And do note that this case found itself in front of the notoriously government-abuse-friendly Fifth Circuit multiple times. They sided AGAINST Abbott every single one of them.
The only person claiming that social media companies don't editorialize is YOU. THEY are telling the courts that they do. And the courts are confirming that it is their right. Not because of 230, but because of 1A.
How many times does it need to be explained to you before you finally realize you're wrong? Almost all of the things subject to moderation are Constitutionally OK, and always have been. There is no policy argument for why they should be legally required to be hosted.
Because he doesn't want his own platform. He wants the existing platforms to do his bidding, and he has no interest in accepting anything less than complete loyalty.
Hi! I see you've discovered that lawsuit filed by Moronity in Media. Perhaps you should try reading it before anything else, because it doesn't actually accuse them of any of that. Nor does Twitter's motion to dismiss make those claims.
Not to mention the follow-up in Barnes was that the case got immediately thrown out even after ยง 230 immunity was denied. The entire theory of liability was fundamentally flawed from the start. And the cases that have built on the precedent ever since have only made it less and less applicable.
This seems more in-line with the (comparatively) newer "material support to terrorists" lawsuits than anything else. I was actually kinda surprised to not see a signature from 1-800-LAW-FIRM or Excolo at the bottom.
So the Trump administration just censored someone for no reason other than having a conservative viewpoint about an order that they claimed was specifically to prevent others from censoring anyone for no reason other than having a conservative viewpoint?
Ich. I remember reading about this case back when it was first appealed, and it was a freaking mess even then. It's as if the judge went out of their way to use the most fringe logic possible to justify dismissal, and the appeals court met it with equal fringe logic in the other direction. The only thing this case establishes with any clarity at all is that federal court procedure is in desperate need of an overhaul.
Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill Jr. isn't going to be doing anything for now. Presumably, he'll need to wait until his law license suspension is up.
So, you're saying that Trump is a narcissistic maniac who puts his own personal image above anything else, regardless of how many lives need to be killed or ruined in the process?
Unsurprisingly, the Internet is waaaaay ahead of ya. Spurious Correlations has some beautiful data analytics that should fuel so many lovely conspiracy theories. ^_^
Funny you should ask. Greg Abbott, the current governor of Texas, was sued by the FFRF for his personal involvement in directly censoring them (and then bragging about it), and the district court refused grant him qualified immunity. It's on appeal with CA5 right now, where it stands basically zero chance of being reversed.
On the post: Missouri's Governor Still Insists Reporter Is A Hacker, Even As Prosecutors Decline To Press Charges
For defamation specifically, I don't know. But knowingly using your office's power like this is a pretty clear violation of the First Amendment.
For reference, here's what happened when Texas governor Greg Abbott tried using his position to stomp out the FFRF.
https://ffrf.org/news/news-releases/item/38830-breaking-news-ffrf-wins-major-court-victory-aga inst-gov-abbott-censorship
And do note that this case found itself in front of the notoriously government-abuse-friendly Fifth Circuit multiple times. They sided AGAINST Abbott every single one of them.
On the post: Texas Court Gets It Right: Dumps Texas's Social Media Moderation Law As Clearly Unconstitutional
Re: Re: Re: Officially They're A Publisher
The only person claiming that social media companies don't editorialize is YOU. THEY are telling the courts that they do. And the courts are confirming that it is their right. Not because of 230, but because of 1A.
On the post: The Curious Case Of Billionaire Brian Sheth, An Anonymous Tweeter, Copyright Law, Twitter, And Some Company That Barely Seems To Exist
the twist
If you find the photos and look really carefully at the background, you'll see the outline of a private beach house owned by Barbara Streisand.
Probably not, but it's not like any other explanation makes any more sense.
On the post: House Republican's Entire 'Big Tech' Platform Is 'We Must Force Big Tech To Display Our Conspiracy Theories And Lies'
Re: Re: Re: Glad To Help
Citation needed. This is straight-up not how 230 works, and you know we all know you know that by now.
On the post: House Republican's Entire 'Big Tech' Platform Is 'We Must Force Big Tech To Display Our Conspiracy Theories And Lies'
Re: Glad To Help
How many times does it need to be explained to you before you finally realize you're wrong? Almost all of the things subject to moderation are Constitutionally OK, and always have been. There is no policy argument for why they should be legally required to be hosted.
On the post: It Can Always Get Dumber: Trump Sues Facebook, Twitter & YouTube, Claiming His Own Government Violated The Constitution
Re: Serious question
Because he doesn't want his own platform. He wants the existing platforms to do his bidding, and he has no interest in accepting anything less than complete loyalty.
