Federal Court Smacks Down Social Media Platform Censorship

[Walt]

We're talking about CENSORING/BLOCKING FREE SPEECH ,not "banning".

Banning is what companies do when they want to block speech on their website. According to the Constitution, they have every right to do that. For instance, StormFront can ban me from speaking freely against their ideology.

Texas wants to force media companies to express the government of Texas' point of view. That is not freedom of speech, it is the opposite. If Texas wants their own presses (or websites) to express their own views, they should buy their own.

 

[Grokmaster]

Banning is what companies do when they want to block speech on their website. According to the Constitution, they have every right to do that. For instance, StormFront can ban me from speaking freely against their ideology.

Texas wants to force media companies to express the government of Texas' point of view. That is not freedom of speech, it is the opposite. If Texas wants their own presses (or websites) to express their own views, they should buy their own.

You continue to prove you are a moron.

CENSORSHIP/BLOCKING is what they did to the Hunter Biden laptop story, alternative COVID treatments, etc.

See how upset the DEMTHUGS ARE, LIKE YOU, THAT THE SOCIAL MEDIA GIANTS ARE NO LONGER ALLOWED TO CARRY YOUR LIES, WHILE BLOCKING THE FREE SPEECH OF OTHERS YOU DISAGREE WITH

 

[ZenMode]

We're talking about CENSORING/BLOCKING FREE SPEECH ,not "banning".

TRY TO KEEP UP.

Banning is just one example of a manner in which censorship happens. The point is the same. We don't have free speech protection on Twitter, FB, Truth Social, etc. Our free speech rights are protected from infringement by government, not private industry.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Banning is just one example of a manner in which censorship happens. The point is the same. We don't have free speech protection on Twitter, FB, Truth Social, etc. Our free speech rights are protected from infringement by government, not private industry.

Agreed. When Trumpers claim they have rights to violate their Terms of Service agreements on any website/social media, they are displaying their ignorance.

They're also proving they are the spoiled little pieces of shit I believe them to be. This is one reason why I have zero sympathy for them when they are shot down by good guys with guns or packed off to prison crying for themselves.

Fuck those assholes. If they had any honor, they'd hang themselves in prison. Zero fucks given for these pussified dumbasses who never gave a shit about the harm they caused others.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/20...Then-Pepper-Spraying-Cops-During-Capitol-Riot
Insurrectionists Cry At Sentencing After Crowd Surfing At The Capitol Riot Then Pepper Spraying Cops

Cody Mattice, 29, of Greece, N.Y., and James Mault, 30, of Brockport, N.Y., both wept as they stood before Chief U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell and asked for leniency, apologizing for their actions and saying they hoped to return soon to their families and young children. But Howell noted that prosecutors had already cut them a reasonable deal by dropping charges that could have led to far more prison time, and she imposed the sentences requested by the government. Only four other Jan. 6 defendants have been sentenced to longer prison terms....

 

[Grokmaster]

Banning is just one example of a manner in which censorship happens. The point is the same. We don't have free speech protection on Twitter, FB, Truth Social, etc. Our free speech rights are protected from infringement by government, not private industry.

WRONG. NOT IN THIS CASE.


SEE HOW THE LEFT OBJECTS TO THE FREE SPEECH THEY DISAGREE WITH BEING PROTECTED.


HOW STALINIST OF YOU.

 

[Matt Dillon]

That is not even close to reality. Google does not filter the internet.

 

[Matt Dillon]

Agreed. When Trumpers claim they have rights to violate their Terms of Service agreements on any website/social media, they are displaying their ignorance.

They're also proving they are the spoiled little pieces of shit I believe them to be. This is one reason why I have zero sympathy for them when they are shot down by good guys with guns or packed off to prison crying for themselves.

