Texas trying hard to make the whole internet resemble your Email Inbox circa 2005.

[Fugus]

Two possible outcomes.

Option 1) The judges actually follow the laws as they are typically written and applied and side with social media and allow them to actually moderate their content for violations of their terms of service.

Option 2) The judges failed to do their job and try and rule that the companies can't moderate their stuff even if the stuff violates their terms of service or the law in this case as the stuff they were moderating were inciting violence and either such stuff. At which point these companies pull out of Texas or have a "Texas Only" version of their sites which will be completely un-moderated to the point it makes the old 4chan seem tame by comparison and if they rule that they aren't allowed to moderate for actual threats and other violations of the law that also prevents them from moderating other content turning into a potential haven for kiddy porn as the moderators will not be allowed to stop it.

But there is no option where the judges side with Texas and the companies just open up as that would have them running afoul of laws in other states that prevent such blatant acts which makes those terms of service requirements pretty mandatory if they ever wanted to remain in business to begin with.

[LilSaihah]

Option 2) The judges failed to do their job and try and rule that the companies can't moderate their stuff even if the stuff violates their terms of service or the law in this case as the stuff they were moderating were inciting violence and either such stuff. At which point these companies pull out of Texas or have a "Texas Only" version of their sites which will be completely un-moderated to the point it makes the old 4chan seem tame by comparison and if they rule that they aren't allowed to moderate for actual threats and other violations of the law that also prevents them from moderating other content turning into a potential haven for kiddy porn as the moderators will not be allowed to stop it.

To be honest the idea of Y'alltube sounds amazing

Not like the kiddy porn and shit but it seems like a fun sideshow attraction like Florida man, it's the demented version of Youtube and you just pop in to look at the crazies

[Dontrike]

It looks dead on First Amendment

You people can't stop believing that twitter blocking you or not hosting a racist rant is somehow against the First Amendment. It's astonishing as much as it is pitiful.

[LilSaihah]

You people can't stop believing that twitter blocking you or not hosting a racist rant is somehow against the First Amendment. It's astonishing as much as it is pitiful.

I thought he meant the opposite? The government can't impugn on Twitter's right to free speech by forcing it to speak on behalf of its clients.

[Dontrike]

I thought he meant the opposite? The government can't impugn on Twitter's right to free speech by forcing it to speak on behalf of its clients.

If that's the case then I was wrong, but I have to assume tehdang is on the side of Texas here based on all of their other viewpoints.

[Endus]

The law in question also makes it illegal to block Texas.

They have literally zero capacity to enforce that. Any such company can just tell Texas to send the bill to their nonexistent Texas address and continue on as if nothing else has happened.

You can't force a company to do business in a region.

They can't file a lawsuit against a company outside of Texas for non-action inside Texas, because A> nothing happened in Texas, literally, by their own admission, and B> Texas has no jurisdiction outside of Texas.

It's like a cell phone customer trying to sue a cell phone company for not selling them a phone and plan, because the company doesn't have towers in that customer's area and the company won't accept contracts if you're outside their service area. That lawsuit's not going anywhere.

[Ripster42]

That's normally true, but that isn't how this law is designed to work. You mention the post office, they are considered a common carrier, and as such are legally prohibited from discriminating against customers based on location. The Texas law declares that social media companies are common carriers, and therefore attempts to apply the same rules that would bar them from NOT doing business in Texas.

The point being made is that the state doesn't have that power. Laws written based upon authority the state legislature doesn't have aren't enforceable. Enforcement would be impossible without raising state law above federal law. Texas doesn't control interstate commerce, and the enforcement mechanism would run afoul of the fed's interest in interstate commerce.

[Poopymonster]

The point being made is that the state doesn't have that power. Laws written based upon authority the state legislature doesn't have aren't enforceable. Enforcement would be impossible without raising state law above federal law. Texas doesn't control interstate commerce, and the enforcement mechanism would run afoul of the fed's interest in interstate commerce.

So it'd come before the Supreme Court?

Hold my beer. Which I love. I LOVE BEER. There's nothing wrong with that. A beer. Which I love. I LOVE BEER.

[Fugus]

So it'd come before the Supreme Court?

