Cable providers of a certain size have to provide channel access and local broadcast assess. This was the issue in Warner v. FCC 1996. The able providers argued that the requirement to carry channels was a violation of their First Amendment rights and the size requirements was a violation of 14 Amendment equal protection. The court said that such requirements did not violate the cable providers 1st or 14th Amendment rights.
"Which is usually met with silence or misdirection."
Its met that way because its is a response intended to shutdown debate and not worthy of a response. People are not going to reward your bad behavior with a response child.
"Given this ruling and the reasoning provided therein, what makes you think this law has even the slightest chance of surviving any further challenges to its constitutionality?"
One its face because the district court ruling basically means nothing these days. Judge shopping has become such an exact science that there is very little doubt which judge the plaintiff will pull.
On the letter of the law the judge's ruling is a farce. He completely ignores Time Warner v. FCC 1996 which is the controlling legal authority on two of the major factors in his decision. In my entire reading of the decision the judge makes no attempt to even argue why Time Warner v. FCC 1996 doesn't apply. He simply doesn't mention it. He instead relies on See Turner Broad. Sys.,
Inc. v. FCC 1994 which was superseded by Warner v. FCC 1996.
Now many legal scholars disagree with Warner v. FCC 1996 many say we should go back to both strict scrutiny by default and have a far more narrow definition of intermediate scrutiny. However, that is not for a district court judge to decide which is what the judge here is trying to do by pretending Warner v. FCC 1996 doesn't exist.
Outside of strict vs. intermediate scrutiny and how we define intermediate scrutiny. Warner v. FCC 1996 also dealt with another major pillar in Judge Hinkle's ruling. That being his claim that focusing on larger companies is an unconstitutional violatoin of equal protectoin.
"And even without evidence of an improper motive, the application of these requirements to only a small subset of social-media entities would be sufficient, standing alone, to subject these statutes to strict scrutiny. See, e.g., Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Minnesota Comm’r of Revenue, 460 U.S. 575, 591 (1983); Arkansas Writers’ Project, Inc. v. Ragland, 481 U.S. 221, 229 (1987)."
Again judge Hinkle ignores the most significant case Warner v. FCC 1996 and instead cites two out of date cases to come to his conclusion.
In Warner v. FCC 1996 the entire issue of the law only kicking in for cable providers of a certain size was asked and answered. The law required that cable providers offer leased channels once the provider offered 32 or more channels with the number of leases ratcheting up based on the size of the provider. The court did not agree and found that requirements of larger carriers were not a violation of equal protection.
Appeals courts don't take kindly to district judges who clearly ignore the most recent in important legal precedence in writing their decisions.
This entire decision is a direct attack on Warner v. FCC 1996 without ever mentioning Warner v. FCC 1996. That will not be viewed well on appeal.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Very Dumb, example of Dumb
"We used the example of a bar or restaurant kicking out a disruptive customer. You're the idiot who thinks that having a drink is the same as renting a home."
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? The fact that you think its true doesn't make it true. I suggest you do some research. Again we are talking about pages upon pages of regulation.
For starters you just cant hire bouncers who put the customer in a hammer lock and throw the customer out the door. The real world is not Roadhouse you child. Roadhouse is a movie. Granted a great classic 80s movie but is still a movie.
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. I have to hire private security company that has all the required licensing and permits where the security personal have all the required training and permits. The security company assures that their personnel follow all regulations and their permits and their state issued permits alone give them the authority to remove 'kick out a disruptive customers.'
The authority to 'kick out a disruptive customers' does not come from private property rights. It comes from the state issuing permits to trained security personnel to remove people.
Again this all comes back to the same point that none of the sycophants here want to address. Every other industry has to follow pages upon pages of regulation on how their private property is used.
In every example you try and use the fact is that in the real world there is actually a lot of regulation. You may not know it is there but its there.
Why is Big Tech exempt from such common place regulation?
Reading the judges decision I guess all Civil Rights are no illegal.
While the Civil Rights acts are racially neutral their passage was clearly out of bias and intended to specifically protect black people. Therefor strict scrutiny need be applied.
The judges claim centers around the "strict scrutiny" standard which will not stand on appeal as it violates Time Warner v. FCC by applying strict scrutiny instead of intermediate scrutiny.
