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

#311

Post by nomdep » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 7:05 PM UTC

philippejara wrote: post #223

MonkeyMalarky wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well the difficult thing is that apparently every day mundane activities can be "political" depending on who is doing them and in what context. Even a character in a show or video game suddenly becomes a political statement (to some people) just by being female, or brown, or gay, etc.

Well, yes, everything is political whether we like it or not. Even not having a character in a videogame that represents a minority can be a political statement. It's far too broad a brush to paint to be useful for anything

No, like you said, everything CAN be a political statement but, more often than not, everything is not, by default, a political statement

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

#312

Post by themitigating » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 7:05 PM UTC

Today we reject the idea that corporations have a freewheeling First Amendment right to censor what people say," Judge Andrew Oldham,

1st amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, ...

This doesn't apply to people or busineeses making their own rules

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

#313

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 7:06 PM UTC

adrr wrote: post #136

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…

Controlling what content is rendered on a site is speech itself. Government making rules infringes on my right what my software can and can’t display. It would be like the government telling Wikipedia can’t edit their articles.

[deleted]

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

#314

Post by jacobolus » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 7:07 PM UTC

xyzzyz wrote: post #100

jacobolus wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The appropriate description for the 5th circuit is “corrupt, incoherent activism”.

This applies to every court in this country, and even more so to some. If 5th circuit is “corrupt, incoherent activism”, I’m lacking words to even describe the 9th.

No, the great majority of judges and courts – even the majority of e.g. Trump-appointed district-court judges – have internally consistent legal philosophies and prejudices which happen to differ from one to another. Sometimes judges talk past each-other or fundamentally disagree, but that is not the same as corruption. For the most part judges take their job seriously and do it carefully and in more or less good faith.

What we are talking about here is judges ignoring the constitution, the law, past precedent, the will of the people, and the facts of the case, in order to make up a logically incoherent "argument" that happens to promote the judges’ pre-decided zany partisan outcome. Such rulings are profoundly corrosive to the rule of law and the legitimacy of the court system.

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

#315

Post by nomdep » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 7:07 PM UTC

Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #26

intrasight wrote: post #20

Censoring and moderating and content, as it relates to this lawsuit, is very expensive. I wouldn't be surprised if it ranks pretty high in their cost chart. The only reason that social media platforms do content moderation is to manage the financial (advertisers), and the political risk. Well, if the politicians and the courts tell them they can't moderate political stuff, then the political risk has been removed. Al…

It's not the only reason. Without any moderation, sites would degenerate into cesspools that only cesspool dwellers would want to visit. Few site owners want their properties to be cesspools.

Just don’t follow anyone on Twitter, Facebook, or Instagram with those views, how is that a ceespool?

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

#316

Post by MichaelCollins » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 7:08 PM UTC

woodruffw wrote: post #177

CamperBob2 wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Citizens United determined that corporations have some of the same natural rights that people do. In particular, First Amendment right, which in turn means that corporations can do the same politicking (and political funding) that natural persons do. A more charitable way to put this: you don't lose your First Amendment rights just because you joined with other people for commercial or other purposes.

That's not charitable, that's obsequious! You have never lost your First Amendment rights in the context of a corporate venture. Citizens United goes substantially beyond affirming that fact: it establishes a separate notion of 1A personhood for the corporation itself .

> You have never lost your First Amendment rights in the context of a corporate venture

Hmm. Technically yeah, but corporations tend to gag their own employees more than the government gags corporations. The corporation can say just about anything it wants about politics and faces no repercussions from the government, but if an employee says the wrong thing about politics, they'll be shitcanned very quickly.

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

#317

Post by dionian » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 7:08 PM UTC

themitigating wrote: post #312

Today we reject the idea that corporations have a freewheeling First Amendment right to censor what people say," Judge Andrew Oldham, 1st amendment Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, ... This doesn't apply to people or busineeses making their own rules

so is it ok for a telephone company to cut your line if you support the resistance?

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

#318

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 7:08 PM UTC

patmcc wrote: post #297

Brybry wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not a lawyer but I don't think this would apply to bots. The Texas law text[1] says it only protects 'users' which are defined as people. And even then the law only prohibits censorship for specific reasons. It doesn't say companies can't ban users for running bots. Even if the messages the bot is posting are protected the fact of running the bot itself should still be a bannable offense if it's not allowed in th…

So can I hire someone from a low cost-of-living jurisdiction and get them to behave like a bot for me?

[deleted]

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

#319

Post by LinkLink » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 7:09 PM UTC

mikkergp wrote: post #117

Hacker News avoids political discussion, would this mean a site like hacker news(assuming it’s big enough) couldn’t moderate heated political discussion as off topic? Im curious how this would apply to Reddit, will there just be constant brigading of the political forums? Ironically as others have pointed out this will probably have a severe chilling effect on speech.

A bit of a stupid question, if political content isn't allowed then what content is there to discriminate on a political basis of?

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

#320

Post by 8note » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 7:09 PM UTC

throwaway0asd wrote: post #227

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…

If social media wishes to be immune from lawsuits regarding the content it publishes, section 203, then it should not have the ability to censor such content for an explicit commercial revenue model. I understand why people hate that opinion, because they want civil discourse and nearly free access to media online. Uncensored content pushes normal people out. Those things are great, but are ultimately out of alignmen…

Alternatively, if you want a free speech platform as a public square, you should convince your government to build and operate it, rather than delegating to private entities who aren't bound by the constitution