Posted on 09/29/2023 8:58:38 PM PDT by bitt
The Supreme Court said Friday it would wade into the future of free speech online and decide whether to allow laws passed in Texas and Florida that would restrict social media companies from removing certain political posts or accounts.
The justices’ decision to take the landmark social media cases came in an order that also added 10 other cases to the calendar for the Supreme Court term that begins Monday. The additional cases concern the FBI’s “no-fly” list, individual property rights and the ability of criminal defendants to confront witnesses against them, among other matters.
Earlier this year, the high court said it would tackle issues in the coming term involving gun regulations, voting rights and the power of federal agencies. As they prepare to begin hearing oral arguments, the justices are facing intense pressure from Democratic lawmakers to address ethics issues confronting some of their colleagues, including potential conflicts in some of the cases.
Tech industry groups, whose members include Facebook and Google’s YouTube, asked the court to block Texas and Florida laws passed in 2021 that regulate companies’ content-moderation policies. The companies say the measures are unconstitutional and conflict with the First Amendment by stripping private companies of the right to choose what to publish on their platforms. The court’s review of those laws will be the highest-profile examination to date of allegations that Silicon Valley companies are illegally censoring conservative viewpoints. Those accusations reached a fever pitch when Facebook, Twitter and other companies suspended then-President Donald Trump’s accounts in the wake of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
P
“what to publish on their platforms. “
sooooo ...they are publishers ?
That’s the first thing I thought, too.
Yes. And no. Whichever gives today’s desired result (actually, they want all the advantages of each)
They are private companies. They can publish all the propaganda they want. The worst thing to do is to limit them. Let people decide what they use the platforms for. Now the establishment of the free press? Different issue. I can start up my own web site. Can the company that hosts the web site shut me down? Most likely yes. It is their platform. Do we need web hosting sites that will allow free speech? yes. You will need all your own infrastructure for the hosting. but it can and should be done. If Musk is smart he will build the other amazon and google platforms to allow that. Trumps? maybe but he is more into branding not pikes and bridges.
“They are private companies. They can publish all the propaganda they want. The worst thing to do is to limit them. Let people decide what they use the platforms for. Now the establishment of the free press? Different issue. I can start up my own web site. Can the company that hosts the web site shut me down? Most likely yes. It is their platform. Do we need web hosting sites that will allow free speech? yes. You will need all your own infrastructure for the hosting. but it can and should be done. If Musk is smart he will build the other amazon and google platforms to allow that. Trumps? maybe but he is more into branding not pikes and bridges.”
Read the district court opinion. This is not companies just doing what they want. The factual case amassed by the Judge is damning to the government.
BTTT
>They can publish all the propaganda they want. <
Then they lose Rule 230 protections and are able to be sued for that propaganda. They cannot have it both ways.
EC
This one is a really tough call. I don’t think the governnment should be telling websites what htey can and can not say or that they have to say something. On the other hand, we clearly have the communists in government telling social media what to say under the current system. And we have blatant collusion by the communists who control the few companies that control 95% of what people see on the internet. That can’t stand.
Perhaps an anti-trust lawsuit would be more appropriate. Along with criminal charges against government officials that conspired to deprive Americans of 1A.... .wishful thinking of course.
“>They can publish all the propaganda they want. <”
“Then they lose Rule 230 protections and are able to be sued for that propaganda. They cannot have it both ways.”
MAGA BUMP!
If it’s not too difficult, can you explain what the District Court ruled that is damning to the government? Thank you.
“If it’s not too difficult, can you explain what the District Court ruled that is damning to the government? Thank you.”
I’d love to be able to summarize it in a paragraph. It is a fact by fact laying out of the massive coercion (all supported by hard evidence) exercised by the feds on the social media companies — all of which was designed to force the regime narratives down our throats by getting social media to censor unapproved narratives — COVID, Biden laptop etc.
It is damning.
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.