Strict scrutiny can only be applied on acts "that compel speakers to ... distribute speech bearing a particular message." That is not the case in the Florida law. The law itself is clearly content neutral and designed to compel Big Tech to remain content neutral.
The judge is trying to argue that because the motivation to pass the law came from bias then the law itself is biased. That is not how the scrutiny standard works.
If the speech regulation is content based then it is subject to strict scrutiny. What this judge is trying to argue is that since the motivation for passing the law was content based then its subject to strict scrutiny.
This basically makes it impossible for the public in the public interest to force neutral legislation on anyone being a biased bad actor.
An industry is acting out of bias.
The state passes a law to require industry to be neutral.
The court says that the law despite being neutral is biased because it originated from a motivation of bias.
In effect bias against bias.
This reasoning has a low chance of standing in the long run.
"How are laws that govern cable applicable to a completely different industry that does something not related to cable service?"
Please go look up "Common Carrier" some time. By that I mean the real common law and its history, not the crap that Mike with his juris doctorate in nothing spews. Please tell me how maritime law came to govern communications.
We expand legal concepts to other industries all the fricking time. That's how maritime law became the legal frame work communications operates under.
Now to the original point. The question was along the lines of
'How is it constitutional to force a private business to host speech it doesn't' like'
The point was that is asked and answered. The Supreme Court has already ruled on the constitutionality of forcing cable provides to host channels they don't agree with.
FYI that exact case will come up on the appeal of the hand picked Judge's ruling in Florida because the judge ignored the SCOTUS.
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:
"Your other bullshit aside, I have another question for you: Do you believe the government should make you host speech you don’t want to host on an interactive web service you own and operate? For example: If you don’t want to host Ku Klux Klan propaganda—or Black Lives Matter propaganda, for that matter—on a Mastodon instance you run, do you really believe the government should make you host it “or else”?"
That's a consequence of entering the speech industry by my own free will. Im the one that chose to own and operate a virtual public square. By putting my private property to the public interest I submit to the control of the public. That's the law.
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: That Isn't Efficacy
"Shouldn’t the FDA have done one before, y’know, potentially killing people as part of a “test run” of whether a given drug could actually treat COVID-19?"
There are two kinds of testing safety and efficacy. I know your English sucks but efficacy means effectiveness not safety. When a drug is first introduced it must pass both efficacy and safety testing. Originally government felt it had a compelling public interest in making sure that drug companies don't introduce drugs that while safe are not effective. They didn't want pharmaceutical companies swindling people out of their retirement savings.
It seemed like a good idea at the time during the early days of the pharmaceutical industry. The efficacy requirement became law in 1962. But as time went on the cost of efficacy testing became a problem. A drug would be introduced to the market for a specific treatment like how hydroxychloroquine can treat both malaria and lupus. Or how antiparasitic like ivermectin tend to also have antiviral properties.
Now lets go back to that 1962. The FDA approved hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of lupus in 1955, 7 years before the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1962. So hydroxychloroquine never went through the efficacy testing to treat lupus that you are demanding for COVID-19. It was tested for safety and doctors believed it could be effective for also treating lupus. That was the basis for its approval. It was never proven effective at treating lupus or malaria. But during 2020 we had casandras like yourself screaming both that we cant use HCQ to treat COVID-19 because it would take the drug away from lupus patients and HCQ isn't proven effective, yet HCQ isn't "proven" effective against lupus either.
Many common drugs we use never went through FDA efficacy testing because they predate 1962. But taking them is not dangerous because they did go through safety testing.
As more and more drugs moved to generic by the 1980s we had a problem. There were many drugs that were off patent and available as generics that were most likely effective to treat many different ailments but because there were generic no drug company was willing to spend the money, about $20M, to move a generic through FDA efficacy testing. There is no money to be made if they cant patent the drug.
This came to a major head during the AIDS crisis as we saw the revolving door between the FDA/NIH and the major pharmaceutical companies. More and more it became obvious that the FDA/NIH were using efficacy testing to keep alternative treatments off the market. Hell AIDS crisis aside the FDA still argues against low dose aspirin.
