Federal judge blocks Texas social media 'censorship' law

  1. HB 20, signed by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott on Sept. 9, targets companies with at least 50 million monthly users in the US, including Facebook, Twitter and Google's YouTube, and would also allow residents of the state to sue companies for reinstatement of accounts. The law, billed by the governor's office as protecting Texans "from wrongful censorship on social media platforms," was set to take effect Thursday.

  2. Huh, the way the news article words it I wonder if my friend could get his League of Legends account back.

  3. Indeed. This law was an infringement of Twitter's first amendment right. Individuals do not have first amendment rights to be free from a TOS on Twitter.

  4. It's really telling that the right has completely abandoned their adherence to "free market principles" quite so publicly. Just openly removing any remaining facade of liberalism in favor of fascism.

  5. I mean, they're private companies. If Facebook wanted to be exclusively a platforms for people to post far-left conspiracy theories and memes with sheep, they would be fully within their rights to do so in all most all countries in the world.

  6. Then what's with all this shit about Facebook and the whistleblower. If they're within their right why does it matter how they run the company?

  7. Interesting. So when Facebook does what we like, they're a private company. When Parler does it, we deplatform them because we just don't like them.

  8. This "private companies" argument makes no sense. Many companies already deemed common carriers are private companies.

  9. I don’t understand how these laws would be enforceable. The companies aren’t headquartered in Texas or Florida if they where it would be different right? Nor are their server farms.

  10. Additionally, those companies can just block Texans from access based on IP address. Won't stop those smart enough to use a VPN, but would get most.

  11. Conservatives don't have principles; all those things are simply tools to justify what they want. They just want to sound like they're making principled arguments, which is why all those things go right out the window the minute they're not useful for whatever the current desire is.

  12. I suppose you think small government conservatives would allow anarchy? Because only "big government" has even some rules eh?

  13. That's a feature, not a bug. Having no belief system nor values is what defines modern conservatism.

  14. No, they’re ok with Republican members of government telling what businesses what they can or cannot do.

  15. For real. My friend keeps saying it’s a “violation of free speech” because “social media is the new public square”. It just comes down to wanting to do this and not letting others do those same things.

  16. What's better about it though is that it'll it'll throw open wide the gates to hate speech. Heck it'll probably even allow people to harass others openly and willingly.

  17. No mate, it's the total opposite. Following this ruling, you can be banned for no reason and be banned indefinitely without possibility to appeal.

  18. Wait, so Republicans have finally decided that large corporations shouldn’t be able to use their market power and captive consumer bases however they want?

  19. Been like that for a while. Heck, it was over a year ago now that McConnell basically told American businesses that their only role in American politics is to donate money to Republicans, and other than that they should sit down and shut up.

  20. Texas is out here ignoring their entire power grid so Donald Trump can have Twitter. What a shit heap lol

  21. Looks to me as if wheelchair Putin ( just like his fellow aspiring tinpot dictator DeSantis) really doesn’t give one lick about freedom of speech ( his CRT ban fits nicely in that picture).

  22. They don’t block conservative things they block misinformation and hate speech. So these people are admitting that that’s the conservative platform.

  23. i mean they dont block based on political standing they block based on factual/ tos violations. its just one side relies heavily on that as a tactic

  24. Can some one please disconfuse me? I've always assumed that a private company could permit or forbid what they wished, as long as they weren't receiving public funds.

  25. Um, the judge in this case did toss out the law, using exactly that logic. The government saying that businesses must host certain types of speech is a violation of their 1st amendment rights.

  26. As long as there is a Fox News and a Newsmax and a Breitbart Abbot has no point and no case. Companies can and do moderate and select their content all the time and it is not the government's role to enforce otherwise.

  27. Jeez, Republicans sure are the party of 'less government' and 'less regulations'. Unless your not a corporation I guess.

  28. “Trump!” is the unabashed policy of the Republican Party in the whole country. Literally nothing is more important to them than measuring how loyal someone is to their God made flesh. Anything less than 100% is apostasy.

  29. It’s alive and well in any rural/suburban area I find. I’m in a blue state but there are tons of people still flying Trump flags or building basically homemade billboards in their yards to expose Qanon and trump bullshit.

  30. I propose a new social media network based entirely on sending pictures of wedding cake decorations.

  31. Personally I don't think speech should be moderated but I do believe peoples access to it should be. Seems conflicting I know.

  32. In his decision, Judge Robert Pitman for the Western District of Texas ...rejected the defendants' argument that such companies are "common carriers,"

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may have missed