Crime TX passes anti deplatforming bill for tech companies

[Clifford_Harris]

If public officials were using sherdog as a major forum of communication with constituents, then they wouldn't be allowed to either.

Yes, yes Sherdog would.

 

[Queen B]

Id like to see Conservatives try to defend this, since they accused CCP of doing the same thing

 

[Matsukaze]

No instead of doing something useful, it seems the GOP is only interested in stunt legislation and regulating businesses. That appears to be the only two planks in their party platform anymore.

They are just trying to balance out the radical left from shitting America down the toilet. Miyagi said it's about balance Danielson

 

[jefferz]

Hey conservatives, this is what an actual First Amendment violation looks like.

 

[Scheme]

The double-speak in this thread is too much. So passing a bill that will encourage more people to freely voice their opinions on these platforms is anti-freedom of speech? How does that work exactly?

And if Facebook, Twitter, etc. want to act like publishers then they have to follow the same laws as publishers, which have long included the ability to be sued for false and defamatory information. They have been exempt on based on the premise that they are a platform, not a publisher. But selectively publishing certain viewpoints and censoring others sure sounds like a publisher to me. If they were subject to the same laws as other publishers of information, their company would quickly go bankrupt.

 

[Jack V Savage]

The double-speak in this thread is too much. So passing a bill that will encourage more people to freely voice their opinions on these platforms is anti-freedom of speech? How does that work exactly?

The gov't forcing people to host users who have violated whatever terms they set is very obviously an attack on freedom of speech.

And if Facebook, Twitter, etc. want to act like publishers then they have to follow the same laws as publishers, which have long included the ability to be sued for false and defamatory information.

Note that this is a totally separate issue so this talking point doesn't fit in the thread. But also, FB, Twitter, etc. already follow the same laws as publishers. Neither they nor publishers are liable for comments made by people who use their sites to comment; all are liable for things their employees say that they publish.

They have been exempt on based on the premise that they are a platform, not a publisher. But selectively publishing certain viewpoints and censoring others sure sounds like a publisher to me. If they were subject to the same laws as other publishers of information, their company would quickly go bankrupt.

No, they have been on the premise that we have freedom of speech in America. You're confused. Companies of all kinds are liable for what they publish and not for what they just host. Furthermore, the primary beneficiaries of that protection are rightist shitposters.

 

[Scheme]

The gov't forcing people to host users who have violated whatever terms they set is very obviously an attack on freedom of speech.



Note that this is a totally separate issue so this talking point doesn't fit in the thread. But also, FB, Twitter, etc. already follow the same laws as publishers. Neither they nor publishers are liable for comments made by people who use their sites to comment; all are liable for things their employees say that they publish.



No, they have been on the premise that we have freedom of speech in America. You're confused. Companies of all kinds are liable for what they publish and not for what they just host. Furthermore, the primary beneficiaries of that protection are rightist shitposters.

If you as a company choose what content is available on a site, you are a publisher. Twitter, Facebook, etc. are choosing what to have on their website beyond what the First Amendment allows, therefore they are publishers. They are playing both sides of the ball and are allowed to because their lobbying.

Let's say I have a platform that allows anyone to post, but I ban anyone who doesn't post that Joe Biden and the democrats touch little children, as that's in my ToS. Is the platform a "free speech platform" protected from all liable and slander laws? Obviously not, since I am only choosing to publish a slanderous viewpoint. Facebook and Twitter are essentially the same thing but to a much lesser extent. In fact they blur the lines even further with how they recommend stories, people to follow, "trending" stories/people, fact checks, etc. They clearly push certain stories, viewpoints and narratives, and are supposed to be completely free of consequence? I suppose corporations are better than people ultimately, why should they have to face the same consequences?.

 

[KAZSoliloquy]

Let's say I have a platform that allows anyone to post, but I ban anyone who doesn't post that Joe Biden and the democrats touch little children, as that's in my ToS. Is the platform a "free speech platform" protected from all liable and slander laws? Obviously not, since I am only choosing to publish a slanderous viewpoint. Facebook and Twitter are essentially the same thing but to a much lesser extent.

 

[Bald1]

I think the question to answer before anything like this takes place is "Is social media a platform, outlet or utility?"

 

[jx820]

The Texas GOP doesn't expect this to become law. They know full well it wont stand up in court. Even with the supreme court stacked for them.

This is about their base seeing them being tough. When it's shot down they can blame "liberal activist judges" in the press for bonus points with the dummies who think this is real policy.

 

[panamaican]

This should probably lose in the same way as the Florida law.

But more compellingly is how we're seeing these model legislation outsourcing groups run these bills through various states, even as they fail over and over again. I can't tell if it's ramping up or just more obvious.

 

[12ga.]