Ultimately what had been intended in 1962, to protect sick people from swindled out of their finances, had the opposite effect. People were being denied access to safe cheep alternatives and were losing their life's savings paying through the nose for patented medicines that were arguably no more effective than cheep generics. Or in the worst instance with AZT a drug that was developed in 1964 was given a use patent in 1987 this patent on a 20+ year old drug for the treatment of a 100% fatal illness made allowed AZT to be the most expensive drug of all time despite the fact alone it wasn't very effective against AIDS, it slowed progress a little but AIDS was still 100% fatal.
In 2017 congress with unanimous consent from the senate passed The Right to Try Act because it was clear that the intent of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1962 had been turned on its head and the act was being used for the exact purpose it was intended to stop, swindling desperate people out of their money for drugs that don't work.
Today once a drug has passed FDA testing once, it is free to be used for any other treatment with the informed consent of the patient. Once a drug has been proven safe a doctor can prescribe it for any treatment. The benefits of informed consent far outweigh the risks.
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: Yeah no Judge Shopping lol
"They did no such thing. They filed days after the law was signed, because they needed to get an injunction before it went into effect. There was no judge shopping. They had a random draw of any of the judges in the northern district of Florida."
Random Draw lol. It doesn't work that way. The next judge is chosen by the docket and its very easy to predict which judge you will draw based on the docket.
Surly someone as big of a complainer on patent abuse would know about the honorable Judge James Rodney Gilstrap who at his peek handled around 40% of all national patent cases in his lowly West Texas district court. Don't piss on my back and tell me its raining. I'm certain you are very anti-judge shopping on issues you agree with like patent abuse.
On the post: Marco Rubio Jumps To The Head Of The Line Of Ignorant Fools Pushing Dumb Social Media Regulation Bills
So smart lol
"Chosen, Portent, Bobmail,"
Never denied that I was Portent. When I tried to create an account it said that Portent was taken so I used another handle. Don't know who the hell Bobmail is.
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: Dumb
"You mean the Munn standard established in "Munn vs Illinois" which was then reversed in Wabash vs Illinois"?"
You read too much Wikipedia. The standard for regulation in Munn vs. Illinois wasn't reversed. The law regulation itself was ruled unconstitutional because it infringed on interstate commerce. States and the federal government still have every right to regulate things in the public interest which are within their sphere.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Is This a Joke
"This gets right back to the point you were responding to. Either you aren't providing consideration, and therefore you can't rely on a contract, or your consideration, your thing of value, is your content. And if that consideration in the opinion of the property holder does not have value, or has negative value, they have a right to remove you to protect the value of the property. This is well adjudicated in the courts."
Is this a joke? The thing of value is your personal data which is aggregated and sold. You cant turn around and sell something given to you by someone else and then say that person gave you nothing of value.
Jesus the ignorance on this site is thick.
On the post: As Expected: Judge Grants Injunction Blocking Florida's Unconstitutional Social Media Law
Couldn't Be Happier
After reading the decision more thoroughly and having had the time to go over Judge Hinkle I really couldn't be happier with the decision. The liberal plaintiffs were always going to win the first round as the plaintiff gets to all but pick their judge these days.
Judge Hinkle doesn't have a very good track record on his rulings standing up to an 11th Circuit Appeal. Jones et al v. DeSantis where much like this one Judge Hinkle applied strict scrutiny rather than the legally appropriate scrutiny. On appeal Judge Hinkle lost quite easily as the 11th Circuit which concluded that only a rational basis scrutiny, the lowest level of scrutiny and two levels below strict scrutiny, applied.
Judge "Strick Scrutiny" Hinkle stands little chance on appeal.
As if oft the case where with Stephen T. Stone citing the Halleck decision while not understanding it. While Kavanaugh didn't declare Big Tech a state actor because it operated a public forum, he did declare big tech a public forum and opened the door for regulation in the public interest. As he said in his decision he didn't want the courts to do it as that would be judge made law.
So I'm fairly Happy with Judge "Strick Scrutiny" Hinkle's decision. With Judge Hinkle the best you could hope for is another hanging curve ball. And that is what he threw one hell of a hanging curve ball.
'We got another "Strick Scrutiny" Hinkle decision again.' ~Says the 11th circuit.