And, as fucked up as they are now, do you think they are going to rule that Texas, therefore every other state, has the authority to unilaterally create a federal rule bypassing congress, senate, president, and all other federal groups? Not a chance do they want to take a ruling that outright gives California the authority to regulate car emissions nationally or that any state can regulate the national gun policies or the headache of situations where different states pass contradictory laws that both are designed to have equal authority.

Especially at a time they are having to defend themselves for fucked up shit with many already calling their credibility into question and increasing demands to do something to address their lack of credibility.

[Poopymonster]

And, as fucked up as they are now, do you think they are going to rule that Texas, therefore every other state, has the authority to unilaterally create a federal rule bypassing congress, senate, president, and all other federal groups? Not a chance do they want to take a ruling that outright gives California the authority to regulate car emissions nationally or that any state can regulate the national gun policies or the headache of situations where different states pass contradictory laws that both are designed to have equal authority.

Especially at a time they are having to defend themselves for fucked up shit with many already calling their credibility into question and increasing demands to do something to address their lack of credibility.

I could see them doing so. Yes. No. In that order.
Yes to Texas. No to Cali. They don't have to explain shit, it's SCOTUS magic.
They are lifers. Their accountability is to themselves. Not even accountable to any and all paymasters who got them there. That will only change if both parties do something about it. And one party is too busy furiously masturbating over "Once Roe falls, we'll start putting fags back in the closet, birthing cattle back in the kitchen, and oooo, imagine what we can do to those uppity...."

[D3thray]

I thought he meant the opposite? The government can't impugn on Twitter's right to free speech by forcing it to speak on behalf of its clients.

Corporate speech is about as ridiculous as corporate personhood (ala Citizens United). Defending one is defending the other.

[Fugus]

I could see them doing so. Yes. No. In that order.
Yes to Texas. No to Cali. They don't have to explain shit, it's SCOTUS magic.
They are lifers. Their accountability is to themselves. Not even accountable to any and all paymasters who got them there. That will only change if both parties do something about it. And one party is too busy furiously masturbating over "Once Roe falls, we'll start putting fags back in the closet, birthing cattle back in the kitchen, and oooo, imagine what we can do to those uppity...."

The couldn’t enable Texas and none else, those cases would be never ending and they couldn’t shadow docket them all and each time costs them some politically and increases the chances of them losing power in the elected offices and them being replaced or packed which already has a lot of public will for any growing with their current stuff and likely will continue to.

Yes, they are corrupt and power hungry, but they also aren’t that short sighted, this was a setup that took decades to setup, you won’t see them do that unless they already see themselves on the way out.

[tehdang]

I have to assume tehdang is on the side of Texas here based on all of their other viewpoints.

The other posters correctly determined the thrust of the post from the post itself, not assumptions of political tribe they carried into reading it. Don't let your prejudices and assumptions cloud your rational understanding.

Corporate speech is about as ridiculous as corporate personhood (ala Citizens United). Defending one is defending the other.

Read the original preliminary injunction. I think you have to tackle the three+ cases cited to continue here. "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" in the First Amendment has actual power. Some quotes to wet your whistle:

“[I]f the acts of ‘disclosing’ and ‘publishing’ information do not constitute speech, it is hard to imagine what does fall within that category, as distinct from the category of expressive conduct.”

“It has yet to be demonstrated how governmental regulation of this crucial process can be exercised consistent with First Amendment guarantees of a free press as they have evolved to this time.”

“Indeed this general rule, that the speaker has the right to tailor the speech, applies not only to expressions of value, opinion, or endorsement, but equally to statements of fact the speaker would rather avoid.”

The private utility company had the “right to be free from government restrictions that abridge its own rights in order to enhance the relative voice of its opponents.” That was because a corporation has the “choice of what not to say” and cannot be compelled to “propound political messages with which they disagree.”

[NED funded]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn...law/index.html

Texas being Texas.

They are trying to prohibit social media platforms from doing any type of moderation. In the process read about conservative judges being confused by the difference between an Internet Service Provider and a Website.

Get ready to have everything from Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Twitter etc to be spammed by the N word, anti-Semitism, calls for mass murder, gore and dick pics, conspiracy theories and all the trash the internet can produce.

No preference, no parental controls, no rankings, no bans.

Sounds fun. /S

How does this work for youtube kids lmao?

