Supreme Court blocks Texas social media law from taking effect

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

https://www.npr.org/2022/05/31/11022899 ... ing-effect

The vote was 5-to-4, with the court's three most conservative justices filing a written dissent that would have allowed the Texas law to start. In a surprise move, liberal Justice Elena Kagan joined in the dissent, but she did not explain her rationale.

The Texas law bars Instagram, Facebook, Twitter and other popular social media sites from blocking content based on viewpoint. Gov. Greg Abbott maintained that the law was a justifiable response to "a dangerous movement by social media companies to silence conservative viewpoints and ideas."

A federal district court temporarily halted state officials from enforcing the law, saying it likely violates the First Amendment. But a divided panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals allowed enforcement to proceed.
Here's why tech giants want the Supreme Court to freeze Texas' social media law
Technology
Here's why tech giants want the Supreme Court to freeze Texas' social media law

The Big Tech interest groups NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association, filed an emergency request to block the law after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit overturned a lower court ruling that enjoined it from taking effect.

The groups argued the law would force tech platforms to leave up everything from Russian propaganda to neo-Nazi and Ku Klux Klan screeds. The groups maintained that the Constitution protects their right to manage platform content, just as it protects a newspaper's publication decisions.
Sponsor Message

The Chamber of Progress, a lobbying group for Big Tech, applauded the high court's pause of the Texas law.

"As we debate how to stop more senseless acts of violence, Texas's law would force social media to host racist, hateful, and extremist posts," said the group's CEO Adam Kovacevich.

Scott Wilkens, a senior staff attorney with the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, also welcomed the court's move, saying "the theory of the First Amendment that Texas is advancing in this case would give government broad power to censor and distort public discourse."

The Texas law prevents social media platforms with at least 50 million monthly active users like Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, TikTok and Twitter from taking down posts based on a user's viewpoint. It enables users to sue the platforms if they think they have been censored because of their political views. It also allows the state's attorney general to enforce violations, a power that worried experts who study online platforms and speech.

Florida has passed a similar law attempting to rein in social media companies. But that one has been halted as a legal battle plays out over its implications for the First Amendment and other legal issues.
Justice Clarence Thomas Takes Aim At Tech And Its Power 'To Cut Off Speech'
Technology
Justice Clarence Thomas Takes Aim At Tech And Its Power 'To Cut Off Speech'

Under U.S. law, online platforms are not legally responsible for what people post and a tech company's policies over what is and isn't allowed on sites has long been considered a type of speech protected by the First Amendment.

But a growing movement to reinterpret these laws has been embraced by both Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, who both believe social media companies should be regulated like "common carriers," like a telephone company or another public utility and should be subject to far-reaching federal regulation.

The Texas case will almost certainly come back to the Supreme Court since the Fifth Circuit panel seems inclined to uphold the law. Assuming that happens, such a ruling would directly contradict a ruling by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, leaving the Supreme Court to resolve the conflict.

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

This might be the most important first amendment issue of our time. I'm really happy the vote went the right way, but 5-4 with both sides being bi-partisan is really concerning. This means that nearly half our SCOTUS doesn't understand what he 1st amendment is. This is also the first Gorshuch vote that I'm the most disappointed in. If you own something you alone should decide what gets broadcast on it. Full stop. That is free speech no matter what people say.

The argument that they should be regulated like utility company, which are handed government sponsored monopolies is just silly.

[Mike]

This vote doesn’t disappoint me. On either side. It is about individual freedom of expression, vs the right of a corporation to have a say in what gets expressed in its own environment and on its own behalf. Both valid 1st Amendment points.

Sometimes, it’s not a clear cut case of “I’m right and you’re wrong”. Sometimes, it’s about both, or all, sides having truly compelling points in defense of multifold iterations of the same rights. And when that occurs, other considerations must come into play.

Consider this: some of these rulings weaken the FCC’s governance of the airwaves. If we prevent corporations from having a say in what is expressed on their own comm channels, you might then find a broadcast station forced, for example, to broadcast explicit sexuality. This would of course fly in the face of the whole community standards thing that has kept OTA tv and radio from going in that direction.

This Court seems on the verge of saying that nothing in the past is “settled law”.

[Tarmaque]

The legal fiction that social media companies are somehow equivalent to "common carriers" like telephone companies is disturbing to me on a number of levels. Particularly because when the government decided to regulate the telephone industry under those rules there was basically no competition. People didn't have a choice for telephone communication. However, as far as social media companies there is plenty of competition, including platforms that are owned by and used primarily by conservatives. Hence the argument that conservative viewpoints are being repressed is spurious. It's like saying The New York Times has to print all letters to the editor, regardless of political viewpoint, when there's The New York Post right around the corner (figuratively speaking) who are plenty happy to print letters with opposing viewpoints to The New York Times.



