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

441–450 of 1001 posts

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

#441

Post by enchantments »

saurik wrote: post #402
nequo wrote: post #382

Would this outlaw for example Gmail's spam filter, too? Or only if the spam is wrapped up as a political viewpoint?

I would think that users could be allowed to choose to have a spam filter on their own account--in the same way that I can choose to screen calls on my telephone service--but, if Google unilaterally decides that I am not allowed to receive the call even if I am interested (giving me no way to opt out of their spam filter or allow people I consider not spam), then that could be a problem.

The language in the law says that email providers cannot do something "impeding the transmission of email messages based on content." So, they can probably give you tools to allow/deny emails from addresses you can enter, at least. Given that spam filters blocking fundraising emails from conservative groups is already something discussed among conservatives, it seems at least plausible that making spam filters illegal was actually intended here. I guess we'll find out as soon as someone sues (or the supreme court throws it out).

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

#442

Post by oneplane »

At some point it's going to be too hard and too negative to be an online 'speech' company. If anything big enough to have to deal with this were to disappear (bankrupt, pivot to other business, shrink to a smaller niche, or just disband), that would be nice and quiet for everyone. At least there is no law requiring a business to continue to exist just so a screaming cesspool that depends on it can also exist.

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

#443

Post by themitigating »

oneplane wrote: post #442

At some point it's going to be too hard and too negative to be an online 'speech' company. If anything big enough to have to deal with this were to disappear (bankrupt, pivot to other business, shrink to a smaller niche, or just disband), that would be nice and quiet for everyone. At least there is no law requiring a business to continue to exist just so a screaming cesspool that depends on it can also exist.

It will create echo chambers of similar views.

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

#444

Post by saurik »

mmcconnell1618 wrote: post #12
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…

So as a free-speech absolutist, would you let anyone walk into a Starbucks and start shouting about anything they wanted? Would it be okay for them to write a manifesto on the chalkboard next to the barista? Starbucks is a privately owned location and has the right to enforce behavioral standards or kick people out. Social Media is the same. Privately owned and can set their own standards. The internet has plenty of…

Does Starbucks let random people come in and shout about some things, but not other things? Do they let anyone write on their blackboard at all? No. These are not things you can do in a Starbucks, because there are rules and they apply to everyone the same regardless of the content of their message or the thought they are wanting to express: sometimes you don't get to talk to other people in the way you want, and that's fine.

However, if I come to a Starbucks and I start having a conversation about something in a quiet voice similar to what is allowed of any other person at Starbucks--maybe because I am on a date with another guy--I certainly do not believe that the people who run the Starbucks should decide they will refuse to serve me or allow me to talk about our date with each other because they disagree with us being homosexual.

You are correct that the right to freedom of speech is not the same thing as a right to be heard by the people you want to talk at, regardless of whether they want to hear you or not... but that isn't what is in question here: people are being entirely banned from platforms such that even their explicit followers can't access their content, and messages with certain forms of content that are merely being sent between small groups of people are being "moderated" out of existence.

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

#445

Post by galaxyLogic »

woodruffw wrote: post #230
gwbrooks wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Further: Citizens United didn't just pop into our reality, fully formed, from a vacuum. Decades of prior jurisprudence and SCOTUS rulings related to campaign speech led to it. Too many people think CU was some sort of this-changes-everything moment when it was actually a fairly narrow, technical decision based on prior rulings.

A slow knife is a knife nonetheless! I agree that CU was a culmination of decades of jurisprudence. But that doesn't meaningfully change the fact that it has had a substantial effect on corporate money in politics.

Right it means that every dollar counts in our political decision making

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

#446

Post by eduction »

DannyBee wrote: post #138
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…

This opinion is just badly written and badly reasoned. It's not even well written enough that it is worth trying to debate. Of course the judges in question were rated unqualified by the ABA (which is a really low bar) so not surprising.

> Of course the judges in question were rated unqualified by the ABA (which is a really low bar) so not surprising.

Not true.

The first of the two judges who concurred on this opinion, Andrew Oldham, was unanimously rated “well qualified” by ABA’s federal judiciary standing committee on Feb 15 2018 according to their website see page 5: https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/g...

Also concurring, Leslie Southwick was also unanimously voted “well qualified” by that same ABA committee on Jan 9 2007 see top of page 1 https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/f...

Edith Jones was appointed by Reagan in 85 so I can’t readily find her rating, but she almost entirely dissented from this ruling, so if she’s unqualified it runs against your point.

(Judges names via original opinion https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/21/21-51178-CV1.pd...)

Can I ask what the basis for your statement is?

Here is a sloppy copy paste of the list of judges voted unqualified by ABA since 1989 to further confirm the above (none of the concurring judges are on it and both were appointed since then)

—————————

Via https://ballotpedia.org/ABA_ratings_during_the_Trump_adminis...

