U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech
1–10 of 1001 posts
Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech
#2No post body was provided.
Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech
#3As a free-speech absolutist, I got no problem with this. Unless the speech is threatening the direct physical harm of someone, or violating a law, it should be allowed.
At the same time, everyone else should have the tools to filter, block, and mute speech they do not like. If a tweet or a social media post has a certain word or phrase in it that I don’t like, I should be able to mute that and never see it.
Social media really has become something of a scourge on society.
Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech
#4The social media companies (Facebook, Google, Twitter) want legal permission to censor us based on our "viewpoint".
Because if they can't do that, they warn, then "dangerous content" will grow out of control.
This seems like a big nope to me.
Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech
#5Important to note that this 5th Circuit ruling conflicts with the 11th Circuit's ruling. And SCOTUS had previously reinstated an injunction against this very same law.
And this 5th Circuit opinion has very idiosyncratic reasoning [0, just the first few pages will blow your hair back]. A sample:
"In urging such sweeping relief, the platforms offer a rather odd inversion of the First Amendment. That Amendment, of course, protects every person’s right to 'the freedom of speech.' But the platforms argue that buried somewhere in the person’s enumerated right to free speech lies a corporation’s unenumerated right to muzzle speech."
[0]: https://techfreedom.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/2022-09-1...
Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech
#6Seeing as the tech companies have no interest in censoring based on "viewpoint" I don't see what difference this makes. Their entire existence relies on being the single point where everyone goes.
No Republicans have ever been removed solely for being Republican. People are removed for promoting violence and harassing other users.
The fact that Republicans consider violence to be a "viewpoint", and their viewpoint rather than that of a few extremists who use their name -- that worries me. A lot.
Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech
#7As a free-speech absolutist, I got no problem with this. Unless the speech is threatening the direct physical harm of someone, or violating a law, it should be allowed. At the same time, everyone else should have the tools to filter, block, and mute speech they do not like. If a tweet or a social media post has a certain word or phrase in it that I don’t like, I should be able to mute that and never see it. Social me…
As a free-speech absolutist, the basic problem you should have with this is that as precedent, it would lead right into the legislature being able to force the press to publish certain things because not doing so would be 'censorship'.
Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech
#8Seeing as the tech companies have no interest in censoring based on "viewpoint" I don't see what difference this makes. Their entire existence relies on being the single point where everyone goes. No Republicans have ever been removed solely for being Republican. People are removed for promoting violence and harassing other users. The fact that Republicans consider violence to be a "viewpoint", and their viewpoint ra…
You should try to get out of your filter bubble more often.
Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech
#9As a free-speech absolutist, I got no problem with this. Unless the speech is threatening the direct physical harm of someone, or violating a law, it should be allowed. At the same time, everyone else should have the tools to filter, block, and mute speech they do not like. If a tweet or a social media post has a certain word or phrase in it that I don’t like, I should be able to mute that and never see it. Social me…
As a free-speech absolutist, the basic problem you should have with this is that as precedent, it would lead right into the legislature being able to force the press to publish certain things because not doing so would be 'censorship'.
I think this is a case where "free speech absolutism" is not perfectly aligned with "first amendment absolutism", but either is a logically consistent framework.
Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech
#10On the one hand this clearly violates the 1st amendment. On the other hand, the 1st amendment is already out the window when the FBI is leaning on social media platforms to censor news stories that turn out to be true.