.png "back to home page")
It really is. I really really really have tried to defend our legal system and our judges but you just can’t - in this face of stuff like this. It’s GOP homer Justice. They are political activists. Not judges. https://t.co/1i6lDOuB9b
— Jeff Kemp (@jkempcpa) September 17, 2022
Judge Edith Jones remains undefeated.
— Corbin K. Barthold (@corbinkbarthold) September 16, 2022
It's not editorial control, guys. It's algorithmic magic. pic.twitter.com/wrYGqETzdP
Is Texas' social media law an absolute disaster for content moderation? Yes. Yes it is. https://t.co/ePUvDQeJZe
— Eva (@evacide) September 16, 2022
Under this court ruling, US states can now compel speech.
— Nicholas Grossman (@NGrossman81) September 17, 2022
The "arguments sound much more like the arguments made by ignorant trolls... than anyone with any knowledge or experience with 1st Amendment law."
Good @mmasnick write-up of this bananas decision. https://t.co/O8usid4wOL
It really is the most angrily incoherent First Amendment decision I think I’ve ever read.
— WontonKillingHat (@Popehat) September 16, 2022
Set your VPN to Texas and you can say whatever you want on twitter https://t.co/TY4O1sZO1O
— davis 🐺🦊 (@basedkarbon) September 17, 2022
same people asserting that platforms cannot ‘censor’ speech are demanding that libraries must censor books. 🙃
— David Kaye (@davidakaye) September 16, 2022
The problem with this argument is that you can't just carve "editorial judgment" out of the First Amendment by recasting it as "censorship." You need at the very least to offer a principle that distinguishes one from the other. No such principle is offered here. pic.twitter.com/PcOIl1erIe
— Jameel Jaffer (@JameelJaffer) September 16, 2022
Today's decision lets the Texas law go into effect
— Berin Szóka 🇺🇦🌐 (@BerinSzoka) September 16, 2022
Or, more precisely, it removes the district court's injunction, thus forcing the platforms to ask either the full Fifth Circuit en banc or SCOTUS to review the law on an emergency basis and stay its enforcement in the meantime pic.twitter.com/HAFST3Kr0u
This part is so good. Big Tech can't justify their censorship regime by claiming free speech rights while at the same time also claiming Section 230 protections. You can't be a publisher while also claiming not to be a publisher. Beautiful. https://t.co/nWWR4shQXC https://t.co/UCCGqiMKmX pic.twitter.com/isl7yRZTl5
— Hans Mahncke (@HansMahncke) September 16, 2022
And in Halleck (2019), Judge Kavanaugh, writing for the conservative majority, was very clear: "merely hosting speech by others is not a traditional, exclusive public function and does not alone transform private entities into state actors subject to First Amendment constraints.”
— Berin Szóka 🇺🇦🌐 (@BerinSzoka) September 16, 2022
This ⤵️ is the key news from today's ruling: Texas' anti-content moderation law is now in effect.
— Adam Kovacevich (@adamkovac) September 16, 2022
Likely next steps:
- NetChoice/CCIA files emergency injunction req to Alito
- Alito can rule or refer to whole court (as he did with injunction) https://t.co/ZmtvuDWf5l
When you ask me how you take your country back- this type of commitment to the US Constitution, on a state level, is how. (And repentance & prayer) https://t.co/1wEjXOIBQx
— Monica Matthews On Air 🇺🇸🇹🇼 (@monicaonairtalk) September 17, 2022
This is the key error. Just b/c the majority of content users post doesn’t offend the community doesn’t mean platforms can’t exercise editorial discretion over *any* content. On this logic, the more cohesive the community, the better the editorial judgment, the less 1A protection https://t.co/DFr3ukVjr2
— Geoffrey Manne (@geoffmanne) September 16, 2022
Watch this case: the 5th Circuit / 11th Circuit split makes this a very likely case to head to the Supreme Court — where decades of 1st Amendment precedent will be tested. @b_fung https://t.co/uQBBTsS70G
— Poppy Harlow (@PoppyHarlowCNN) September 17, 2022
Texas’s bizarre social media law- the one that blocks content moderation- only applies to sites with more than 50 million active users.
— Alex Wild (@Myrmecos) September 18, 2022
Wonder if Twitter is close enough to that threshold to get serious about the troll farm purges this site so desperately needs.
A ruling arguing that websites are obligated to carry your message once you post it online can’t backfire, right? https://t.co/hcgvjWyLlh
— Dare Obasanjo (@Carnage4Life) September 18, 2022
This ruling cannot be allowed to stand. The party of “small government” continues to overstep its boundaries when it’s convenient to them. https://t.co/VTeLN8ZFi0
— Matt Kilboy (@mattkilboy) September 17, 2022
The full opinion is worth the read.
— Preston Park (@pjparkjd) September 17, 2022
🤠 See the 5th Circuit throwing shade at the 11th.
