Federal Court Smacks Down Social Media Platform Censorship

Flash said:
They can ignore the White House. Under fascism the government can control the media. Facebook doesn't listen to anybody.
Click to expand...

I disagree. They were threatened with the abolishment or revision of Sec 230 if they did not comply with the FBI and the Dems.
 
Bigdog said:
I disagree. They were threatened with the abolishment or revision of Sec 230 if they did not comply with the FBI and the Dems.
Click to expand...

What does the FBI have to do with it?

Threats don't mean they can successfully repeal it. I don't think a majority of either party would support it.
 
Flash said:
Facebook should have the freedom to remove any information they choose. They are not "censoring" it because that same information is available on thousands of other sources.

We do not need government telling Facebook what it can and cannot display on its site. Government cannot require you to express views you find objectionable--that is free speech.

If you don't think you can find sources that present false COVID information (YouTube), then you haven't looked. It is available-Facebook should not be forced to display it.

Thankfully, we have the 1st Amendment to protect that free speech from those who want government repression.
Click to expand...

I have noticed that some only support the First Amendment when the topic is something they agree with. Otherwise it's fine if FB, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, etc. "censor" content that violates their TOS.
 
Flash said:
What does the FBI have to do with it?

Threats don't mean they can successfully repeal it. I don't think a majority of either party would support it.
Click to expand...

Well, Pelosi would never let a bill get to the floor so we could find out.


"Zuckerberg tells Rogan FBI warning prompted Biden laptop ...https://www.bbc.com › world-us-canada-62688532
Aug 26, 2022 — Mark Zuckerberg says Facebook restricting a story about Joe Biden's son during the 2020 election was based on FBI misinformation warnings."


"Trump and Biden agree on something – changing Section 230https://www.theregister.com › 2022/09/09 › biden_tech...
Sep 9, 2022 — During his 2020 campaign, Biden told The New York Times in an interview, "...Section 230 should be revoked, immediately should be revoked, ..."


"Politico
White House renews call to 'remove' Section 230 liability shield
Too much 230: President Joe Biden had previously called for revoking the liability shield, which allows platforms to disseminate content without...
.3 weeks ago"
 
ExpressLane said:
White House ‘flagging’ posts for Facebook to censor over COVID ‘misinformation’

White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Thursday the Biden administration is identifying “problematic” posts for Facebook to censor because they contain “misinformation” about COVID-19.

Psaki disclosed the government’s role in policing social media during her daily press briefing after Surgeon General Vivek Murthy called on companies to purge more pandemic posts.
Click to expand...

BROWNSHIRTS AT IT AGAIN...AND NOW WE KNOW NEARLY EVERYTHING WE WERE TOLD ABOUT COVID WAS LIES.....
 
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...

the totalitarians are losing bigly.
:magagrin:
 
Grokmaster said:
USING PRAVDA TO BLOCK THE FREE SPEECH OF OTHERS IS.
Click to expand...

Private entities can censor, which they are permitted to do. Private entities can't block free speech because free speech is not protected from private entities, nor should it be.
 
It seems that the 1st Amendment DOES NOT include the right of large media platforms to censor based on viewpoint.
Click to expand...

Try posting images of Israeli brutality on FaceBook.
 
ZenMode said:
Private entities can censor, which they are permitted to do. Private entities can't block free speech because free speech is not protected from private entities, nor should it be.
Click to expand...

THEY ARE MORE THAN PRIVATE ENTITIES...THEY ARE LIKE THE PHONE COMPANY ,WHICH CANNOT BLOCK PEOPLES' CALLS BASED ON THEIR VIEWS...THE SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS WANTED 1ST AMENDMENT PROTECTIONS FOR THEMSELVES, THERN SOUGHT TO BLOCK THE SPEECH OF OTHERS.


NOT ANYMORE.


SEE HOW YOU HATE LOSING THE PLATFORMS TO FURTHER YOUR POLITICAL VIEWS, AND BLOCK YOUR OPPONENTS?
 
AssHatZombie said:
the totalitarians are losing bigly.
Click to expand...

Before this, anyone could setup their own website to express whatever views they wanted. That is called freedom of the press. Anyone can print what they want on their own press. They do not have to print what the government tells them.

Now everyone has to print what the government tells them. That is the opposite of freedom of the press.
 
Grokmaster said:
THEY ARE MORE THAN PRIVATE ENTITIES...THEY ARE LIKE THE PHONE COMPANY
Click to expand...

No, the internet switching companies are like the phone companies. Net neutrality is supposed to protect freedom of connection, like it does with the phone company. The alt right is violently against that freedom.

Websites are like phone numbers. Texas is next going to demand you can only express government approved messages over the phone.
 
Walt said:
No, the internet switching companies are like the phone companies. Net neutrality is supposed to protect freedom of connection, like it does with the phone company. The alt right is violently against that freedom.

Websites are like phone numbers. Texas is next going to demand you can only express government approved messages over the phone.
Click to expand...

THE COURT DISAGREED.


CHOKE ON IT.
 
Grokmaster said:
YOU'RE FUCKING IDIOT, AS USUAL.

PRAVDA WAS THE COMMUNIST PARTY'S PAPER.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know why you want to ban freedom of the press. Freedom of the press would allow "communist party papers" to print their point of view. It would allow Democrats to print their point of view. It would allow everyone to.

Instead, you want to replace it with what the Nazis called "press freedom" which was the requirement that all the presses publish the Nazi point of view.

There is no press freedom if there is not the freedom to not publish something you do not want to. There is no freedom of speech, if there is not the freedom to not speak.
 
Grokmaster said:
THE COURT DISAGREED.


CHOKE ON IT.
Click to expand...

The court disagreed with the importance of freedom of expression, and more importantly the freedom not to express views you do not support. The alt right is pushing the idea that freedom is a weakness, and that fascism is strength. Right now, I can still disagree with that, but soon maybe not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top