Judge tears apart Texas social media law for violating First Amendment

That makes the transition from "platform" to "publisher".

 

Not really the same thing, though I could make a similar argument about MSNBC.

Fox News does not offer a platform for anybody to post their individual perspectives. If they did, then u think they should afford all viewpoints the same opportunity.

 

Oh, the irony exists in common sense, which well you know...

Any way, if you actually agree with the constitution, the right to free speech is provided by our creator. The constitution limits government taking that away. If somebody is on board with the concept of free speech as established in the Constitution, then the irony is easy to see.

Again, if they are capable of common sense.

 

They really can't

 

what special protection is that?

it Trump guilty of anything anyone posts on his site? or is the one that posts it guilty?

a site is only responsible if it's reported to them, and they refuse to remove it

most free sites remove stuff with in an abundance of caution, as they do not want to go through the hassle and expense of a court case

example, on a tech site, we were discussing a bug, and it turned out to be spywhere in a web client plugin, we mentioned the dns adddess, the spyware company fixed their bug, then threatened the site with a DMCA violation, so the site removed any posts with the dns address in them - did they have too, no, but pick your fights

 

Article 47 section 230 of us code.

if he acts as an editor he should be.

Somehow I doubt he's going to get the protection that Twitter in Facebook enjoy

if they act as a platform sure but if they edit and curate content they're acting as a publisher not a platform. And they should be held responsible for stuff they allow.

no they don't. There are dark corners of any platform you can find that can titillate the most depraved of human desires.

This is why they're hypocrites for removing Trump.

The issue is the platform acting as a publisher they either should be held accountable for the content they don't edit or they shouldn't be editing it at all unless it violates a law.

I know you want special protections for the people who are on your political side but once that changes you will likely change your tune.

 

Trump site has the same rights anyones site has, and any site can have their own TOS

now Trump when he was President had NDA's that silenced people against speaking about him, that was a violation of free speech as Trump was the government

 

Sure but not any of them can be considered platforms.

If it edits content that doesn't break the law it's a publisher not a platform

If he made people sign them while holding political office with refuses to the activity of that office yes. If not no.

 

this site does the same thing, and they have ever right too, all sites do

they do not have to save anything you or anyone else says and broadcast it forever

nope, no private NDA should be valid for ANY President, silencing the people to speak about our President is unconstitutional

 

this sight doesn't edit content based on politics. If I want to talk about Hunter Biden's laptop or state that men aren't women I don't get banned here. And my content isn't removed.

President is an office not a person.

 

never claimed it did, I claimed it edits content, which is their right, if a post or title does not meet their TOS, they can definitely do that

so Trump was not a President? good to know?

 

Trump has a bad case of TDS, he is patient zero, why the disease is named after him, is he contagious?

 

Yes.... he breaths, speaks, or laughs and Leftists lose their minds. It's kind of sad. It only happens to those who are already mentally suspect. They don't even realize it.

 

The problem with Twitter and Facebook is they are silencing truth because it goes against their politics.

That isn't wrong, new York times does that NBC does that but they aren't protected by section 230

He held that office he doesn't now.

 

That's what you and I should be saying to the author of that drivel you linked to.

 

You have no answers.......that's why I asked.

 

You commented on it...............

 

Judge tears apart Texas social media law for violating First Amendment
Let me see if I got this. Passing a law that stops someone from not allowing someone else to speak out is violating the right to free speech??? I'm getting dizzy!

 

Which platforms

 

They are not violating any regulations. There is no regulation that says they can't edit/curate/moderate content as they wish. There is however, legislation - Section 230 - that expressly permits them to do.

What baloney.

The author has absolutely no idea what they're talking about. For example, they say:

"To further differentiate them, a publisher does not have to produce anything it does not want to,
but a platform is purely an expression of the first amendment, private or not."​

...as the basis for claiming that a platform has no right to abridge this expression through "censoring" its content.

First, a platform is an expression of the owner's first amendment rights, thus they and no one else - least of all government - may choose what content they they do and do not use, in accordance with their values, ideas and so forth.

Second, there is absolutely no legal basis for claiming otherwise. As stated above, they are expressly permitted to do so.

No surprise, then, the author fails to provide any legal basis for their opinion.

 

Gosh. Read the decision. This outlines why 230 protections no longer apply to the socials. Let the games begin. LOL

 

Just a quick point NDAs are entirely legal under the current law. don't like it? Change the law. There is NOTHING unconstitutional about NDAs.

 

so are EULA's, thus my point, we saw how Trump handled NDA's, so if Trump makes you agree to a EULA to use his new site, read it carefully

the government is not supposed to be able to silence people, as President, Trump did just that, even tried to have gov employees sign his personal NDA's

 

Really not sure what you're trying to say here. You're wrong about NDAs and their use. Also, if you agree to an end user licensing agreement, obviously, you are relinquishing your ownership of content by posting it. Entirely different legal standards. What are you really angry about then? If, as you seem to be advocating, this is standard publishing, then the legal protections of 230 aren't appropriate. Either way, you're wrong.

 

You have a poor understanding of Section 230.

First, it doesn't distinguish between publishers and "platforms". It doesn't even mention platforms, and with good reason. "Platform" is a relatively new word for particular types of website, usually social media like Twitter, Facebook etc., which didn’t even exist when Section 230 was enacted. The word has no legal significance whatsoever.

Second, Section 230 doesn’t in any event concern itself with particular types or sizes of websites - only "interactive computer services" and "information content providers".

Third, it explicitly allows editing etc. without changing status to publisher.

"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher
or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."​

In short, it removed any distinction - in terms of liability - between sites that edit their content and sites that don't, the purpose being to encourage owners to exercise some control over content, recognizing that the internet was an important resource used by children and families, among others.