Nominee Court President Rating Outcome

Alexander Williams Jr. District of Maryland Clinton Substantial majority not qualified Confirmed on August 6, 1993

Bruce Greer Southern District of Florida Clinton Substantial majority not qualified Nomination withdrawn

David Hamilton Southern District of Indiana Clinton Majority not qualified Confirmed on October 7, 1994

David Katz Northern District of Ohio Clinton Substantial majority not qualified Confirmed on October 7, 1994

Daniel Patrick Ryan Eastern District of Michigan G. W. Bush Substantial majority not qualified Nomination withdrawn

David Bunning Eastern District of Kentucky G. W. Bush Majority not qualified Confirmed on February 14, 2002

Dora Irizarry Eastern District of New York G. W. Bush Majority not qualified Confirmed on June 24, 2004

Frederick Rohlfing District of Hawaii G. W. Bush Unanimously not qualified Nomination withdrawn without hearings

Gregory Van Tatenhove Eastern District of Kentucky G. W. Bush Majority not qualified Confirmed on December 21, 2005

Michael Brunson Wallace Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals G. W. Bush Unanimously not qualified Nomination withdrawn without hearings

Roger Benitez Southern District of California G. W. Bush Substantial majority not qualified Confirmed on June 17, 2004

Vanessa Bryant District of Connecticut G. W. Bush Substantial majority not qualified* Confirmed on March 28, 2007

Brett Talley Middle District of Alabama Trump Unanimously not qualified Nomination withdrawn

Charles B. Goodwin Western District of Oklahoma Trump Majority not qualified Confirmed on August 28, 2018

Holly Lou Teeter District of Kansas Trump Substantial majority not qualified Confirmed on August 1, 2018

John O'Connor Northern, Eastern, and Western Districts of Oklahoma Trump Unanimously not qualified Nomination withdrawn

Jonathan Kobes Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals Trump Substantial majority not qualified Confirmed on December 11, 2018

Justin Walker Western District of Kentucky Trump Substantial majority not qualified Confirmed on October 24, 2019

L. Steven Grasz Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals Trump Unanimously not qualified Confirmed on December 12, 2017

Lawrence VanDyke Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Trump Substantial majority not qualified Confirmed on December 11, 2019

*This rating represents Bryant's nomination to the 109th Congress; Bryant's rating changed when her nomination was submitted to the 110th Congress. A substantial majority rated her as qualified at that time. Source: American Bar Association Ballotpedia f in Twitter logo

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

#447

Post by themitigating »

saurik wrote: post #428
themitigating wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can already block specific email addresses. With the amount of spam this will be a daily problem for you. Note -, I think spam is filtered before it even hits your account and goes to the spam folder however correct me if I'm wrong

I don't understand your point or what you are responding to :(. The issue at hand is whether the concept of a spam filter violates the position of these laws, and I do not think it does as long as the spam filter is not a universal configuration that is forced on everyone . As long as you can either deactivate the spam filter entirely or whitelist specific senders (though I can make more elaborate arguments where thi…

It was to your comment.

Google blocks some spam messages before they reach your inbox and you can't disable this

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

#448

Post by kelnos »

xyzzyz wrote: post #275
woodruffw wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Corporation is, after all, just a form of organization of natural persons, and cannot do anything on its own. A corporation is a synthetic legal object: beyond basic restrictions on its form, it's allowed to legislate itself internally according to whatever bylaws and structure it pleases. There is no requirement (and no particular precedent) for them having a democratic structure. This produces a fundamental tensi…

> This produces a fundamental tension between the people who comprise the corporation and the decisions that the corporation makes: the corporation can choose to do things that are overwhelmingly unpopular with its employees without significant recourse, since the corporation does not operate according to the will of its members. Sure, but it’s still natural persons who are actually making those decisions, no? After…

> Sure, but it’s still natural persons who are actually making those decisions, no?

It is a small handful of natural persons (or corporate board or executive team) deciding for the entire corporation full of people who have zero say that the fruits of their economic output (under the auspices of the corporation) are being used to support a particular political party or candidate.

If we look at individual political campaign contributions, then it's one person deciding that some of their hard-earned cash should go to support a particular candidate or cause. But with a corporate structure, it's five people deciding that the collectively-earned cash of thousands of people should go to support a particular candidate or cause.

To put it another way, an individual campaign contribution is "one person, one vote". A corporate contribution is "one person, many votes".

And no, most people do not have the realistic option to quit their job because they don't agree with the political contributions the executives have decided the company will make.

> Should government also have a right to restrict speech of individuals if they are rich and powerful enough?

Governments already do this: individuals are subject to political campaign contribution limits[0]. This unfortunately gets muddied by PACs and the like, which was the issue at hand in Citizens United.

[0] https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate...

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

#449

Post by galaxyLogic »

woodruffw wrote: post #251
xyzzyz wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> which in turn means that corporations can do the same politicking (and political funding) that natural persons do. How can a corporation do any of these without natural persons being actually the ones deciding on and performing these actions? Corporation is, after all, just a form of organization of natural persons, and cannot do anything on its own. In Citizens United, government argued that the government can ban…

> Corporation is, after all, just a form of organization of natural persons, and cannot do anything on its own. A corporation is a synthetic legal object: beyond basic restrictions on its form, it's allowed to legislate itself internally according to whatever bylaws and structure it pleases. There is no requirement (and no particular precedent) for them having a democratic structure. This produces a fundamental tensi…

> you seem to believe that the government should be allowed to block speech by powerful corporations, what about speech by powerful and rich individuals?

It's like speed-limits. You can only drive so fast. Similarly we should limit how many dollars any single person can spend on manipulating public opinion.

With corporations I guess we should divide the amount they spend on political adds by the number of share-holders, and put a limit on that.

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

#450

Post by IntelMiner »

throwawayacc2 wrote: post #427
IntelMiner wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You can’t be serious. Are you serious? Spam is not censored. You have access to it. You click on the spam folder and you can read the spam email in all it’s glory! And before you even mention auto deletion, you can disable that. I think that should be opt in not opt out but, yeah, spam in not being censored.

You have to click a spam folder. You have to make a conscious effort to interact with the free speech being sent to you. Therefore it's not free
Post reply on HN