Welcome home, fellow Gator.

The Gator Nation's oldest and most active insider community
Join today!

Federal court upholds Texas law on social media censorship

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by rivergator, Sep 19, 2022.

  1. rivergator

    rivergator Too Hot Mod Moderator VIP Member

    31,701
    1,011
    2,258
    Apr 8, 2007
    I'm not clear if it means the social media platforms can't delete anything, or just nothing political.
    Appears to be headed to the USSC ..

    A federal court clears the way for a Texas social media law.

    Federal Court rules Big Tech has no 'freewheeling First Amendment right to censor'
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • Fistbump/Thanks! Fistbump/Thanks! x 1
  2. sierragator

    sierragator GC Hall of Fame

    12,131
    12,647
    1,653
    Apr 8, 2007
    All for private enterprise until they aren't.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  3. Gatorrick22

    Gatorrick22 GC Hall of Fame

    80,570
    22,783
    4,613
    Apr 3, 2007
    I think they know how the SCOTUS would rule on this case if/when it gets there.
     
  4. Trickster

    Trickster Premium Member

    7,234
    1,780
    3,233
    Sep 20, 2014
    The First Amendment says:

    “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech,..”

    I haven’t read the opinion, but how has Congress made any such law?Private companies are regulating what may be said on their platforms. I just don’t see the applicability of the First Amendment.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  5. obgator

    obgator GC Legend

    810
    1,022
    2,003
    Apr 3, 2007
    Can I now tell some of you what I really think of you?
    [​IMG]
     
    • Funny Funny x 3
  6. exiledgator

    exiledgator Gruntled

    9,356
    1,187
    2,678
    Jan 5, 2010
    Maine
    Just no gay wedding cakes
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Fistbump/Thanks! Fistbump/Thanks! x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  7. 14serenoa

    14serenoa Living in Orange and surrounded by Seminoles... Premium Member

    4,172
    1,572
    1,988
    Jul 28, 2014
    GC has established 'board language rules' to maintain order and decorum. It does seem private online digital media companies can establish their own 'rules of use' and enforce those 'rules' as they see fit.

    Edit: DeSantis has banned many books from Public schools. Many libraries censor select books. Censorship of dialog or images is pervasive by companies interacting with the public at large. Digital media should clearly communicate their editorial standards/rules and enforcement guidelines, Done.
     
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2022
  8. g8trjax

    g8trjax GC Hall of Fame

    4,231
    281
    243
    Jun 1, 2007
    LOL, private companies my ass. You guys honestly believe our govt isn't constantly crafting their own narrative through all these social media companies? Bless your hearts.
     
  9. GatorRade

    GatorRade Rad Scientist

    6,728
    705
    1,478
    Apr 3, 2007
    Interesting argument. You are saying that these companies are now actually public and have become so without consent of the stockholders of the companies or any legal determination of violation of anti-trust laws?

    If that were the case, it would seem to be a likely to be a violation of the 4th amendment’s barring of unreasonable seizures, right? And so in what way does it fix any of this to simply compel the publication of hate speech?
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. gator10010

    gator10010 GC Hall of Fame

    1,716
    79
    333
    Aug 23, 2008
    Is censoring a form of editing? Or is this "censoring" actually suppression of information?

    If censoring is a form of editing then these so called social media "platforms" aren't really "platforms". Which opens up a whole set of issues for social media.

    If this "censoring" is actually suppression of information then there are problems for these social media platforms as well.

    Regardless of where one stands politically there needs to be some clear and transparent rules in place for social media platforms.
     
  11. pkaib01

    pkaib01 Premium Member

    3,226
    600
    1,963
    Apr 3, 2007
    The clear and transparent rules are specified in each platform's Terms of Service. These are free enterprises.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  12. rivergator

    rivergator Too Hot Mod Moderator VIP Member

    31,701
    1,011
    2,258
    Apr 8, 2007
    Rules set by who? The platform itself? State or federal government?
     
  13. BLING

    BLING GC Hall of Fame

    6,366
    313
    2,843
    Apr 16, 2007
    It is not “editing” since they are not actually changing posts (as Too Hot Mods occasionally do here).

    My understanding is they resorted to “warning labels” to flag posts deemed bs. You could call this tactic suppression of information. The dilemma is that these are private enterprises owned by shareholders, these are for-profit private enterprise. They are not in fact a “public square” as some of these conservative activist judges have wanted to reframe it. I don’t see a compelling argument that these businesses should be forced to host speech which is harmful or even an existential threat to their long term business. In a lot of cases they would be asked to host frauds and liars and treat their “information” as equal to good or reliable information. Of course the snake oil salesman would love this arrangement! Viral lies to da moon! It should be up to each platform to set their standards, just as it’s up to Too Hot to set its own standards or Truth Social or 8chan to set theirs. The marketplace will act accordingly.
     
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2022
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Informative Informative x 1
  14. archigator_96

    archigator_96 GC Hall of Fame

    2,461
    3,424
    1,873
    Apr 8, 2020
    People should be able to stand on the corner and say what they want to passers by in the park. If these media platforms are seen as "parks or street corners" then there shouldn't be any restrictions (other than not yelling fire in a theater etc.)
    But these are also private businesses so they should be able to make rules as they see fit. Interesting issue.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  15. rivergator

    rivergator Too Hot Mod Moderator VIP Member

    31,701
    1,011
    2,258
    Apr 8, 2007
    Yeah, I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean either. You think the government actually runs the social media platforms? Or do you think that govt agencies have coordinated messages that they post under anonymous names in order to shape public conversation? Did Trump have one message and Biden another?

    I'd be curious your answers here.
     
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 2
    • Fistbump/Thanks! Fistbump/Thanks! x 1
  16. Trickster

    Trickster Premium Member

    7,234
    1,780
    3,233
    Sep 20, 2014
    Not on my corner in my private community.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  17. BLING

    BLING GC Hall of Fame

    6,366
    313
    2,843
    Apr 16, 2007
    Infowars guy apparently made 8 or 9 figures selling supplements and apocalyptic goods online. Almost all these viral manipulators have an agenda. For some it may just be they get a drug-like high from trolling and “going viral” online even if they are spreading bs. For others, like Jones, it can be big $$$ or lead to media opportunities.

    Should YouTube be compelled to host his videos about Sandy Hook children to see if he can go for 10 figures?

    The thought anyone would even think to say yes disgusts me.
     
  18. channingcrowderhungry

    channingcrowderhungry Premium Member

    5,618
    1,043
    3,013
    Apr 3, 2007
    Bottom of a pint glass
    The inconsistencies of the Republican party on pretty much any issue are ridiculous.
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
  19. archigator_96

    archigator_96 GC Hall of Fame

    2,461
    3,424
    1,873
    Apr 8, 2020
    Public park or street corner then. Are these platforms public is the main question to answer.
    If they are run by the government then we have gov. control of media which isn't a great idea either.
     
  20. pkaib01

    pkaib01 Premium Member

    3,226
    600
    1,963
    Apr 3, 2007
    The law of unintended consequences will be exercised if this holds. Companies like Twitter will respond to protect company and shareholder interests. They may block all Texas users or split off a child Twitter community for only Texas users which will be exempt from the 50+ million user requirements. Who loses? Everybody.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1