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

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

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

691–700 of 1001 posts

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

#691

Post by NaturalPhallacy »

IntelMiner wrote: post #415
throwawayacc2 wrote: post #401

Good. This is especially welcome news in the context of the unprecedented attack on kiwi farms. As I said in a different thread, we have laws preventing businesses from discriminating. We do not allow shops to put up “no blacks here” signs. Why do we allow infrastructure providers from doing essentially the same thing? Censorship, of any kind from anyone, government or corporation is an abomination that must be stamp…

Do you filter "spam" from your email inbox? If so, why? By your...train of thought. "Censorship of any kind" means that rejecting those leagues of boner pills and overseas wives ready to marry you is rejection of their right to speak freely to you

No post body was provided.

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

#692

Post by thrown_22 »

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

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

It didn't apply to states either. Yet it now does. When something gets large and powerful enough it becomes a government regardless of how you try and spin it.

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

#693

Post by 8note »

NaturalPhallacy wrote: post #662
ryeights wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 1st Amendment applies to aliens. https://pennstatelaw.psu.edu/sites/default/files/Are%20Immig...

Actually, the first amendment applies to the government, not people at all. Most of the bill of rights work that way. They're not things given to people, but things the government is barred from doing. So there's really no legal analysis necessary, the bulk of the bill of rights is pretty easily read and understood by the average person as intended. How can you stand for your rights if you don't know what they are? A…

"the people" is who exactly?

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

#694

Post by mhneu »

catiopatio wrote: post #646
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #636

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the other article that made it to the front page of HN on this topic: https://www.techdirt.com/2022/09/16/5th-circuit-rewrites-a-c... It goes into thorough analysis into why this is such a lazy, stupid decision. This is the quote I agree with: > Frankly, Oldham’s arguments sound much more like the arguments made by ignorant trolls in our comments than anyone with any knowledge or experience with 1st Amendment…

> It goes into thorough analysis into why this is such a lazy, stupid decision. The author, Mike Masnick, is a tech blogger — not an attorney, as far as I've been able to determine. Even Eugene Volokh — who is both an actual attorney and uniquely qualified to weigh in here — didn't attempt to digest the 113 pages of the opinion, much less immediately produce a reasoned analysis. I'm sure one will be forthcoming. The…

Volokh is a conservative attorney who is intellectually aligned with the 5th circuit judges who wrote this opinion.

A few other sources:

- Lawrence Tribe, a very senior center-left constitutional lawyer and Harvard prof: https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/1562951505451266050

"A disgraceful Fifth Circuit decision"

- Reporters' Committee on Freedom of the Press (a deeply centrist/neutral organization) https://twitter.com/katie_rcfp/status/1570897188359909377

"Just finished reading the 5th Circuit’s decision in the NetChoice v. Paxton case and it’s . . . not good. To say the First Amendment analysis is deeply flawed would be an understatement."

- Orin Kerr, a conservative attorney who's also been a Federalist Society backer: https://twitter.com/OrinKerr/status/1570900354061180929

"I am old-fashioned, but I would think that inferior courts start with what the Supreme Court has said the text means."

(I did a quick search and found three sources that span the ideological spectrum, which show how widespread the negativity about this decision has been.)

This is a terribly-reasoned decision that doesn't make much legal sense. It's an ideological decision, motivated by the feeling that rightwing voices, which are actually boosted by the rich people that own social media, are instead, against all sense, suppressed.

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

#695

Post by stubish »

wussboy wrote: post #645
nyuszika7h wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people have social anxiety.

They have social anxiety because they never went outside. “Outside” and “with other people” are our ancestral environment. Social media is abnormal and makes abnormal people.

"with other people" means family group. Society changed radically once the Industrial Revolution hit and people started living in environments where they didn't know well everyone around them.

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

#697

Post by 8note »

xani_ wrote: post #676
galaxyLogic wrote: post #425

I don't get it. Restaurants can choose their customers based on how they behave or even how they are dressed. Why shouldn't online businesses be able to reject some of their customers?

The difference is that you can go to other restaurant, but social medias are so big that if you're not on twitter/facebook you might as well not exist in public view. Of course that does not apply to smaller forums and I think that if we had laws that force social companies to not censor people they don't like (let's face it, that's exactly what they want to do), it should be limited to anything that's actually big,…

That seem like the government's job to provide an alternative or to break up monopolies s

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

#698

Post by 8note »

zionic wrote: post #573
ThrowawayTestr wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you want the owners of those small communities to get sued if someone posts copywrited material?

If they don’t censor, they’re not liable. If they censor, they are liable.

Sounds like a weird requirement. If they host the content, they should be sued, minus 230 protections

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

#699

Post by catiopatio »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #667
eduction wrote: post #650

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you think the most convincing part of that techdirt piece is? To me it mostly reads like an exasperated emotional rant. He calls the ruling “stupid” and “batshit crazy” and likens the judges to “ignorant trolls.” And uses italics everywhere. It’s not exactly an appeal to reason. To me the one interesting bit was this: “ The websites do engage in editorial control. The difference from newspapers is that it’s e…

That article quotes the opinion at length, and I think does a good job of pointing out how bad the opinion is on its face . For example, just look at the section where the opinion argues that the platform is bringing up "hypotheticals" it talking about curbing pro-Nazi or terrorist posts. I kept re-reading the quoted opinion again and again thinking "Is this judge a complete idiot?" To be clear, I'm not basing this o…

“Hypothetical”, in this legal context, is used to describe an assumption of facts to be used to test a logical proposition or legal consequences under those assumed facts.

The judge’s use of the term “hypothetical” was correct, and does not represent an assertion, one way or the other, about whether “pro-Nazi and terrorist speech” does or does not exist on these platforms.

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

#700

Post by wussboy »

stubish wrote: post #695
wussboy wrote: post #645

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have social anxiety because they never went outside. “Outside” and “with other people” are our ancestral environment. Social media is abnormal and makes abnormal people.

"with other people" means family group. Society changed radically once the Industrial Revolution hit and people started living in environments where they didn't know well everyone around them.

In a non automobile culture you absolutely did know the people around you, Industrial Age or not. And if you think the people around you being family would somehow make it easier, I think you need a little more family. :)
Post reply on HN