I dislike big companies obeying every single command of weird lefty ppl wrt moderstion but this is weird

[CastletonSnob]

Someone on Twitter said that Abbott and the Texas Republicans deserve credit for the power not going out.

The power stayed on in SPITE of them, not BECAUSE of them.

[Endus]

Corporate speech is about as ridiculous as corporate personhood (ala Citizens United). Defending one is defending the other.

Both of those are nothing but legal simplifications. Corporate personhood and speech are just extensions of the owner's rights and freedoms, and allow the corporation to act as its own legal entity rather than requiring direct links to the owner(s) specifically.

For an owner-operator, to make it simple, there's essentially no difference; the corporation's "personhood" and speech are direct extensions of the owner's, and the owner could just as easily conduct things directly rather than under the corporation's name, changing essentially nothing legally meaningful.

For shareholder ownership, it means you don't have to hold shareholder meetings to get signatures for every single statement or action by the corporation. That's it.

Limited liability is an issue, but it's one that's not connected at all to corporate personhood or corporate speech, which are just legal conveniences that mean you're dealing with one entity (the corporation) rather than potentially thousands or millions (the total collected voting shareholders individually).

[D3thray]

The other posters correctly determined the thrust of the post from the post itself, not assumptions of political tribe they carried into reading it. Don't let your prejudices and assumptions cloud your rational understanding.

Read the original preliminary injunction. I think you have to tackle the three+ cases cited to continue here. "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" in the First Amendment has actual power. Some quotes to wet your whistle:

“[I]f the acts of ‘disclosing’ and ‘publishing’ information do not constitute speech, it is hard to imagine what does fall within that category, as distinct from the category of expressive conduct.”

“It has yet to be demonstrated how governmental regulation of this crucial process can be exercised consistent with First Amendment guarantees of a free press as they have evolved to this time.”

“Indeed this general rule, that the speaker has the right to tailor the speech, applies not only to expressions of value, opinion, or endorsement, but equally to statements of fact the speaker would rather avoid.”

The private utility company had the “right to be free from government restrictions that abridge its own rights in order to enhance the relative voice of its opponents.” That was because a corporation has the “choice of what not to say” and cannot be compelled to “propound political messages with which they disagree.”

The fundamental problem with the idea that corporations have the same free speech protections as private citizens is that corporations cannot be said to speak on behalf of their employees, board, or even investors. It’s a statement approved by some PR stooge with the backing of the CEO at best.

[tehdang]

The fundamental problem with the idea that corporations have the same free speech protections as private citizens is that corporations cannot be said to speak on behalf of their employees, board, or even investors. It’s a statement approved by some PR stooge with the backing of the CEO at best.

They're not exactly the same, because of certain restraining principles, but you're still not coming to terms with the ones that exist and were mentioned in the preliminary injunction. What cases of free speech and free press do you disagree with previous judge's findings? Preliminary Injunction. Can D3thray's Book Club or Friends of D3thray Main St March for Victory have any speech protections that D3thray enjoys a greater portion of? I'm not buying your investment into "same," in "same free speech protections as private citizens," since I never said they were equal.

I gave you some quotes to bite into, and I confess, I have no idea if you agree with none or all.

[Endus]

The fundamental problem with the idea that corporations have the same free speech protections as private citizens is that corporations cannot be said to speak on behalf of their employees, board, or even investors. It’s a statement approved by some PR stooge with the backing of the CEO at best.

This just isn't true. Corporations are tools that express the collective voice of their ownership, usually via some centralization such as through selecting a CEO, yes. But if the CEO isn't abiding by the wishes of the owners, they'll get fired and replaced. The alternative isn't that the corporation doesn't express itself, it's that the CEO expresses that same statement themselves, as the chosen representative of the collective ownership. It fundamentally does not change anything.

The "PR stooge" is just an employee of said ownership, trying to frame whatever comments are made in as positive a light as possible; that happens with a lot of public figures, not just corporations.

And obviously corporations don't speak on behalf of their employees. They exist to exploit those employees, not serve their interests. The relationship between company and employee is fundamentally hostile, in a capitalist system.

[LilSaihah]

Corporate speech is about as ridiculous as corporate personhood (ala Citizens United). Defending one is defending the other.

I don't see why. Behind the speech, there's still a person, or perhaps an especially well trained parrot.