🤠 Confirm that big tech uses § 230 as a license to slander by curation.https://t.co/jx2H5nEFh6 pic.twitter.com/sMJlV04Q8W
lol no
— Berin Szóka 🇺🇦🌐 (@BerinSzoka) September 16, 2022
The Packingham Court referred to tech companies as "town squares" in a purely colloquial sense. The case involved a state law compelling tech companies not to host sex offenders, so the Court didn't say anything about whether they were public fora absent such compulsion pic.twitter.com/17Mb5Io6Pj
1/2: The court’s use of the word “platforms” very purposefully obscures the fact that Twitter, Facebook, et al. are Web sites. Regardless of how many employees or offices they have around the world, they remain, at heart, dorm-room creations - NOT “communication firms”.
— Kevin S. Ford (@WriterKevin) September 16, 2022
So, on the NetChoice decision, lots more to say - but on the 2nd page, there's just no universe in which this is remotely true. If you think Twitter is a "monopolist" of the "modern public square" you need to touch a lot of grass. Or lay off a lot of it. Either way. pic.twitter.com/y5lDohgQGf
— Casey Mattox (@CaseyMattox_) September 16, 2022
WAPO: In unprecedented deprivation of free speech, 5th Circuit crazies hold that Texas law depriving social media companies of the right to moderate content is valid. The law is that your use of social media is bound by the user contract, not the Constitution. Batshit crazy.
— LiberalNavySeal1 (@LeftyNavySeal) September 17, 2022
Every edgy comedian is about to move to Texas. https://t.co/5xwvZ9zId3
— meme bastard charles khan (@mask_bastard) September 17, 2022
BREAKING: I just secured a MASSIVE VICTORY for the Constitution & Free Speech in fed court: #BigTech CANNOT censor the political voices of ANY Texan! The 5th Circuit “reject[s] the idea that corporations have a freewheeling First Amendment right to censor what people say. pic.twitter.com/UijlzYcv7r
— Attorney General Ken Paxton (@KenPaxtonTX) September 16, 2022
Even for such a badly reasoned opinion, this is just embarrassing. The court is saying that the platforms getting Section 230 protection against liability somehow means they don't have First Amendment rights
— Berin Szóka 🇺🇦🌐 (@BerinSzoka) September 16, 2022
Literally Day One of Law School: statutes can't trump the Constitution pic.twitter.com/cgRVvXXv1Q
"It is my political view that trans people are groomers sexualizing children and they should be rounded up and executed."
— Alejandra Caraballo (@Esqueer_) September 17, 2022
Shocking? Twitter would be unable to remove this statement under Texas' social media law that the 5th Circuit put back into effect today.
Under *current* law in several states, government can now compel any speech it wants on private property. The First Amendment only limits state power to remove speech, while leaving open the power of the state to compel publishers to speak.https://t.co/NsiP1iBbcJ
— Eric Owens (@ericowensdc) September 17, 2022
Current feels: Watching a judge describe my research area as "algorithmic magic" motivates me to do the science. https://t.co/SAkiGFS8DV
— J. Nathan Matias (@natematias) September 17, 2022
Just to be clear this ruling means that companies can no longer choose how to operate their business they cannot make decisions based on profitability or user safety. They are restricted from running their business how they see fit. https://t.co/M9AF4n7oFs
— David Roth (@rothforIdaho) September 17, 2022
If you’re looking for a good overview of just how practically and legally bonkers yesterday’s Fifth Circuit ruling upholding Texas’s ban on content moderation by large social media platforms truly is, @mmasnick has you covered over at @techdirt:https://t.co/maqDjH8UIr
— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) September 17, 2022
wild how the “we don’t want to be europe” people just continue to force all the shittiest features of europe on us https://t.co/TmqGhMWtYl
— kilgore trout, death to putiner (@KT_So_It_Goes) September 16, 2022
Hilariously, just after tweeting this nonsense, Paxton retweeted a claim about how he was trying to stop "activist judges."
— Mike Masnick (@mmasnick) September 17, 2022
Anyway, congrats to Paxton for saying that companies no longer have free speech rights. Can't see how that might backfire at all, no. https://t.co/TIuMr1Qpgt
The 5th circuit just ruled that companies can't censor or moderate their own platforms https://t.co/ffENJB11UC
— Fernando Gallo (@FernandoRGallo) September 17, 2022
“The future of how the internet works is very much at stake with this one.”https://t.co/CLhHz2kwDZ
— Matt Schruers (@MSchruers) September 17, 2022
The court's conclusion rests on the idea that no one could reasonably connect the platform to the speech they carry
— Berin Szóka 🇺🇦🌐 (@BerinSzoka) September 16, 2022
Tell that to Disney, which decided not to buy Twitter in 2016 because of, as its then-CEO put it, "all the hate speech"https://t.co/EjOoz5qgRh pic.twitter.com/LNpxqFNx6C
This is really bad. Stopping platforms from removing "viewpoint based" expression protects racists and nazis, and overrules decades or precedent. Great day for hate speakers, a terrible day for #1A and the US constitution. https://t.co/5E2jp9GsOA
— michael petricone (@mpetricone) September 16, 2022
NEW: Big court win in the effort to end Big Tech’s unchecked censorship.
