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.
(untitled comment)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
(untitled comment)
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.
Re: Handoff
There has never been any credible evidence suggesting "conservative censorship." Why do you keep insisting otherwise?
(untitled comment)
Guys, please stop trying to connect your genitals to the Internet.
(untitled comment)
This is incorrect. It was never correct in the first place. Cruz has been lying about that as well.
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!
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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. ^_^
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
(untitled comment)
You're in for one hell of a surprise when you learn about credit unions.
Re: Re: Re: Misses the point
Might as well. Your attempts at understanding law aren't getting you anywhere.
More comments from John Roddy >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by John Roddy.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt