Law Texas social media anti-censorship law goes into effect

[Two Crows]

House Bill 20.

It makes it illegal for large companies (50 million plus users) to ban posters or posts due to political orientation. This means YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, et. al.
It also requires public explanation for all deletions/bans/suspensions/etc.

Texas passed it last year, but an immediate suit had put a freeze on the issue while the 5th Appeals court considered it. The companies (NetChoice & CCIAA) argued their ability to curate was innate due to freedom of speech (on the part of the social media company).

They believed the Texas law similar enough to Florida's previous attempt to be ruled unconstitutional, but the 5th Circuit said; "Nope."

The companies that brought the suit are now complaining this law protects all political stances, "extremists" included. The cite "God Bless America" and "Death To America" will now both have to be given a place. (To be honest, I can't recall any major social media site banning/deleting anti-US government posts, but I haven't really gone looking.)

Some believe this protects free speech, others claim it violates it. I think we can agree it certainly expands the arena of public discourse.

Edit: Text of bill
https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/872/billtext/html/HB00020S.htm

SECTION 6. Section 321.105(a), Business & Commerce Code, is
amended to read as follows:
(a) In lieu of actual damages, a person injured by a
violation of this chapter arising from the transmission of an
unsolicited or commercial electronic mail message or by a violation
of Section 321.054 may recover an amount equal to the lesser of:
(1) $10 for each unlawful message or each message
unlawfully impeded, as applicable; or
(2) $25,000 for each day the unlawful message is
received or the message is unlawfully impeded, as applicable.
SECTION 6. Section 321.105(a), Business & Commerce Code, is
amended to read as follows:
(a) In lieu of actual damages, a person injured by a
violation of this chapter arising from the transmission of an
unsolicited or commercial electronic mail message or by a violation
of Section 321.054 may recover an amount equal to the lesser of:
(1) $10 for each unlawful message or each message
unlawfully impeded, as applicable; or
(2) $25,000 for each day the unlawful message is
received or the message is unlawfully impeded, as applicable.

It's going to be a fine system.

 

[shockaholic12]

Forces private media companies to dedicate the platforms they built to host content they do not wish to.

This is like arguing Fox News now needs to open up its TV segments to any political content people wish to air because they are popular.

 

[Letssnuggle]

Forces private media companies to dedicate the platforms they built to host content they do not wish to.

This is like arguing Fox News now needs to open up its TV segments to any political content people wish to air because they are popular.

Lmao, worst analogy ever. Didn't even make sense lol

 

[Letssnuggle]

Free speech is one of the things leftist abhor. Obey.

 

[Crawler89]

This is gonna be one of those things that they are all for when its on their side but not when it gets taken to the extremes and does not support their views

 

[M3t4tr0n]

The right loves government overreach now. Bake that gay cake!

 

[Jack V Savage]

Free speech is one of the things leftist abhor. Obey.

"Free speech" in this case means the exact opposite of free speech. It's forcing people to host comments they don't want to host.

 

[Letssnuggle]

"Free speech" in this case means the exact opposite of free speech. It's forcing people to host comments they don't want to host.

Ummm what? No.

Either big tech is a publisher or they arn't. It's that simple.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Ummm what? No.

Either big tech is a publisher or they arn't. It's that simple.

If they're a publisher they don't get freedom of speech? I think you're confused here.

 

[Letssnuggle]

If they're a publisher they don't get freedom of speech? I think you're confused here.

You're the one asking the question. Yet, I'm the one confused.

Derp.

 

[Poon Goon]

Looks like the mods here had better watch the fuck out. Imagine going to prison in Texas for banning @deadon

 

[Jack V Savage]

You're the one asking the question. Yet, I'm the one confused.

Derp.

Yes, if you believe publishers aren't guaranteed freedom of speech or that freedom of speech means the gov't forces everyone to promote rightism, you are deeply confused.

 

[Siver!]

Free speech is one of the things leftist abhor. Obey.

Watching from afar, it's obvious the right wingers abhor it too.

They can't wait to tell people that BLM incited riots, burned buildings, and that transgenderism is somehow responsible for moral decay.

Both 'sides' are equally whiney when it comes to free speech.

But what an absolute political free-for-all ensures is this: ISIS' chances of recruiting necessarily went up. Now expand that to every terrorist organisation in the world, and failing to suppress their views makes you less safe.

 

[rearnakedchoke]

Funny how they chose 50 million users. That means that only successful companies are in scope. That means truth social is not in scope. And never will be.

 

[HereticBD]

But what an absolute political free-for-all ensures is this: ISIS' chances of recruiting necessarily went up. Now expand that to every terrorist organisation in the world, and failing to suppress their views makes you less safe.

LOL, right to "ISIS wins"...

This will not interfere with them banning terrorist organizations from using their platforms. Not that they ever gave two shits about that anyways. What's the Taliban up to today?

 

[Blayt7hh]

The right loves government overreach now. Bake that gay cake!

Texas is the most hypocritical of all about this. They constantly bitch and whine and act like toddlers refusing to eat their dinner when the government tells them to do something. Then they go and pass the laws that they want to pass to tell people in their state how to be.

Oh, and also as much as the Texas politicians abhor government aid to other states, they have no issues taking it themselves like after the Houston hurricane or demanding that big government come and close their borders.

Texas really has the worst politicians.

 

[Letssnuggle]

Yes, if you believe publishers aren't guaranteed freedom of speech or that freedom of speech means the gov't forces everyone to promote rightism, you are deeply confused.

"if"

And I'm confused?

Obligatory derp.

 

[Siver!]

LOL, this will not interfere with them banning terrorist organizations from using their platforms. Not that they ever gave two shits about that anyways...

Umm.

How do you think terrorist organisations are defined...?

I'm not sure how you say that with a straight face? We've known for a long time that a backdoor to oppression of freedom of speech is simply to label something a terrorist organisation?

Or did you miss the whole 'Proud Boys' thing? They're considered a terrorist organisation in some countries, despite Trump loving them like long lost fascist sons?

 

[Letssnuggle]

Watching from afar, it's obvious the right wingers abhor it too.

They can't wait to tell people that BLM incited riots, burned buildings, and that transgenderism is somehow responsible for moral decay.

Both 'sides' are equally whiney when it comes to free speech.

But what an absolute political free-for-all ensures is this: ISIS' chances of recruiting necessarily went up. Now expand that to every terrorist organisation in the world, and failing to suppress their views makes you less safe.

But what about....

 

[CantCucktheTuck]

Natural reaction to woke tard social media bias.