Texas’ Unconstitutional Social Media Law Allowed to Proceed
1–10 of 47 posts
Re: Texas’ Unconstitutional Social Media Law Allowed to Proceed
#2No post body was provided.
Re: Texas’ Unconstitutional Social Media Law Allowed to Proceed
#3The title is editorialized and different from the title in the article, specifically the addition of "unconstitutional"
The article said a lower court found it unconstitutional, but that was struck down. Unfortunately it didn't explain why the court struck it down (presumably because that would have spoiled the narrative) so I don't know if it was a technicality or if the higher court found it was constitutional.
Re: Texas’ Unconstitutional Social Media Law Allowed to Proceed
#4The title is editorialized and different from the title in the article, specifically the addition of "unconstitutional" The article said a lower court found it unconstitutional, but that was struck down. Unfortunately it didn't explain why the court struck it down (presumably because that would have spoiled the narrative) so I don't know if it was a technicality or if the higher court found it was constitutional.
[deleted]
Re: Texas’ Unconstitutional Social Media Law Allowed to Proceed
#5The title is editorialized and different from the title in the article, specifically the addition of "unconstitutional" The article said a lower court found it unconstitutional, but that was struck down. Unfortunately it didn't explain why the court struck it down (presumably because that would have spoiled the narrative) so I don't know if it was a technicality or if the higher court found it was constitutional.
EFF likely changed their own title; "unconstitutional" is present in the url string. (I'm not OP)
edit to add:
https://web.archive.org/web/20220512173904/https://www.eff.o...
Re: Texas’ Unconstitutional Social Media Law Allowed to Proceed
#6The EFF has really lost their way. They should not be defending Big Tech censoring the Internet.
Re: Texas’ Unconstitutional Social Media Law Allowed to Proceed
#7The title is editorialized and different from the title in the article, specifically the addition of "unconstitutional" The article said a lower court found it unconstitutional, but that was struck down. Unfortunately it didn't explain why the court struck it down (presumably because that would have spoiled the narrative) so I don't know if it was a technicality or if the higher court found it was constitutional.
EFF likely changed their own title; "unconstitutional" is present in the url string. (I'm not OP) edit to add: https://web.archive.org/web/20220512173904/https://www.eff.o...
Good catch, I didn't see that!
Re: Texas’ Unconstitutional Social Media Law Allowed to Proceed
#8The title is editorialized and different from the title in the article, specifically the addition of "unconstitutional" The article said a lower court found it unconstitutional, but that was struck down. Unfortunately it didn't explain why the court struck it down (presumably because that would have spoiled the narrative) so I don't know if it was a technicality or if the higher court found it was constitutional.
No, the lower court issued an injunction and the higher court lifted it. The case is still being argued.
Re: Texas’ Unconstitutional Social Media Law Allowed to Proceed
#9Quoted post unavailable.
The first amendment gives private entities such as Twitter the right to curate what’s on their site. AKA “freedom of the press belongs to those that own the press.”
Twitter isn’t the government and it doesn’t control the rest of the internet.
Re: Texas’ Unconstitutional Social Media Law Allowed to Proceed
#10People 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.