— Brendan Carr (@BrendanCarrFCC) September 16, 2022
Fifth Circuit rejects a First Amendment challenge to the Texas social media law.
“Today we reject the idea that corporations have a freewheeeling First Amendment right to censor what people say.” https://t.co/3ueNCuUkRr pic.twitter.com/QF9B1tnTyV
As ever, @mmasnick explains it all, even when what he has to explain is utter idiocy.
— Jeff Jarvis (@jeffjarvis) September 17, 2022
5th Circuit Rewrites A Century Of 1st Amendment Law To Argue Internet Companies Have No Right To Moderate https://t.co/uaasLLhI4U via @Techdirt
Huge news!
— Kari Lake (@KariLake) September 17, 2022
Thank you, @KenPaxtonTX and for taking up this fight to help restore Free Speech. https://t.co/Nmk6WV8n8I
Overall, this is a bad opinion. The TX law presents some very difficult questions, but simply relabeling "editorial judgment" as "censorship" doesn't help us answer them. Let's hope SCOTUS takes these questions more seriously. I assume that's where this case is going next. pic.twitter.com/lZ0yviJVYn
— Jameel Jaffer (@JameelJaffer) September 16, 2022
The good news is that it’s not long for this world. #SCOTUS has already blocked #HB20, and the circuit split with the 11th Circuit will almost surely be resolved in the latter’s favor.
— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) September 16, 2022
The bad news is that it’s not an outlier; it’s emblematic of what this court does every day. https://t.co/zgoZLUghoc
Holy shit, this is bad. They just upheld Texas' awful social media law.
— Radley Balko (@radleybalko) September 16, 2022
Oldham, Southwick, and Jones is a hell of a trio. https://t.co/AsQNV28sf2
The 5th Circuit has completely upended and rewritten the 1st Amendment. This is an astoundingly stupid ruling. https://t.co/zp6tvvWamL
— Mike Masnick (@mmasnick) September 16, 2022
The court refused to strike down the TX law as facially unconstitutional because of overbreadth, suggesting that it would have to be challenged as to specific applications
— Berin Szóka 🇺🇦🌐 (@BerinSzoka) September 16, 2022
Just like Florida's 1903 must-carry mandate was unconstitutional as applied to all newspapers all the time? pic.twitter.com/Cx9Gmqy1Gq
Grateful that, per usual, @mmasnick was able to quickly get some smart analysis together of this catastrophically bad 5th Circuit ruling. Really really dangerous development for the First Amendment, and it's hard to see how it gets better https://t.co/KxUKMcbacb
— Parker Higgins (@xor) September 16, 2022
The Fifth Circuit has published its opinion upholding HB 20 in Texas and everyone who cares about content moderation is going to be spending the weekend explaining why this is extremely bad: https://t.co/3W2eZsQPfp
— Eva (@evacide) September 16, 2022
A ruling arguing that websites are obligated to carry your message once you post it online can’t backfire, right? https://t.co/hcgvjWyLlh
— Dare Obasanjo (@Carnage4Life) September 18, 2022
U.S. appeals court rejects big tech's right regulate online speechhttps://t.co/vF21p0nqQO
— Whole Mars Catalog (@WholeMarsBlog) September 17, 2022
U.S. appeals court rejects big tech's right regulate online speech | Reuters Google, Meta, Twitter lose censorship ability in court! https://t.co/khrHgdtGZu
— Jillylove (@jillylove101) September 17, 2022
U.S. appeals court rejects big tech's right to regulate online speech | Reuters https://t.co/J1W3mdJxNc
— Karl Harrison (@KarlDHarrison) September 17, 2022
Ok, I apologize as I wrote this faster than usual. Please excuse (and notify me of) typos and such. And there is going to be much more to write on this awful, awful ruling, but... https://t.co/97O9W1HCAT
— Mike Masnick (@mmasnick) September 16, 2022
“The future of how the internet works is very much at stake with this one.”https://t.co/CLhHz2kwDZ
— Matt Schruers (@MSchruers) September 17, 2022
- 미국 연방 항소법원, 빅테크 기업들이 '위험'하다고 판단되는 컨텐츠를 자체 검열하는 것을 금지. 이는 사용자들의 표현의 자유를 제한하는 것이라고 판단
— Michael Shin (@Michael81491472) September 19, 2022
- 빅테크 기업들은 플랫폼이 규제되지 않는다면 폭력이 이어질 수 있다며 콘텐츠를 규제할 권리가 필요하다는 입장 https://t.co/bsiTJ8SdRO