851–860 of 1001 posts
>In May, the 11th Circuit, based in Atlanta, found that most of a similar Florida law violates the companies' free speech rights and cannot be enforced Why should a _company_ have free speech guaranteed by the constitution? It's a company - not a person.
A company is just a group of people.
I don’t really understand the law, and I agree that big tech shouldn’t be able to regulate online speech. However one thing that I’m confused is, what about some dangerous stuff like radicalisation which then will produce terrorists or extremist? Other than that, I agree that no one should be censored for any reason I guess it is a hard topic to define which one is the limit of freedom of “speech”
Is this the millennial version of boomers' "3d shooter games create school shooters"? "Tweets with bad words create terrorists"?
I thought this BS (both versions) has been disproved countless times. But here we are and the nu-conservatives (who call themselves liberals) are at it again.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think I've seen evidence of this in my lifetime. If anything, legal decisions in the federal court system have been pretty liberal until recently. My generation saw the legalization, nationally, of gay marriage as well as the protection of personal property rights regarding firearms against government attempts to circumvent those rights for law-abiding citizens. Meanwhile, an attempt to modify the census (a f…
See: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?arti... . Go back and compare judicial decisions from the 1940s to 1970s to ones today. The ones today are much more grounded in statutory text, constitutional history, etc., and less reliant on policy arguments, notions of justice and fairness, etc. Even “liberal” legal decisions are far more conservative today than they were in the 1970s. Compare Roe and…
Yes, there are a lot of textualists on the Supreme Court right now (thanks to a concerted political effort to put them there). That doesn't imply they represent the "intellectual horsepower" of the legal profession as a whole. They might represent the political savviness and luck of the GOP, to have managed to appoint so many from a minority-populace-support footing by maximally gaming the non-representative quirks of the US political system. But I wouldn't classify political savvy as legal "intellectual horsepower;" the ABA doesn't rate voters.
>In May, the 11th Circuit, based in Atlanta, found that most of a similar Florida law violates the companies' free speech rights and cannot be enforced Why should a _company_ have free speech guaranteed by the constitution? It's a company - not a person.
People do not generally lose rights by coming together to do something.
Will this apply to bots? What if I have a big list of a complaints about a certain politician (use your imagination, there's more than one politician to complain about), but the "other party" doesn't follow me, in fact, I have very few followers overall. So I create a bot that spreads my opinions by replying to millions of other Tweets. Anyone who mentions the politician of interest will receive a reply from "me" (my…
Let each user block what they don’t want to see. With filters, ai, etc. Don’t have a centralized “overlord” decide what an individual is allowed to see. That should be obvious and not controversial.
Go make a service. Like a photo-sharing service. A service like that should obviously feature user comments, right?
And, then users start posting millions of blatant racist, misogynistic, pedophilic and false shock propaganda comments. But, if you decide you don’t want to personally spend your own money propagating this repulsive material using your own servers, large men with guns and dogs will drag you into a cage.
That’s what these laws mean. Don’t sugar-coat them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let each user block what they don’t want to see. With filters, ai, etc. Don’t have a centralized “overlord” decide what an individual is allowed to see. That should be obvious and not controversial.
Don’t think about this in the abstract. You have to make it concrete. Go make a service. Like a photo-sharing service. A service like that should obviously feature user comments, right? And, then users start posting millions of blatant racist, misogynistic, pedophilic and false shock propaganda comments. But, if you decide you don’t want to personally spend your own money propagating this repulsive material using you…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The intent of the first amendment was to preserve free speech in the public square; "what the first amendment has to do with this at all" is a desire to preserve that underlying societal principle. Section 230 was a give-away to corporations that allowed them to privatize and co-opt the public square; they reap the economic benefit of being shielded from liability for what people post, but none of the responsibility…
The intent of the first was specifically to keep the government from prohibiting your speech. Social media sites are not the government -- they have their TOS like everybody else does. Love it or leave it. It should also be noted that conservatives absolutely believe in banning speech they don't like. So it's not the principle of it, it's the power.
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.