Federal Court Smacks Down Social Media Platform Censorship

The judge was correct about the weird inversion of the First Amendment. The First only applies to the government censoring free speech.

Otherwise, I don’t see why any private enterprise can’t legally filter any content that violates its rules of content. Even this forum does. That is, as long as certain groups are not excluded based on their protected status. Race, color, nation of origin, age, etc.
 
ExpressLane said:
It's about time.
Click to expand...

Grokmaster said:
Amen.
Click to expand...

Grokmaster said:
SILLIASS BULLSHIT I DON'T HAVE TO SEE.^^^^^^^^^^


Meanwhile, the Federal judiciary has finally BITCH-SLAPPED Fb, TWITTWE, GOOGLE, etc...
Click to expand...

I remember when the internet was The Wild West. Yahoo was better than Google early on, then Google got good around 2004-7, but after that Obama started letting run a bunch of the internet through their

servers; That's when the "filtering" began. That's why you search for a truth about Democrats or the 2020 election, the results are inverted.
 
domer76 said:
The judge was correct about the weird inversion of the First Amendment. The First only applies to the government censoring free speech.

Otherwise, I don’t see why any private enterprise can’t legally filter any content that violates its rules of content. Even this forum does. That is, as long as certain groups are not excluded based on their protected status. Race, color, nation of origin, age, etc.
Click to expand...

No, this goes to section 230 special immunity for mega corps. That removed the peasants' rights to sue them.

" CompuServe and Prodigy, which were early service providers at that time.[19] CompuServe stated it would not attempt to regulate what users posted on its services, while Prodigy had employed a team of moderators to validate content. Both companies faced legal challenges related to content posted by their users. In Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc., CompuServe was found not be at fault as, by its stance as allowing all content to go unmoderated, it was a distributor and thus not liable for libelous content posted by users. However, in Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co., the court concluded that because Prodigy had taken an editorial role with regard to customer content, it was a publisher and was legally responsible for libel committed by its customers.[20]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230
 
Matt Dillon said:
I remember when the internet was The Wild West. Yahoo was better than Google early on, then Google got good around 2004-7, but after that Obama started letting run a bunch of the internet through their

servers; That's when the "filtering" began. That's why you search for a truth about Democrats or the 2020 election, the results are inverted.
Click to expand...
Yea. That's why under Dubyah, when you Googled 'abortion', you got 'did you mean adoption?'
 
Grokmaster said:
It seems that the 1st Amendment DOES NOT include the right of large media platforms to censor based on viewpoint. The SELECTIVE BLOCKING OF NON-WOKE/CONSERVATIVE VIEWS IS NOT "OK" UNDER THE 1st AMENDMENT.

America is slowly, but surely , righting its ship.






Federal Court Hand Downs Major Ruling Against Facebook — Big Tech Has No ‘Freewheeling First Amendment Right to Censor’



Censorship on social media may finally come to an end thanks to a law in Texas that was upheld by a federal appeals court.

In Texas, Governor Greg Abbot signed a bill called HB 20 that stops social media platforms with more than 50 million monthly users from censoring or limiting users’ speech based on viewpoint expression.

The new law includes Google, Facebook and Twitter. Predictably, left-wing big tech companies aren’t happy about this Texas law as they are fighting back.

Federal Judge Andrew S. Oldham of the Fifth Circuit said the platforms argued for “a rather odd inversion of the First Amendment” that “buried somewhere in the person’s enumerated right to free speech lies a corporation’s unenumerated right to muzzle speech.”

Republicans say this latest ruling is a major victory that may result in more free speech and the end of censorship on social media platforms. The ongoing legal battle could end up at the Supreme Court, which holds a conservative majority.












https://www.analyzingamerica.org/2022/09/669252/?utm_source=mcotr
Click to expand...

You neglected to mention that, "OPINION | This article contains opinion that reflects the author's views."

Analyzing America

Overall, we rate Analyzing America Questionable based on extreme right-wing bias, promotion of conspiracies and propaganda, poor sourcing, and a failed fact check.

Reasoning: Propaganda, Conspiracy, Poor Sourcing, False Claims
Bias Rating: EXTREME RIGHT
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Country: USA
Press Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: Medium Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/analyzing-america/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top