Skip to comments.Federal Court rules Big Tech has no 'freewheeling First Amendment right to censor'
Posted on 09/19/2022 11:52:35 AM PDT by Red in Blue PA
A federal appeals court upheld a Texas law on Friday that seeks to curb censorship by social media platforms. The ruling, a major victory for Republicans who charge companies like Twitter and Facebook are limiting free speech, is a step in a major legal battle that could end up at the Supreme Court.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Yeah good luck enforcing it
If the courts stick to that interpretation, all the way up to SCOTUS, it could eliminate the need for the ever intrusive Congress from butting in and making things worse.
The ONLY legitimacy of applying the first Amendment to private enterprise is the degree of federal control over that private enterprise.
The SOLUTION is to get the feds OUT of private enterprise, NOT to give the feds MORE unconstitutional power to regulate private parties and private businesses.
America is about INVIDUAL FREEDOM FROM GOVERNMENT COERCION.
This goes in the WRONG direction.
Prima facia unconstitutional.
Again, the SOLUTION is
1) get the feds OUT of private enterprise, NOT to give the feds MORE unconstitutional power to regulate private parties and private businesses.
2) Compete with these Lefties in the Feee market the way Trump has with “Truth Social”
The LAST thing we need is giving the feds MORE unconstitutional power to regulate private parties and private businesses.
Good, it’s about time! Just as with AT&T, when a private corporation becomes ubiquitous as a form of mass communication, the 1st amendment must preside.
You should educate yourself more on this subject, read the decision, and read the cited precedents. Especially before getting so worked up over it. That’s something leftists love to do: get all hot and bothered over something they don’t know anything about and haven’t researched.
You need to read the ruling.
The services were the only entities using the First Amendment as their protection. The Court ruled the First Amendment did not protect the IT service entities when they deleted comments from users.
I’ve researched unconstitutional SCOTUS decisions ‘till the cows come home.
YOU don’t know what you’re talking about.
Hint: Unconstitutional SCOTUS decisions do NOT trump the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land (US Const., Art. VI, Cl 2).
Quit enabling the fascists.
Please tell me where the Constitution gives the feds authority to regulate private parties or private industry to do that.
I’ve contended for a while....if you create a FREE virtual public space it should be held to the same free speech standard of a FREE physical public space.
I do not differentiate between the physical vs virtual. If you want to censor you need to make it a PAID and, therefore, PRIVATE space.
I can live in my fantasy land ;p
This decision is 100% correct, fully constitutional, and backed up by USSC precedent. It will stand and it will be affirmed by the USSC when the time comes whether you like it or not.
I could explain, but I have this feeling that I’d be wasting my time.
It all goes sideways when you have big media in collusion with a quasi-fascist government
??? a major victory for all Americans.
The tech media giants are trying to use the first amendment's free speech rights to infer a right to limit speech. That's where the error is.
I understand the corollary argument that the right to peaceably assemble also infers the right to not assemble (i.e., the right to disassociate). That's not what is happening here. It would be like having a business block the right of people to assemble, like having a sports stadium deny entry to conservatives.
The inferred right to block speech is the non sequitur, as it is a third-party power over an individual. The proper inference should be the right of the individual to not participate in speech, such as refusing to participate in pronoun edicts.
If the private tech media outlets want to claim private ownership to bar people from using their products and services, don't couch it as a first amendment right to deny speech.
The USSC has held (quite rightly I might add) that just because a corporation owns a ‘town square’, doesn’t give them the right to stifle speech there.
Large social media companies have created the de facto ‘town square’ of our time.
Social media platforms are used in general and often official communications just as telephone and telegraph. The telephone is not burdened with censorship, why should any of the others be censored? If a reader finds a message offensive, don’t read it and log out of the system.
Section 230, use the SCOTUS 6-3 power to rule it ‘insufficient’ for the means it supposedly ‘tests’, and remand/replace.
It is in a Texas law that says these private entities cannot delete users’ comments based on anything other than established Federal law.
You have no case, sir.
Read the ruling document. It’s a quite nice read:
They’ll still do it. A court ruling isn’t going take that power from them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.