I happen to agree. These sites are like public utilities at this point and should be regulated and banning speech is anathema to our 1st Amendment.

That said threats and violence has no place just like it doesn't in public sphere.

 

[Scerpi]

I think the question to answer before anything like this takes place is "Is social media a platform, outlet or utility?"

It depends on the context and how it will benefit the company.... It changes to suit their needs.

 

[12ga.]

Vaudeville politics is just about all the GOP has left. It's really sad what has happened to the party, I voted republican in my first few elections but left when that POS Gingrich took over. It has been going down hill ever since. Now they are off the fucking rails and their base just seems to eat it up with a fork and spoon. It's like WTF? The difference is night and day.

I've never voted republican in 35 years of voting. My parents have FDR and Jack Kennedy portraits hanging in the entryway to this day and banning speech has no place in USA. Democrat through and through in my family. I think you'll find speech bans and google rankings and such always hurt the left most if you look into it. And certainly will in as time goes on and we try and address issues of income inequality or enviroment.. Billionaires will look out for their own first and foremost.

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/thought-police-21st-century/

 

[Jack V Savage]

If you as a company choose what content is available on a site, you are a publisher. Twitter, Facebook, etc. are choosing what to have on their website beyond what the First Amendment allows, therefore they are publishers. They are playing both sides of the ball and are allowed to because their lobbying.

As I said, that's not even relevant to this discussion. People are just blindly repeating talking points here without regard to whether they even apply. But also, you can call them publishers if you want (and you don't care about accuracy). There's no system where the gov't registers you as a "publisher" and then you lose your rights (the "lobbying" comment is just bizarre). That's completely antithetical to what we're about as a nation.

Let's say I have a platform that allows anyone to post, but I ban anyone who doesn't post that Joe Biden and the democrats touch little children, as that's in my ToS. Is the platform a "free speech platform" protected from all liable and slander laws?

Let's say you have a platform that allows anyone to post, and some users post libelous comments. The users are responsible for their comments, and you are not. That's true regardless of what your business is. If, in an editorial comment or your published rules, you call for libelous comments, sure, you're going to be vulnerable. Again, that's true regardless of what you call your business.

Obviously not, since I am only choosing to publish a slanderous viewpoint. Facebook and Twitter are essentially the same thing but to a much lesser extent. In fact they blur the lines even further with how they recommend stories, people to follow, "trending" stories/people, fact checks, etc. They clearly push certain stories, viewpoints and narratives, and are supposed to be completely free of consequence? I suppose corporations are better than people ultimately, why should they have to face the same consequences?.

Yes, those of us who support freedom of speech don't believe in gov't-imposed consequences for saying dumb shit. Also, off the main subject, but you might want to look at what Facebook actually pushes (top 10 posts are almost always all hard-right propaganda).

 

[Jack V Savage]

I think the question to answer before anything like this takes place is "Is social media a platform, outlet or utility?"

How TF would a social media company be a utility?

 

[Bald1]

How TF would a social media company be a utility?

How would the telephone? Yet it's considered to be a public utility.

 

[Jack V Savage]

How would the telephone? Yet it's considered to be a public utility.

Yeah, a telephone provides an essential service. A particular website doesn't. Come on, you know that's a silly comparison.

 

[MoparOrNoCar]

Liberals pretending to fight for equality this whole time when all they've wanted all along was their own version of segregation.

 

[Scheme]

As I said, that's not even relevant to this discussion. People are just blindly repeating talking points here without regard to whether they even apply. But also, you can call them publishers if you want (and you don't care about accuracy). There's no system where the gov't registers you as a "publisher" and then you lose your rights (the "lobbying" comment is just bizarre). That's completely antithetical to what we're about as a nation.



Let's say you have a platform that allows anyone to post, and some users post libelous comments. The users are responsible for their comments, and you are not. That's true regardless of what your business is. If, in an editorial comment or your published rules, you call for libelous comments, sure, you're going to be vulnerable. Again, that's true regardless of what you call your business.



Yes, those of us who support freedom of speech don't believe in gov't-imposed consequences for saying dumb shit. Also, off the main subject, but you might want to look at what Facebook actually pushes (top 10 posts are almost always all hard-right propaganda).

Please stop the double-speak of saying you are defending "free speech" when in fact you are defending a "platforms" right to deny people's free speech. A platform doesn't have free speech, as a platform cannot speak. A platform is a city square, the city square is not able to speak. The only people having their free speech rights denied are the users who are refused access to the city square despite not breaking any free speech rules.

Section 230 states that these big tech platforms should not be treated as publishers if they are just providing the platform. However, since they are choosing what and what not to publish, they are acting as a publisher, and should no longer enjoy the liability shield that protects them from being sued into oblivion.