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

41–47 of 47 posts

Re: Texas’ Unconstitutional Social Media Law Allowed to Proceed

#41

Post by Manuel_D »

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.

Those are specific issues around as advertising. They do not generalize to social media companies.

Re: Texas’ Unconstitutional Social Media Law Allowed to Proceed

#42

Post by panarky »

capguy255 wrote: post #14

The unintended consequences of this seem off the charts. It's not clear what type of moderation is acceptable under the law. The law was designed to target big sites, but very little stops someone from registering tens of millions of users on a site with a particular slant, posting something that will obviously get moderated, and then suing the site. I can imagine that both active moderation and meta-moderation by vo…

> The law was designed to target big sites

Curious that "big site" is defined as 50 million users and not, say, 1 million users.

Maybe because the right-wing authors of this law want right-wing sites to be able to grow and still be exempt from the law, to allow right-wing communities to continue censoring views they don't like.

For example, Truth Social (2 million users), Gettr (3 million users) and Gab (4 million users).

Re: Texas’ Unconstitutional Social Media Law Allowed to Proceed

#43

Post by triceratops »

tomohawk wrote: post #36
triceratops wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can't just start a restaurant (a private company) and say no blacks allowed But you can ban people who start restaurants and say "no blacks allowed". Do you see the difference the two groups? One is what people are. The other is what they say or do. Discrimination based on the the first is illegal. Discrimination based on the second is not.

You are assuming the answer. We are currently having an argument as to whether such discrimination should be allowed. Given we have a right to free speech, and that this is not allowed to be infringed on by any US government, does that not also extend to the government actively protecting that right from those who would seek to infringe on it? There is quite a body of law that says that the government should do just…

> does that not also extend to the government actively protecting that right from those who would seek to infringe on it?

Surely then you'd be ok with me camping on your lawn day and night with a sign to attempt to change your mind? And following you around to grocery stores, restaurants, the gym, your place of worship etc? Obviously your workplace or people whose houses you visit would have no right to kick me out either? The government must protect this infringement upon my free speech, no? I mean, I'm not saying anything illegal so you have to allow it everywhere.

Re: Texas’ Unconstitutional Social Media Law Allowed to Proceed

#45

Post by rayiner »

gamblor956 wrote: post #37
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.

The "left's" position is that both are free speech. Free speech means that someone is allowed to engage in speech, not that they are immune from the social or market consequences for their speech. The "left's" contention with Citizens United was that spending money was treated as speech. But spending money is not speech. It's an act. Speech is content.

> The "left's" contention with Citizens United was that spending money was treated as speech. But spending money is not speech. It's an act. Speech is content.

Citizens United involved creating and distributing a movie about Hilary Clinton. Spending money was incidental to the speech.

Twitter spends money on its platform too. Does that give the government power to regulate what Twitter publishes?

Re: Texas’ Unconstitutional Social Media Law Allowed to Proceed

#46

Post by tomohawk »

bandyaboot wrote: post #38
tomohawk wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are assuming the answer. We are currently having an argument as to whether such discrimination should be allowed. Given we have a right to free speech, and that this is not allowed to be infringed on by any US government, does that not also extend to the government actively protecting that right from those who would seek to infringe on it? There is quite a body of law that says that the government should do just…

That’s a really roundabout way of saying “The government isn’t allowed to infringe on speech (generally speaking), therefore the government should be compelled to intervene when a private entity infinges on the principles of free speech on its private property”. It’s a non sequitur, and even as non sequiturs go, this is a particularly unserious one.

The federal government can, and will intervene when state or local governments infringe on peoples rights. It happens all the time.

So the federal government is already doing way more than just not infringing. It's also protecting.

Twitter, Facebook, and other monopolies have more power than state or local governments to infringe, so obviously the federal government should intervene to protect people's rights.

Re: Texas’ Unconstitutional Social Media Law Allowed to Proceed

#47

Post by MichaelZuo »

tomohawk wrote: post #46
bandyaboot wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s a really roundabout way of saying “The government isn’t allowed to infringe on speech (generally speaking), therefore the government should be compelled to intervene when a private entity infinges on the principles of free speech on its private property”. It’s a non sequitur, and even as non sequiturs go, this is a particularly unserious one.

The federal government can, and will intervene when state or local governments infringe on peoples rights. It happens all the time. So the federal government is already doing way more than just not infringing. It's also protecting. Twitter, Facebook, and other monopolies have more power than state or local governments to infringe, so obviously the federal government should intervene to protect people's rights.

Twitter, Facebook, et al. have the power to arrest you and seize your home?
Post reply on HN