On the post: As Expected: Judge Grants Injunction Blocking Florida's Unconstitutional Social Media Law
How Ironic
Mike Masnick, spends post upon post arguing that Big Tech is not like a cable company, Beg Tech is not like a cable company, blah blah blah he is like Pavlov's Dog at this point.
Judge makes a decision he agrees with which cites as its primary justification Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. FCC 1994 which is a decision about cable company regulation and suddenly Mike has no problem treating Big Tech like a cable company.
Mike you are a disingenuous sophist.
On the post: As Expected: Judge Grants Injunction Blocking Florida's Unconstitutional Social Media Law
Re:
"Please note that I said “interactive web service”, not “cable TV provider”
You don't get to make that requirement..
You are on a thread praising a judge for issuing a preliminary injection where he based on Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. FCC 1994. Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. FCC 1994 is case involving a cable TV provider.
Can you understand how asinine your entire argument of not “cable TV provider” when you are defending a decision that relied on a case about a cable TV provider?
On the post: As Expected: Judge Grants Injunction Blocking Florida's Unconstitutional Social Media Law
Re:
"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~."
Civil rights law doesn't just protect marginalized peoples. Its a neutral law. It protects all peoples. The motivation for passing it was to protect specific racial minorities but the law itself had to be and is neutral. The Civil Rights acts protect a a male white Anglo-Saxon protestant from discrimination just as much as they protect a female black Muslim.
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
Re:
"They 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."
First you are wrong. Second, that is distinction without difference. Even if you were correct and it was only local broadcast, which it is not, it would still void your argument. If local broadcast must carry is constitutional then forcing a private platform to carry content is not a 1st Amendment violation. As always your legal arguments are laughable. You seriously don't get it.
Now its not just broadcast. Every cable provider over a certain size has to provide a certain number of leased access to any network so long as the networks content is legal.
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:
"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?"
Stop making up law!
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: Here We Go Agian
"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"
The FCC is broad regulatory power of all wired and wireless communication under the communications act. Facebook does not communicate by ESP. They fall under FCC regulation. Stop making up law.
Its also no a valid point. The issue isn't does the government have the authority to regulate the question is if such a regulation is constitutional, the question assumes that the power to regulate is legal.
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've Answered that!
"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?
I keep answering that question and you ignore it. The answer is absolutely because it already does. Cable providers of a certain size have to provide channel access and local broadcast assess. This was the issue in Warner v. FCC 1996. The able providers argued that the requirement to carry channels was a violation of their First Amendment rights and the size requirements was a violation of 14 Amendment equal protection. The court said that such requirements did not violate the cable providers 1st or 14th Amendment rights.
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: Thats What!
"Which is usually met with silence or misdirection."
Its met that way because its is a response intended to shutdown debate and not worthy of a response. People are not going to reward your bad behavior with a response child.
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: Only the first step
"Given this ruling and the reasoning provided therein, what makes you think this law has even the slightest chance of surviving any further challenges to its constitutionality?"
One its face because the district court ruling basically means nothing these days. Judge shopping has become such an exact science that there is very little doubt which judge the plaintiff will pull.
On the letter of the law the judge's ruling is a farce. He completely ignores Time Warner v. FCC 1996 which is the controlling legal authority on two of the major factors in his decision. In my entire reading of the decision the judge makes no attempt to even argue why Time Warner v. FCC 1996 doesn't apply. He simply doesn't mention it. He instead relies on See Turner Broad. Sys.,
Inc. v. FCC 1994 which was superseded by Warner v. FCC 1996.
Now many legal scholars disagree with Warner v. FCC 1996 many say we should go back to both strict scrutiny by default and have a far more narrow definition of intermediate scrutiny. However, that is not for a district court judge to decide which is what the judge here is trying to do by pretending Warner v. FCC 1996 doesn't exist.
Outside of strict vs. intermediate scrutiny and how we define intermediate scrutiny. Warner v. FCC 1996 also dealt with another major pillar in Judge Hinkle's ruling. That being his claim that focusing on larger companies is an unconstitutional violatoin of equal protectoin.