It disturbs me that any of the SCOTUS justices bought that argument, when it patently is not true. The government is not supposed to have an interest in what private companies disseminate or do not disseminate. They simply cannot arrest anyone for what they do disseminate.

[Mike]

Interestingly, the Times DOES print letters that are in opposition to its editorial positions, and does so with some frequency. Its criteria for printing such letters is that they make arguments based on data, and/or sensible thinking. Whereas the NY Post prints letters that are essentially nothing but lunatic ravings by morons. (Actually that’s a bit of hyperbole on my part. The Post’s letter section, for some reason, is more coherent than the NY Daily News - though the Post does like to print nonsensical letters too on occasion.)

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

This vote doesn’t disappoint me. On either side. It is about individual freedom of expression, vs the right of a corporation to have a say in what gets expressed in its own environment and on its own behalf. Both valid 1st Amendment points.

The first amendment covers government control over speech, not a companies control over their platform. You have the right to personal expression, but you don't have the right to compel anyone (or any entity) to broadcast your expression. Let's take the other side to it's logical conclusion. Should a writer be able to force a movie studio to make their movie? Should a painter be allowed to force a museum to display their art? If not, why should social media be treated any differently?

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

Hence the argument that conservative viewpoints are being repressed is spurious

Very true. If social media platforms are suppressing conservative voices (I'm not sure it's true and haven't spent the time on the subject to have a good opinion), it's worth discussing from a standpoint of how balanced information from the platform is. Beyond that I don't care. Actually, I don't care much about that either, I already know social media posts are terrible sources.

[Tarmaque]

(I'm not sure it's true and haven't spent the time on the subject to have a good opinion)

It's a complicated question, and one you can only answer if you accept that "conservative voices" are factual and not encouraging violence or disinformation. The sad reality is that many people who are complaining about censorship of "conservative voices" are the same ones spreading lies and unfounded conspiracy theories. Not just that, but easily disproved lies and unfounded conspiracy theories. If I started posting that a secret cabal of left-handed redheads was plotting to destroy the broccoli industry they'd probably mark that as not reliable or untrue too, and possibly ban me if I went overboard or started calling for the death of all left-handed redheads. This has nothing to do with being conservative, but being completely whackadoodle and probably dangerous to myself and others.

That said I find that most redheads are delightful, even the ones who are left handed, and only a minority of them need to be hunted down and violently murdered with a cricket bat wrapped in barb wire. The destruction of the broccoli industry is entirely justified, I assure you.

[Mike]

That said I find that most redheads are delightful, even the ones who are left handed, and only a minority of them need to be hunted down and violently murdered with a cricket bat wrapped in barb wire. The destruction of the broccoli industry is entirely justified, I assure you.

Cue the notorious rightwing loon John Lennon: All we are saying, is give peas a chance

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

It's a complicated question, and one you can only answer if you accept that "conservative voices" are factual and not encouraging violence or disinformation.

There certainly are some conservative voices who are factual and not encouraging violence or disinformation. Are those people also being censored? I have no idea. I haven't seen a good example. The closest I've come is a guy at work who got a Facebook ban over a meme of someone putting a fork in a light socket and the caption said, "No, everyone else just did it wrong." He thinks he was banned because it was anti-communist, Facebook said the meme promoted suicide or self harm. While Facebook's reasoning seemed a little silly to me, that is no where near enough to convince me it was political.

If I started posting that a secret cabal of left-handed redheads was plotting to destroy the broccoli industry they'd probably mark that as not reliable or untrue too, and possibly ban me if I went overboard or started calling for the death of all left-handed redheads. This has nothing to do with being conservative, but being completely whackadoodle and probably dangerous to myself and others.

Why would the ban you from telling the truth?

[Tarmaque]

Why would the ban you from telling the truth?

The man just wants to keep me down! They say I have to eat healthy, but who are they?

There certainly are some conservative voices who are factual and not encouraging violence or disinformation. Are those people also being censored? I have no idea.

Yes, but on the whole they aren't the ones complaining about censorship. It's always the whackadoodles like MTG who complain about such things.

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

The man just wants to keep me down! They say I have to eat healthy, but who are they?

Either that or you are an undercover conservative. I knew it!

Yes, but on the whole they aren't the ones complaining about censorship. It's always the whackadoodles like MTG who complain about such things.

Whackadoodles complain it's what they do best

[Tarmaque]

Whackadoodles complain it's what they do best

However, the opposite is not necessarily true. Complainers are not necessarily whackadoodle. I present myself as evidence... Or am I?

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

However, the opposite is not necessarily true. Complainers are not necessarily whackadoodle. I present myself as evidence... Or am I?

You might want to find a better argument. Are you going to try and use me next? That would be worse for the record.

[Tarmaque]

You might want to find a better argument. Are you going to try and use me next? That would be worse for the record.

Arguments are for losers. I state truths.

