Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Texas’ Unconstitutional Social Media Law Allowed to Proceed

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 47 posts

Re: Texas’ Unconstitutional Social Media Law Allowed to Proceed

#21

Post by TimPC »

rayiner wrote: post #18

Let me see if I understand the left’s conception of free speech here. 1) A corporation producing a political movie about a candidate isn’t free speech. 2) But a corporation censoring content based on political views is free speech.

This might be extremely controversial but I think Facebook should be able to take down pornography on their platform. Since pornography is considered speech in the US that means I’m not a free speech absolutist. I’m not sure where the right line to draw is but it’s clear platforms need some censorship rights over their platforms.

Re: Texas’ Unconstitutional Social Media Law Allowed to Proceed

#22

Post by mikkergp »

This seems like one of the situations where the law is overly broad on-purpose to get reasonable people to take a position on it that seems unreasonable if only taken at face value, but has overly broad implications that reasonable people would be concerned about.

Re: Texas’ Unconstitutional Social Media Law Allowed to Proceed

#23

Post by version_five »

barbacoa wrote: post #19
rudolph9 wrote: post #10

People seem to confuse freedom of speech with antitrust issues when it comes to social media curating content. They’re private companies, they can curate content as they see fit. If someone doesn’t like it, use a different platform. If one platform is too dominant then it’s an antitrust issue.

This argument has become so tiresome. Speech laws become very blurry when it comes to corporations. I'd get in trouble with regulators if I went around saying the herbal supplements I sell cures cancer. Government forces companies to published compelled speech when it comes to food labeling or alcohol/cigarette warnings. Where does the line exist? I don't know and I'd love to see a court rule on this.

No, people like to pretend speech lines get "blurry" so they can push their own agendas. Breaking the law is already illegal. This, and the current debate generally, is about trying to have the government intervene online when people say legal things someone doesn't like, or don't want to host things they don't like.

Re: Texas’ Unconstitutional Social Media Law Allowed to Proceed

#24

Post by dctoedt »

rayiner wrote: post #18

Let me see if I understand the left’s conception of free speech here. 1) A corporation producing a political movie about a candidate isn’t free speech. 2) But a corporation censoring content based on political views is free speech.

1. A corporation is a legal fiction created by government gift to signify that the individuals participating in the corporation's affairs have limited financial exposure when they would otherwise be subject to unlimited exposure for the corporation's debts and liabilities. If, as a condition of that limited liability, a relevant governing body wants to restrict what can be published in the name of a corporation, no individual's free speech is being restricted. Congress should be able to impose such restrictions under the Commerce Clause and/or the Republican Form of Government Clause; states should be able to do so under their general police powers; all subject to the usual constitutional restrictions (equal protection, due process, etc.).

2. A corporation can (or at least should be able to) allow or forbid content on its own platform as it sees fit --- but by the same reasoning as #1, a relevant state legislature should be able impose conditions on limited liability, and logically those conditions could include free-speech [EDIT:] restrictions on content moderation (subject to federal constitutional constraints, e.g., under the Supremacy Clause).

Re: Texas’ Unconstitutional Social Media Law Allowed to Proceed

#25

Post by rayiner »

dctoedt wrote: post #24
rayiner wrote: post #18

Let me see if I understand the left’s conception of free speech here. 1) A corporation producing a political movie about a candidate isn’t free speech. 2) But a corporation censoring content based on political views is free speech.

1. A corporation is a legal fiction created by government gift to signify that the individuals participating in the corporation's affairs have limited financial exposure when they would otherwise be subject to unlimited exposure for the corporation's debts and liabilities. If, as a condition of that limited liability, a relevant governing body wants to restrict what can be published in the name of a corporation, no i…

Without relitigating Citizens United, I would think that content moderation is far less worthy of speech protections than the political movie in Citizens United.

Content moderation is basically house cleaning. Companies do it to make their platforms more pleasant for customers, the same reason stores sweep the floors. But that makes it less deserving of speech protections because it’s not expressive. Put differently, when the ACLU publishes something, people attribute that to the ACLU and the ACLU has the right to control its message. But nobody attributes things people post on Twitter to Twitter.