"And even without evidence of an improper motive, the application of these requirements to only a small subset of social-media entities would be sufficient, standing alone, to subject these statutes to strict scrutiny. See, e.g., Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Minnesota Comm’r of Revenue, 460 U.S. 575, 591 (1983); Arkansas Writers’ Project, Inc. v. Ragland, 481 U.S. 221, 229 (1987)."
Again judge Hinkle ignores the most significant case Warner v. FCC 1996 and instead cites two out of date cases to come to his conclusion.
In Warner v. FCC 1996 the entire issue of the law only kicking in for cable providers of a certain size was asked and answered. The law required that cable providers offer leased channels once the provider offered 32 or more channels with the number of leases ratcheting up based on the size of the provider. The court did not agree and found that requirements of larger carriers were not a violation of equal protection.
Appeals courts don't take kindly to district judges who clearly ignore the most recent in important legal precedence in writing their decisions.
This entire decision is a direct attack on Warner v. FCC 1996 without ever mentioning Warner v. FCC 1996. That will not be viewed well on appeal.
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: Very Dumb, example of Dumb
"We used the example of a bar or restaurant kicking out a disruptive customer. You're the idiot who thinks that having a drink is the same as renting a home."
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? The fact that you think its true doesn't make it true. I suggest you do some research. Again we are talking about pages upon pages of regulation.
For starters you just cant hire bouncers who put the customer in a hammer lock and throw the customer out the door. The real world is not Roadhouse you child. Roadhouse is a movie. Granted a great classic 80s movie but is still a movie.
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. I have to hire private security company that has all the required licensing and permits where the security personal have all the required training and permits. The security company assures that their personnel follow all regulations and their permits and their state issued permits alone give them the authority to remove 'kick out a disruptive customers.'
The authority to 'kick out a disruptive customers' does not come from private property rights. It comes from the state issuing permits to trained security personnel to remove people.
Again this all comes back to the same point that none of the sycophants here want to address. Every other industry has to follow pages upon pages of regulation on how their private property is used.
In every example you try and use the fact is that in the real world there is actually a lot of regulation. You may not know it is there but its there.
Why is Big Tech exempt from such common place regulation?
On the post: As Expected: Judge Grants Injunction Blocking Florida's Unconstitutional Social Media Law
Civil Rights Law Apparently Illegal
Reading the judges decision I guess all Civil Rights are no illegal.
While the Civil Rights acts are racially neutral their passage was clearly out of bias and intended to specifically protect black people. Therefor strict scrutiny need be applied.
On the post: As Expected: Judge Grants Injunction Blocking Florida's Unconstitutional Social Media Law
Not Going to Hold Up
The judges claim centers around the "strict scrutiny" standard which will not stand on appeal as it violates Time Warner v. FCC by applying strict scrutiny instead of intermediate scrutiny.
Strict scrutiny can only be applied on acts "that compel speakers to ... distribute speech bearing a particular message." That is not the case in the Florida law. The law itself is clearly content neutral and designed to compel Big Tech to remain content neutral.
The judge is trying to argue that because the motivation to pass the law came from bias then the law itself is biased. That is not how the scrutiny standard works.
If the speech regulation is content based then it is subject to strict scrutiny. What this judge is trying to argue is that since the motivation for passing the law was content based then its subject to strict scrutiny.
This basically makes it impossible for the public in the public interest to force neutral legislation on anyone being a biased bad actor.
An industry is acting out of bias.
The state passes a law to require industry to be neutral.
The court says that the law despite being neutral is biased because it originated from a motivation of bias.
In effect bias against bias.
This reasoning has a low chance of standing in the long run.
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
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"How are laws that govern cable applicable to a completely different industry that does something not related to cable service?"
Please go look up "Common Carrier" some time. By that I mean the real common law and its history, not the crap that Mike with his juris doctorate in nothing spews. Please tell me how maritime law came to govern communications.
We expand legal concepts to other industries all the fricking time. That's how maritime law became the legal frame work communications operates under.
Now to the original point. The question was along the lines of
'How is it constitutional to force a private business to host speech it doesn't' like'
The point was that is asked and answered. The Supreme Court has already ruled on the constitutionality of forcing cable provides to host channels they don't agree with.
FYI that exact case will come up on the appeal of the hand picked Judge's ruling in Florida because the judge ignored the SCOTUS.
Next >>