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

Arguments are for losers. I state truths.

Beck loves to argue...

Okay it's a bad joke and one very tied to the 90's but I'm leaving it! and pushing send...

[Tarmaque]

Okay it's a bad joke and one very tied to the 90's but I'm leaving it! and pushing send...

I was making an equally bad joke about how the word "truth" has lost its meaning in our modern world. It actually started many decades ago (some linguists argue centuries) when the word "truth" started to diverge from the word "fact." A lot of this has to do with the turn modern religions have made from allegory to literalism. Much of The Bible was originally written as allegory, and meant to teach concepts rather than be treated as a literal history. In this sense the allegory of The Bible was taken to be "truth" even though the priests (Catholics, mostly) knew that what they were teaching was not factual. For instance, for hundreds of years the Catholic Church taught that the earth was the center of the universe because this was what The Bible said. However, Catholic scholars and astronomers and other priest-scientists (there were such!) knew full well that the earth orbited the sun. This was a fact.

Then along comes Galileo who won't keep his mouth shut. Even at that, the church went out of its way to try to accommodate him. They went to him and said, "Look, we know you're right, but you can't just be telling everybody and his dog. We've got to break this to them slowly, and we're working on it." The Catholic Church can change dogma, but they have to do so in stages so it doesn't shock the congregation. But Galileo is a stubborn old codger and won't play ball with them, so they locked him up.

Even today, the "allegorical" "truth" is that the Earth is the center of the universe, while even in the Church the "factual" nature of the location of the earth is taught.

But now we have a modern Christian movement of "literal" interpretation of The Bible. They think The Bible is the unexpurgated "TRUTH" with a capitol "T" which is co-equal with "fact." They believe their beliefs are more important than facts. Their religion tells them exactly that. It doesn't matter what the facts are, your beliefs are "truth" and therefore reality. It's so bad now that the very word "fact" has become a synonym to this group with "lie."

This is what happens when you allow a minority to redefine the language to suit their own agenda. I have no idea how to reverse this trend.

Laughing_man.png (58.4 KiB) Viewed 1629 times

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

Much of The Bible was originally written as allegory,

I'd say all. Even if it wasn't intentionally written as allegory the moral lessons are what matters, so real or not, it's best to treat it as allegory.

[Tarmaque]

I'd say all. Even if it wasn't intentionally written as allegory the moral lessons are what matters, so real or not, it's best to treat it as allegory.

Probably not the various genealogies, although it's hard to take genealogies seriously when all the patriarchs live for hundreds of years. (Noah for instance lived to be 950)

I'm still skeptical about a lot of the stuff about their time in Egypt, the escape, and the wandering years. I think Moses or one of his kids was just a talented fabulist. Particularly the bits about the various plagues Jehovah visits upon Egypt, a great record keeping culture at the time that never mentions these. And yet, a tribe of illiterate slaves and goat-herds holds on to this information for decades of wandering in the desert? Color me dubious.

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

Probably not the various genealogies, although it's hard to take genealogies seriously when all the patriarchs live for hundreds of years. (Noah for instance lived to be 950)

I don't even want to think about the "begats"

'm still skeptical about a lot of the stuff about their time in Egypt, the escape, and the wandering years. I think Moses or one of his kids was just a talented fabulist. Particularly the bits about the various plagues Jehovah visits upon Egypt, a great record keeping culture at the time that never mentions these. And yet, a tribe of illiterate slaves and goat-herds holds on to this information for decades of wandering in the desert? Color me dubious.

I wouldn't call Egypt a great record keeping culture. They were well known to not record events that looked negative for any of the pharaohs. That doesn't mean I believe the plagues. I've stopped expending mental energy trying to parse that stuff out. Instead I try to find the point the story is trying to make. That's why I say that it's best to treat it as allegory either way.

[Tarmaque]

Instead I try to find the point the story is trying to make.

Oh, that point is fairly obvious: Moses good, Pharaoh bad. Do what Moses tells you.

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

Oh, that point is fairly obvious: Moses good, Pharaoh bad. Do what Moses tells you.

ROFLMAO.

I've always read that story as an expression of the Christian God's powers to be absolute and polytheism is a false religion. It's a set up so that the reader will accept everything in Leviticus without questioning too much.

[Tarmaque]

I've always read that story as an expression of the Christian God's powers to be absolute and polytheism is a false religion. It's a set up so that the reader will accept everything in Leviticus without questioning too much.

Well, kinda. I'd read it more like "Moses is awesome and he's God's best friend so don't piss him off."

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

Well, kinda. I'd read it more like "Moses is awesome and he's God's best friend so don't piss him off."

I've always seen Moses as more of a plot device then then main character.

[Tarmaque]

I've always seen Moses as more of a plot device then then main character.

"God has given me these fifteen comm... (Crunch) These ten... Ten commandments!

(I think that movie was Holy Moses)