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 ...
By the way, the last time I read the Law, Corporations were not “citizens,” and so were not even able to vote.
Perhaps you can school me on that, as well.
Or in the alternate, for the people ranting above, SCOTUS can null Section 230 and thus declare open season on Big Tech in the courts. Everyone has standing! Hopa!
So, you are inferring that a corporation can't regulate speech within their business confines? Or you can't regulate speech within your home? Or a school can't regulate speech withing a classroom? Etcetera.
Perhaps you should give the issue a little more thought.
Just give me chapter and verse (Article and Section) where the Constitution gives the feds power to regulate the private business like Big Tech.
The Right has a sad history of cheering a unconstitutional decision when they THINK it goes in their favor just to find out that eroding the Constitution NEVER works in the favor of those who love freedom.
I’m inferring nothing of the sort.
Do I have a ‘town square’ in my home? Is a corporation’s business confines a ‘town square’?
Are you serious with this BS? Don’t tell people to give more thought to things when this is what you bring to the table. It’s just dumb.
READ the decision. Read the precedents it sites. Stop your knee from jerking and think about this.
Who said anything about feds "regulating private businesses like Big Tech?"
All I said is that Big Tech cannot use the first amendment to justify denying free speech.
-PJ
The feds? Article said it was a Texas law that was upheld not a federal one right?
Few ask the question, that of gov. can force the likes of FB to allow FR and its posters on it, the how can FR zot liberal FB posters from it?
Ma Bell on line 1
Big Tech cannot use the first amendment to justify denying free speech
Why not??
Same reasoning whether it’s a State or US Constitution and believe me, the feds will try to use the same reasoning. What do you think has been going on for the last 120 years in unconstitutionally empowering government more and more and unconstitutionally shrinking individual and private freedom more and more. This is just another example.
Exactly.
“The LAST thing we need is giving the feds MORE unconstitutional power to regulate private parties and private businesses.”
You must not have been paying attention. Giving the feds MORE unconstitutional power, this statement is laughable.
Every large censorship was a direct response from the government. COVID Vaccine Censorship (Govt. enabled), Hunter Biden censorship (Govt. Enabled), Virus coming from Lab Censorship (Govt. Enable), COVID Therapeutics (Govt. enabled), Suppression of Conservatives (Govt. Enabled), Jan 6th Facts Suppresion (Govt. Enabled), Race Baiting Education Suppression (Govt. Enabled), etc...
Biden, DOJ, FBI, are all communicating with social media on the daily to suppress and track anyone that speak out against them or their beliefs. For some reason you think the federal government is not involved? Again that is laughable.
The sad part is in priceable I think you are a 1,000% correct, it is just that reality does not align with your altruism.
This is some very good news.
Look up the concept of The Commons, as it relates to communication.
For an example of how bad your take on it might be, imagine if in the 1960’s, AT&T decided what could be said on their telephones.
They could disconnect your call, or, for repeat ‘offenders’, deny you service.
The best enforcement mechanism is if alternative platforms thrive and abound, based on a promise of no censorship.
“The ONLY legitimacy of applying the first Amendment to private enterprise is the degree of federal control over that private enterprise.
This goes in the WRONG direction.”
This is going in the right direction per your own argument. The feds paid for Facebook and Twitter, control them through regulation, and politically they control them through party affiliation.
The platforms have become de facto public utilities.
Oligopolies (controlled by oligarchs too boot).
There is a case to be made to apply First Amendment here.
In fact, if one looks at how the government is funding all kinds of ridiculous speech with your tax dollars ….. how could you object?
Is trans speech protected speech?
Is pro clot shot speech protected?
Why should a platform that has received millions of $$$ of government money allowed to have it both ways?
These jacker-nauts want to use the First Amendment to talk ill of the Second Amendment. I guess that is legal and fair?
Correct, and this is why, even assuming the USSC upholds the Texas courts decision, nothing will ever come of it.
I said why not in my first post. Go back and reread it.
But if you're too lazy, I'll repeat it here.
The Bill of Rights are the rights inherent in individuals. The right of free speech is given to all of us by our Creator.
There is no right to deny speech, as that is a power of one person over another person.
The Supreme Court overturned Roe on the same grounds. There is no right to an abortion because that requires the involvement of another person, such as a doctor, to perform the abortion. That makes it a transaction that can be regulated. There is the individual right to take a morning-after pill, but not the right to compel another to perform an abortion, even if they would willingly do so.
There is also no right of one to compel the speech of another (pronouns, for example), and there is no right of one to deny the speech of another. There is only the individual right of each of us to speak or not speak.
Therefore, a private business cannot say they have the first amendment right to deny speech, because the first amendment does not recognize that as a right given to us by our Creator.
-PJ
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.