5th Circuit Rules Social Media Companies Not Allowed To 'Censor' Texas Trolls

[Nevilledog]

Link to tweet

https://www.wonkette.com/5th-circuit-rules-social-media-companies-can-t-censor-texas-trolls

For decades, conservatives have insisted that corporations do not need any kind of regulations whatsoever, because the invisible hand of the free market will handle everything. They have even argued that civil rights laws are unnecessary, because public sentiment would lead to discriminatory businesses losing money and being unable to compete with businesses that don't discriminate. Now, anyone with half a brain can see through this nonsense, but they cling to it nonetheless — right up until they see bigots actually losing out in the free market, at which point they demand regulations.

On Friday, in a gross misreading of the First Amendment, the Fifth Circuit upheld a Texas law barring social media companies from "censoring" or "banning" users due to their political ideology, largely agreeing with the ridiculous right-wing argument that social media companies like Twitter and Facebook are "common carriers" like phone companies and therefore should not be allowed to moderate their platforms.

The opinion was written by Trump appointee Judge Andrew Stephen Oldham, joined by Reagan-appointee Judge Edith Jones. Bush II appointee Judge Leslie H. Southwick concurred in part and dissented in part.

A Texas statute named House Bill 20 generally prohibits large social media platforms from censoring speech based on the viewpoint of its speaker. The platforms urge us to hold that the statute is facially unconstitutional and hence cannot be applied to anyone at any time and under any circumstances.

In urging such sweeping relief, the platforms offer a rather odd inversion of the First Amendment. That Amendment, of course, protects every person’s right to “the freedom of speech.” But the platforms argue that buried somewhere in the person’s enumerated right to free speech lies a corporation’s unenumerated right to muzzle speech.

They really love that word, "muzzle."

To be clear, conservatives are not being kicked off Twitter or Facebook for their political ideology. No one has yet to be put in Twitter jail for extolling the virtues of supply-side economics or even for loving Jesus too much. They are being kicked off of these sites for repeatedly using racial slurs; harassing people based on their gender, race, religion, sexual orientation or gender identity; for spreading libelous conspiracy theories; and for pushing snake oil health products that could make people seriously ill. The fact that those who violate these very basic conduct rules are disproportionately politically conservative is no one's fault but their own.

*snip*

[Walleye]

1. So I guess authors can force publishers to publish their books now, huh?

[CentralMass]

2. Can these businesses like Twitter refuse to do business there ?

[mahatmakanejeeves]

3. "5th Circuit Rules ..."

Seriously. I'm signing off.

[Septua]

4. To be clear, conservatives are not being kicked off Twitter or Facebook for their political ideology

"..a few narrow categories of speech are not protected from government restrictions. The main such categories are incitement, defamation, fraud, obscenity, child pornography, fighting words, and threats.

I hope Twitter comes back with that argument.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

5. Are we facing a judicial illiteracy crisis? See 47 U.S. Code § 230

47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material

[ ... ]

(c) Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material

(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
(2) Civil liability
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—

(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph

[ ... ]

(e) Effect on other laws

[ ... ]

(3) State law

Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent any State from enforcing any State law that is consistent with this section. No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section.

[ ... ]

[SWBTATTReg]

6. Ah, so trolls can now go after other trolls? Literally free speech. I almost want to prefer this,

as some trolls who hide in the dark recesses of their basements and troll others just for the hell of it (no rationale in reality) will now be subject to trolling themselves. If the media companies can't or won't moderate content, then I guess we'll have to.

Hate speech I think is still off limits, as it should be. This is akin to yelling FIRE in a crowded theater.

[Caliman73]

7. It isn't the corporation's right to "muzzle speech" it is the corporation's right ...

to create a safe and hospitable place for its users.

No one is stopping Conservatives/Republicans from speaking or posting. They are stopping ANYONE from posting things that VIOLATE their Terms Of Service. False conspiracies, doxing, threats, etc... FROM ANY SIDE. The problem is that while Liberals and people on the left are not immune from such behaviors and violations, it seems that most people on the right ONLY deal in those idiocies.

They are not being targeted for who they are, but WHAT THEY ARE DOING.

When people try to ban Black or Brown people from entering establishments, they are doing so SOLELY because of the color of the skin. The person hasn't even gone into the establishment. If a Black or Brown person goes to a grocery store, causes a scene, tries to steal, or threatens an employee or patron, then the store would be well within its rights to ask the person to leave, or even press criminal charges. The problem is the assumption that Black or Brown people will do so BEFORE anything has happened.

Twitter and other Social Media companies are not banning or suspending Conservatives out of hand. They usually get a number of complaints and go through a corrective process before they suspend anyone.

This ruling sounds stupid.

[Volaris]

8. Even IF they were 'muzzling speech', it's perfectly within their right to do so,

Because it's private fucking property. The ToS is the contract you sigh in order to be welcomed in, and if you act an ass they have every right to require u to leave.

BECAUSE ITS PRIVATE FUCKING PROPERTY and the first amendment in no way applies, AT ALL,TO BEGIN WITH.

I can't come in here and advocate for Republicans to be be elected because ultimately, I'm a guest here, and if I want to be here, I'm required to behave myself accordingly.

It's like a homeowner requiring u to take your shoes off before coming in the house. You're not gonna go file a claim with the local court cause you'd rather act like an ass wtf..