U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech • Hacker News Board

Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech

#51

Post by mustache_kimono » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 1:33 PM UTC

bradleyjg wrote: post #41

mustache_kimono wrote: post #5

Important 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 cours…

It’s a pretty abrupt turnaround from the same legal movement that brought us Citizens United . I’d be interested in a fair (i.e. not overly critical or fawning) book length history of the Federalist Society and how it’s evolved.

I think that history is happening as we speak (Yo, media outlets/reporters interested in writing a feature! This would be an amazing topic.). The crux is really 2016/Trump, Adrian Vermeule's "common good constitutionalism", and outlets like Claremont's The American Mind. For lack of a better term, MAGA conservatives are building an intellectual infrastructure for a very aggressive conservative judiciary right now.

Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech

#52

Post by epistasis » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 1:34 PM UTC

bluejekyll wrote: post #29

mustache_kimono wrote: post #5

Important 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 cours…

The term “conservative” means nothing if you apply it to a court which has overturned years of legal norm across various areas of law.

I think it makes perfect sense if you view the courts as largely a political operation, with a thin veneer of legal language on top.

Given the past decades of highly coordinated--and completely politically motivated--court-stacking, it's probably most accurate to put the political definitions ahead of the legal definitions of conservative.

Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech

#53

Post by andrew_ » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 1:34 PM UTC

freen wrote: post #22

Overtonwindow wrote: post #3

As 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…

[flagged]

No post body was provided.

Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech

#54

Post by mcphage » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 1:34 PM UTC

What constitutes a “viewpoint” in this law?

Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech

#55

Post by andrew_ » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 1:35 PM UTC

msie wrote: post #2

Quoted post unavailable.

Political tribalism is a cancerous disease.

Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech

#56

Post by gruez » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 1:36 PM UTC

Victerius wrote: post #21

Quoted post unavailable.

So to be clear you're advocating for tech companies to ignore the justice system?

Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech

#57

Post by solarmist » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 1:36 PM UTC

Aachen wrote: post #37

evandale wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So as a free-speech absolutist, would you let anyone walk into a Starbucks and start shouting about anything they wanted? Starbucks is on private property. > Would it be okay for them to write a manifesto on the chalkboard next to the barista? The Starbucks chalkboard is privately owned. >Social Media is the same. Privately owned and can set their own standards. No it isn't. Anyone can log into Twitter and Facebook…

I don't see how the heck my website is a public square but my home or café isn't, this argument sounds self-contradictory

Yup. This is the exact problem that we’re (as a society/world) wrestling with.

The reason it is (not just seems) different is because of the scope. A message on a chalkboard cannot reach millions of people (without the internet), but it can on a website.

That by itself distorts the public/private argument, but we as a society aren’t sure how or to what extent yet.

These lawsuits are the second step (the first step was arguing about it in public) of figuring that out.

Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech

#58

Post by vsareto » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 1:39 PM UTC

andrewclunn wrote: post #46

xavor wrote: post #19

It's your right to have an opinion, it's my right not to have to listen to it.

That's easy enough, don't read it, turn off your computer, follow the people saying things you want to hear from, etc... Oh you mean you don't want ANYONE to potentially hear those things, so that you might not accidentally come across a position you don't like? Yeah, that's called being fragile, and the sort of people you will empower if you push for that as policy are those who are more than happy to control the fl…

You can equally make the argument that whining about a post removed is also being fragile, just go to a different website, turn off the computer, start your own blog, etc.

The difference now is that corporations have to allow this, and that if you don't want to deal with that content, you essentially have to not start a company because you can't moderate it, so it closes the door to the freedom of running opinionated companies, which is anti-thetical to conservative viewpoints.

Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech

#59

Post by Victerius » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 1:41 PM UTC

gruez wrote: post #56

Victerius wrote: post #21

Quoted post unavailable.

So to be clear you're advocating for tech companies to ignore the justice system?

No post body was provided.

Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech

#60

Post by solarmist » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 1:44 PM UTC

Copied from a comment thread below. Because I feel this is the root of the issue/problem.

> I don't see how the heck my website is a public square but my home or café isn't, this argument sounds self-contradictory.

Yup. This is the exact problem that we’re (as a society/world) wrestling with.

The reason it is (not just seems) different is because of the scope. A message on a chalkboard cannot reach millions of people (without the internet, ignoring [mass] media because the way it amplified things like this was far more complicated and was intentional), but it can on a website.

That by itself distorts the public/private argument, but we as a society aren’t sure how or to what extent yet.

These lawsuits are the second step (the first step was arguing about it in public) of figuring that out.

(Going back to my side note on media, these arguments will affect media outlets directly/indirectly as well.)