Court just ruled that media corporations have no 1A-right to censor what users post on them.

[DetlefK]

Remember: The Republicans insist that corporations have First Amendment rights... with campaign-donations counting as speech.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/9/18/2123639/-Fifth-Circuit-rewrites-First-Amendment

The reactionary, right-wing Fifth Circuit today published an opinion today which ignores many long years of traditional interpretations of the First Amendment. The decision essentially says that social media platforms do not have the right to enforce terms of service, such as prohibitions against advocating violence, and promoting hate speech.

...

This ruling says that the government can force a private entity to allow users to post any speech they want on servers which the private entity is paying for. Platforms no longer have the right to moderate the speech of their users. Sites like this one could be forced to allow hate speech, spam advertising blogs, blogs promoting the Republican party and Daily Kos has no choice but to let them.

I have a proposal for this:



Terms of Service:

a) This website reserves the right to enact special treatment on media content that promotes violence, hatred, bigotry, criminal and unconstitutional activity, and disinformation.

b) Media content that has been flagged for one or more of these reasons, will be hidden by moderators and will remain hidden until the issue has been resolved.

c) In order to preemptively reimburse the owners of this website for legal costs and loss of business resulting from loss of reputation resulting from hosting the media content in question, the owners of this website hereby agree to un-hide the media content in question for a fee.

d) The fee is one (1) median monthly income of the user who posted this media content in question. The median monthly income of the user is calculated from the income of the last 12 months. Income includes: wages, fiscal bonuses received from an employer, profits from stock/bond/portfolio/crypto/business activity.

e) The user agrees to cooperate in a correct calculation of the fee and a timely payment of the fee.

f) The fee must be paid recurringly on a monthly basis. Failure to do so will cause the media content in question to become hidden again.

g) Failure to cooperate with a correct calculation of the fee and failure to cooperate with the payment of the fee will result in the media content remaining/becoming hidden.

[50 Shades Of Blue]

1. Nex up: Law protecting media corps from lawsuits for damages for harm caused by posts

advocating violence and harm.

[Kaleva]

2. So is DU's TOS no longer applicable?

[Fullduplexxx]

3. uh-oh .... nt

[Kaleva]

5. There is a way to find out

But I already have one hide and I don't want another.

[FBaggins]

8. No... it's still applicable

The law only impacts social media sites with over 50 million monthly visitors

[Kaleva]

13. When did Congress pass that law?

[FBaggins]

16. They didn't. It's a Texas law. Nt

[Kaleva]

17. I should have read the link. So this only applies to Texas

And to platforms with over 50 million subscribers. Not too many of those I imagine.

[FBaggins]

18. Yes and no

The decision applies to TX directly and would be a precedent if either LA or MS decided to pass a similar law.

But the social media companies can't easily provide one service in TX and another everywhere else.

[sdfernando]

4. Seems that it would also allow posting

of sexually explicit speech as well as violence and hate speech. Not a well thought out decision.

[FBaggins]

10. I don't think so

Political speech is the core of the first amendment. Though other speech is also protected, there are higher court rulings allowing restrictions on things like sexually explicit material or inciting violence.

Hate speech is more challenging

[sdfernando]

11. I think some might find a way around that by

Keeping it all in a political context.

[ZonkerHarris]

6. Can a newspaper refuse an ad by a Nazi group then?

[chowder66]

7. So now they have to post every potential murderers manifesto?

[emulatorloo]

9. Sorry idiot judge, 1st amendment only applies to the govt suppressing speech

Another Trump University graduate?

[intheflow]

12. Obviously.

If the judge really believed this, he’d have mentioned how wrong Citizens United was. But he’s a Repuke so I’m sure he loves “corporations are people” when they want to allow anyone to discriminate against thoughts/opinions/“lifestyles” he disagrees with.

[moondust]

14. Unlike the Fairness Doctrine ruling?

Which basically said the government cannot regulate content on privately owned media. So now privately owned media cannot regulate content on its own platforms?

WTF?

[ProfessorGAC]

15. Didn't Citizens United Suggest The Opposite?

From Wikipedia

It was argued in 2009 and decided in 2010. The court held 5-4 that the free speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political campaigns by corporations, including nonprofit corporations, labor unions, and other associations.

Conservative judges said private corporations had 1st amendment rights.
How can they both have & not have the same rights under the same amendment.
The decision seems silly.

[EnergizedLib]

19. Who are the real activists, again?

*Congress* shall make no law. It has nothing to do with corporations or entities.