Federal Court Smacks Down Social Media Platform Censorship

[Grokmaster]

The First Amendment prohibits government censorship and protects private censorship. In a free society, Twitter and Facebook are allowed to make horrible decisions with respect to content moderation, and you are allowed to tell them off and use another service.

- Justin Amash

Wrong. They have been caught restricting OTHER PEOPLES' 1st Amendment rights...hence the ruling that was just handed down.

Fuck Justin Amash.

[ZenMode]

Wrong. They have been caught restricting OTHER PEOPLES' 1st Amendment rights...hence the ruling that was just handed down.

Fuck Justin Amash.

The court is wrong. Nobody has a right to post on Facebook any more than you have a right to shop at Walmart.

[Trumpet]

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/202...m_source=mcotr

Analyzing America


Overall, we rate Analyzing America Questionable based on extreme right-wing bias, promotion of conspiracies and propaganda, poor sourcing, and a failed fact check.

Reasoning: Propaganda, Conspiracy, Poor Sourcing, False Claims
Bias Rating: EXTREME RIGHT
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Country: USA
Press Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: Medium Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/analyzing-america/

[Grokmaster]

The court is wrong. Nobody has a right to post on Facebook any more than you have a right to shop at Walmart.

NO THEY ARE NOT. THEY HAVE BEEN GIVEN EXCEPTION TO FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTIONS FOR THEIR SUSBSCRIBERS...UNTIL NOW.

NATURALLY LEFTISTS ARE UPSET THAT THEY CANNOT PULL THE SHIT TO COVER THEIR LIES ANYMORE.

[ZenMode]

NO THEY ARE NOT. THEY HAVE BEEN GIVEN EXCEPTION TO FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTIONS FOR THEIR SUSBSCRIBERS...UNTIL NOW.

NATURALLY LEFTISTS ARE UPSET THAT THEY CANNOT PULL THE SHIT TO COVER THEIR LIES ANYMORE.

The Constitution protects our free speech, and other rights, from infringement by the Government, not private entities. If Facebook or Twitter wants to ban every subscriber except black, trans activists, that's is absolutely within their right. They own the business. If Trump's Truth Social wants to ban every Democrat, that's within their right.

Twitter, Facebook and Truth Social are welcome to allow all of the lying they want.

[domer76]

The court is wrong. Nobody has a right to post on Facebook any more than you have a right to shop at Walmart.

The court was actually correct when it said that the platforms invoked their own 1st Amendment right to censor. That makes no sense. They do have the ability to censor, merely not a 1st Amendment right to do so.

Don’t know why their lawyers tried that tactic.

[ZenMode]

The court was actually correct when it said that the platforms invoked their own 1st Amendment right to censor. That makes no sense. They do have the ability to censor, merely not a 1st Amendment right to do so.

Don’t know why their lawyers tried that tactic.

Giving constitutional rights to a business is definitely strange. No constitutional rights are needed for a business to decide who it chooses to do business with.

[Doc Dutch]

Giving constitutional rights to a business is definitely strange. No constitutional rights are needed for a business to decide who it chooses to do business with.

It's been that way for decades. I tend to agree that giving a corporation the same rights as a citizen is a huge mistake.

[ZenMode]

It's been that way for decades. I tend to agree that giving a corporation the same rights as a citizen is a huge mistake.

I'm aware of one very limited situation, I believe it's regarding election contributions, where the courts have treated business or non-profits like citizens as far as a "right" goes. In this situation, neither player, customer or business, has any inherent rights to free speech. Free speech rights exist between the government and citizens. Business are just allowed to decide who they do business with. Twitter and Facebook are under no obligation to allow any one individual onto their platform. If they want to ban every single person who spreads elections lies, they are permitted to. If they want to ban every male who admits to wearing spanx, they are permitted to. There is no "constitution" between business and customer.

[domer76]

Giving constitutional rights to a business is definitely strange. No constitutional rights are needed for a business to decide who it chooses to do business with.

Unless they are in violation of civil rights laws.

But, then again, what was that stupid SCOTUS decision equating corporations with people? Citizens United, I think.

[Doc Dutch]

Unless they are in violation of civil rights laws.

But, then again, what was that stupid SCOTUS decision equating corporations with people? Citizens United, I think.

It's Congress that's supposed to make the laws. Why won't Congress write a law that downplays the money in politics? Because they don't want to. LOL

It's an example of the foxes guarding the hen house.

[Walt]

Yahoo was better than Google early on, then Google got good around 2004-7, but after that Obama started letting run a bunch of the internet through their servers; That's when the "filtering" began. That's why you search for a truth about Democrats or the 2020 election, the results are inverted.

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

[Flash]

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.

Just what we need--a small government state like Texas imposing more regulations on private business. Corporations did not have a first amendment right to muzzle speech. They have a fundamental freedom to run their business as they choose.

Now, if I start a message board on restaurant reviews or travel, I can't remove a person's post that wants to express his political opinions.

[Walt]

Wrong. They have been caught restricting OTHER PEOPLES' 1st Amendment rights...hence the ruling that was just handed down.

It is their website, they should be allowed to publish whatever they want, without government supervision. Texas demands the "right" to tell publishers who they can and can not publish.

[Grokmaster]

Just what we need--a small government state like Texas imposing more regulations on private business. Corporations did not have a first amendment right to muzzle speech. They have a fundamental freedom to run their business as they choose.

Now, if I start a message board on restaurant reviews or travel, I can't remove a person's post that wants to express his political opinions.

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