Fuck those assholes. If they had any honor, they'd hang themselves in prison. Zero fucks given for these pussified dumbasses who never gave a shit about the harm they caused others.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/20...Then-Pepper-Spraying-Cops-During-Capitol-Riot
Insurrectionists Cry At Sentencing After Crowd Surfing At The Capitol Riot Then Pepper Spraying Cops

You're going to be absolutely apoplectic when they all get pardoned by the next president, amirite?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

You're going to be absolutely apoplectic when they all get pardoned by the next president, amirite?

Why didn't Trump pardon them the first time, Matt? Why did Trump betray them?


Matt, did you know that accepting a pardon is admission of guilt? LOL

 

[Grokmaster]

SEE HOW THE STALINISTS ARE OUTRAGED WHEN THEY CAN NO LONGER COUNT ON SPEECH THEY DISAGREE WITH BEING CENSORED.


EFFIN' BROWNSHIRTS IS WHAT THEY ARE.

 

[Flash]

JUST WHAT WE NEED; BIG SOCIAL MEDIA FINALLY BEING HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR ITS ACTIONS AGAINST THE FREE SPEECH OF CIQTIZENS THEY DISAGREE WITH.

You want government to hold people accountable for their views? Facism personified. This is what scared people into voting against Trump in 2020--wanting an oppressive government to regulate political views.

Our free speech rights don't require us to express views we don't agree with or spread false information. There are an unlimited number of message boards and other social media for people to express their views. They don't have a constitutional right to say anything they want on any platform they choose.

Your free speech protects you against government restrictions on speech, not restrictions imposed by social media. Now, you want government to be able to impose those restrictions on private business. So, nobody's constitutional free speech is being restricted by social media.

 

[ExpressLane]

You want government to hold people accountable for their views? Facism personified. This is what scared people into voting against Trump in 2020--wanting an oppressive government to regulate political views.

Our free speech rights don't require us to express views we don't agree with or spread false information. There are an unlimited number of message boards and other social media for people to express their views. They don't have a constitutional right to say anything they want on any platform they choose.

Your free speech protects you against government restrictions on speech, not restrictions imposed by social media. Now, you want government to be able to impose those restrictions on private business. So, nobody's constitutional free speech is being restricted by social media.

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.

 

[Flash]

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.

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.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

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.

What do you think of the Democrats trying to restore the Equal Time rule?

https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/949/equal-time-rule

 

[Flash]

What do you think of the Democrats trying to restore the Equal Time rule?

https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/949/equal-time-rule

I don't know. Probably because they don't like Fox News or the media attention Trump gets. I don't know much about it.

 

[ExpressLane]

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.

True but the White House should not be telling them who they want censored. That is fascism

 

[Bigdog]

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.

No, this speaks 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

 

[NiftyNiblick]

Social media are platforms owned by their parent companies.

I don't see how "free speech" should even apply to them.

Nobody needs to be free to speak on somebody else's forum.

Our real problem is that so many Amerians are horrifically stupid enough to think that "social media" are anything remotely important.

People who consider time spent on social media to be anything but a passing amusement are unnecessary people who don't need to exist.

 

[Flash]

True but the White House should not be telling them who they want censored. That is fascism

They can ignore the White House. Under fascism the government can control the media. Facebook doesn't listen to anybody.

 

[Flash]

No, this speaks 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

Terrible decision. If a platform serves the purpose of allowing customers to express free speech the platform should not be sued for those comments. Maybe the current Supreme Court would allow more free speech rights or modify libel laws. Do those same regulations apply to JPP.

 

[Bigdog]

Terrible decision. If a platform serves the purpose of allowing customers to express free speech the platform should not be sued for those comments. Maybe the current Supreme Court would allow more free speech rights or modify libel laws. Do those same regulations apply to JPP.

Even worse, they snuck it in disguised as the Communications Decency Act.

"The anti-indecency portion of the CDA was immediately challenged on passage, resulting in the Supreme Court 1997 case, Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, that ruled all of the anti-indecency sections of the CDA were unconstitutional, but left Section 230 as law."

I think it applies to JPP. Which is why the Texas law exempts sites with less than 50 million users.