Re: Texas’ Unconstitutional Social Media Law Allowed to Proceed

#26

Post by h2odragon »

TimPC wrote: post #21
rayiner wrote: post #18

Let me see if I understand the left’s conception of free speech here. 1) A corporation producing a political movie about a candidate isn’t free speech. 2) But a corporation censoring content based on political views is free speech.

This might be extremely controversial but I think Facebook should be able to take down pornography on their platform. Since pornography is considered speech in the US that means I’m not a free speech absolutist. I’m not sure where the right line to draw is but it’s clear platforms need some censorship rights over their platforms.

How about "pornography is OK but only if you're $RACE?"

The issue at issue isn't "can they moderate content" but "should content moderation be applied equally"

Re: Texas’ Unconstitutional Social Media Law Allowed to Proceed

#27

Post by jfengel »

olliej wrote: post #17
fragmede wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because it's a private company doesn't mean zero rules apply to it. You can't just start a restaurant (a private company) and say no blacks allowed.

You can as a restaurant require a certain level of clothing. That can be used for overtly discriminatory purposes, but is allowed. (Some social media) can say “here are the rules you need to conform to: don’t threaten people, don’t propagate racist abuse, etc” they can’t say “we don’t accept black people”, but if they have rules that apply to everyone, then it’s their own right. Musk wants trump on Twitter because mu…

I think he just recognizes that Trump is a money-printing machine for Twitter.

Re: Texas’ Unconstitutional Social Media Law Allowed to Proceed

#28

Post by notreallyserio »

barbacoa wrote: post #20
rayiner wrote: post #18

Let me see if I understand the left’s conception of free speech here. 1) A corporation producing a political movie about a candidate isn’t free speech. 2) But a corporation censoring content based on political views is free speech.

For those who don't get the reference. #1 is referring to the Citizens United SCOTUS ruling.

Oh, so important context was left out. Standard argument technique.

Re: Texas’ Unconstitutional Social Media Law Allowed to Proceed

#29

Post by dctoedt »

rayiner wrote: post #25
dctoedt wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. A corporation is a legal fiction created by government gift to signify that the individuals participating in the corporation's affairs have limited financial exposure when they would otherwise be subject to unlimited exposure for the corporation's debts and liabilities. If, as a condition of that limited liability, a relevant governing body wants to restrict what can be published in the name of a corporation, no i…

Without relitigating Citizens United , I would think that content moderation is far less worthy of speech protections than the political movie in Citizens United. Content moderation is basically house cleaning. Companies do it to make their platforms more pleasant for customers, the same reason stores sweep the floors. But that makes it less deserving of speech protections because it’s not expressive. Put differently…

ISTM that you're putting the cart before the horse: We don't need to be discussing whether content moderation needs speech protection, because the people who advocate for government regulation of content moderation haven't proved up the need for, and appropriateness of, such regulation.

(In litigation terms, since we're both lawyers: It's premature to focus on whether to give platforms free-speech protection for their content moderation would be akin to an affirmative defense: The question doesn't need to be reached unless and until those urging regulation of moderation succeed in making a Twombly/Iqbal plausible case, which in my judgment they haven't.)

Re: Texas’ Unconstitutional Social Media Law Allowed to Proceed

#30

Post by dctoedt »

rayiner wrote: post #25
dctoedt wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. A corporation is a legal fiction created by government gift to signify that the individuals participating in the corporation's affairs have limited financial exposure when they would otherwise be subject to unlimited exposure for the corporation's debts and liabilities. If, as a condition of that limited liability, a relevant governing body wants to restrict what can be published in the name of a corporation, no i…

Without relitigating Citizens United , I would think that content moderation is far less worthy of speech protections than the political movie in Citizens United. Content moderation is basically house cleaning. Companies do it to make their platforms more pleasant for customers, the same reason stores sweep the floors. But that makes it less deserving of speech protections because it’s not expressive. Put differently…

I edited my #2 in my GP post because we might be talking past each other in the second graf of your parent post above.
Post reply on HN