On the post: Why Is Wired So Focused On Misrepresenting Section 230?
Hi! I see you've discovered that lawsuit filed by Moronity in Media. Perhaps you should try reading it before anything else, because it doesn't actually accuse them of any of that. Nor does Twitter's motion to dismiss make those claims.
Please stop stanning for the censorship brigade.
On the post: Dumb New GOP Talking Point: If You Restore Net Neutrality, You HAVE To Kill Section 230. Just Because!
Re: Handoff
There has never been any credible evidence suggesting "conservative censorship." Why do you keep insisting otherwise?
On the post: Chastity Penis Lock Company That Was Hacked Says It's Now Totally Safe To Put Your Penis Back In That Chastity Lock
Guys, please stop trying to connect your genitals to the Internet.
On the post: Ted Cruz Once Insisted That Net Neutrality Was The Gov't Takeover Of The Internet; Now Demands That Twitter Host All Nonsense
This is incorrect. It was never correct in the first place. Cruz has been lying about that as well.
On the post: Ted Cruz Once Insisted That Net Neutrality Was The Gov't Takeover Of The Internet; Now Demands That Twitter Host All Nonsense
Re: The First Amendment is to guarantee free and open Public For
Ahhhh, blue. I was beginning to worry about you, but it's good to see you haven't changed one bit. Glad to have you back!
On the post: Facebook Sued For Not Preventing A Bunch A White Guys With Guns From Traveling To A Protest To Shoot People
Re: Re: Re: Maybe not so clear cut
Not to mention the follow-up in Barnes was that the case got immediately thrown out even after ยง 230 immunity was denied. The entire theory of liability was fundamentally flawed from the start. And the cases that have built on the precedent ever since have only made it less and less applicable.
This seems more in-line with the (comparatively) newer "material support to terrorists" lawsuits than anything else. I was actually kinda surprised to not see a signature from 1-800-LAW-FIRM or Excolo at the bottom.
On the post: Days After FCC Commissioner Mike O'Rielly Suggests Trump's Section 230 Exec Order Is Unconstitutional... His Renomination To The FCC Is Withdrawn
Xzibit A
So the Trump administration just censored someone for no reason other than having a conservative viewpoint about an order that they claimed was specifically to prevent others from censoring anyone for no reason other than having a conservative viewpoint?
On the post: Second Circuit Wrecks All Sorts Of First Amendment Protections To Keep Lawsuit Against Joy Reid Alive
Messy messy messy
Ich. I remember reading about this case back when it was first appealed, and it was a freaking mess even then. It's as if the judge went out of their way to use the most fringe logic possible to justify dismissal, and the appeals court met it with equal fringe logic in the other direction. The only thing this case establishes with any clarity at all is that federal court procedure is in desperate need of an overhaul.
On the post: After Seven Years And A US Supreme Court Victory, Tyson Timbs Is One Step Closer To Finally Getting His Car Back
Re: If wishes were fishes
Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill Jr. isn't going to be doing anything for now. Presumably, he'll need to wait until his law license suspension is up.
On the post: Dealing With COVID-19 Requires Radical Transparency In Research Results; China Is Going In The Opposite Direction
Re: Barely masked antitrumpetry
So, you're saying that Trump is a narcissistic maniac who puts his own personal image above anything else, regardless of how many lives need to be killed or ruined in the process?
On the post: Jon Cusack The Latest Celebrity To Spread Nonsense About 5G
Re: Let's start our own conspiracies
Unsurprisingly, the Internet is waaaaay ahead of ya. Spurious Correlations has some beautiful data analytics that should fuel so many lovely conspiracy theories. ^_^
On the post: Lt. Governor Of Texas Gets Offended By An Anti-Police Shirt, Decides He Needs To Start Violating The First Amendment
Re: Re: Question
Funny you should ask. Greg Abbott, the current governor of Texas, was sued by the FFRF for his personal involvement in directly censoring them (and then bragging about it), and the district court refused grant him qualified immunity. It's on appeal with CA5 right now, where it stands basically zero chance of being reversed.
https://ffrf.org/legal/challenges/ongoing-lawsuits/item/25899-ffrf-vs-abbott-challenges-bi ll-of-rights-display-censorship
On the post: Hey Tom Wheeler: Stick To Net Neutrality, Because Your Understanding Of Section 230 Is... Not Right
You're in for one hell of a surprise when you learn about credit unions.
On the post: Lindsey Graham's Sneak Attack On Section 230 And Encryption: A Backdoor To A Backdoor?
Re: Re: Re: Misses the point
Might as well. Your attempts at understanding law aren't getting you anywhere.
Next >>