Supreme Court Blocks Texas Social Media Law (cnbc.com) 86
The Supreme Court blocked a controversial Texas social media law from taking effect in a decision released (PDF) on Tuesday, after the tech industry and other opponents warned it could allow for hateful content to run rampant online. CNBC reports: The law, HB20, prohibits online platforms from moderating or removing content based on viewpoint. It stems from a common charge on the right that major California-based social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter are biased in their moderation strategies and disproportionately quiet conservative voices. The platforms have said they apply their community guidelines evenly and it's often the case that right-leaning users rank among the highest in engagement.
In the 5-4 decision, Alito dissented from the decision to lift the stay, issuing a written explanation for his vote, which was joined by two other conservative justices, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch. Justice Elena Kagan, a liberal, also voted against vacating the stay. Alito's dissent opened by acknowledging the significance of the case for social media companies and for states that would regulate how those companies can control the content on their platforms. "This application concerns issues of great importance that will plainly merit this Court's review," Alito wrote. "Social media platforms have transformed the way people communicate with each other and obtain news. At issue is a ground-breaking Texas law that addresses the power of dominant social media corporations to shape public discussion of the important issues of the day." The Supreme Court's decision has implications for other states that may consider legislation similar to that in Texas. Florida's legislature has already passed a similar social media law, but it has so far been blocked by the courts.
In the 5-4 decision, Alito dissented from the decision to lift the stay, issuing a written explanation for his vote, which was joined by two other conservative justices, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch. Justice Elena Kagan, a liberal, also voted against vacating the stay. Alito's dissent opened by acknowledging the significance of the case for social media companies and for states that would regulate how those companies can control the content on their platforms. "This application concerns issues of great importance that will plainly merit this Court's review," Alito wrote. "Social media platforms have transformed the way people communicate with each other and obtain news. At issue is a ground-breaking Texas law that addresses the power of dominant social media corporations to shape public discussion of the important issues of the day." The Supreme Court's decision has implications for other states that may consider legislation similar to that in Texas. Florida's legislature has already passed a similar social media law, but it has so far been blocked by the courts.
Figures Alito dissented (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
that guy seems dead set on dismantling the constitution and everything it stands for. Originalist my ass. Freedom of association is a thing and he knows it.
Does that go for Kagan as well? Also, rather than go by what the media says, I prefer to actually read what the justices are saying. "Aye" or "Nay" are seldom the whole story, especially in law. In this case,
To be entitled to vacatur of the stay, applicants must show, among other things, a “substantial likelihood of success on the merits.” Alabama Assn. of Realtors v. Department of Health and Human Servs., 594 U. S. ___, ___ (2021) (per curiam) (slip op., at 5). Members of this Court have argued that a determination regarding an applicant’s likelihood of success must be made under “existing law,” Merrill v. Milligan, 595 U. S. ___, ___ (2022) (ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting) (slip op., at 1); Wisconsin Legislature v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, 595 U. S. ___, ___ (2022) (SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 1) (“existing precedent”). And whether applicants are likely to succeed under existing law is quite unclear.
The law before us is novel, as are applicants’ business models. Applicants claim that 7 of HB20 interferes with their exercise of “editorial discretion,” and they maintain that this interference violates their right “not to disseminate speech generated by others.” Application 19. Under some circumstances, we have recognized the right of organizations to refuse to host the speech of others. See Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc., 515 U. S. 557 (1995) (parade organizer); Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U. S. 241 (1974) (newspaper). But we have rejected such claims in other circumstances. For example, in PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U. S. 74 (1980), we rejected the argument that the owner of a shopping mall had “a First Amendment right not to be forced by the State to use his property as a forum for the speech of others.” Id., at 85. And in Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U. S. 622 (1994), we declined to apply strict scrutiny to rules that “interfere[d] with cable operators’ editorial discretion by compelling them to offer carriage to a certain minimum number of broadcast stations.” Id., at 643–644; see generally E. Volokh, Treating Social Media Platforms Like Common Carriers? 1 J. Free Speech Law 377 (2021).
Personally, I think the TX law here should be struck down, and I am (nominally) on the side of "section 230 needs to be revisited given 'editorial discretion'" but the reasoning in the above quote is sound.
Re: (Score:3)
Good on you for actually reading the ruling I've seen many comment without that.
Also, "blocks" in the headline is somewhat misleading. This just puts in place a preliminary injunction while the lawsuits over this go through the lower courts to avoid harm to the plaintiff. This isn't a final ruling on the merits for that law one way or another, though it's possible they would vote the same way on that. It's more interesting to me that they seem to be indicating a willingness to take up any cases on this t
If you touch section 230 (Score:5, Informative)
I don't know what you have against section 230 but without it the internet dies. It either gets taken over by mega corporations because they're the only ones who can weather the lawsuits while controlling their communities or the internet gets so flooded with professional paid trolls and zero moderation it collapses.
Section 230 + net neutrality is the internet. Take those away and all we have left is cable television owned by mega corporations
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know what you have against section 230 but without it the internet dies.
I don't have anything against section 230, I'm actually a proponent of it--as you point out, the internet dies without it. What I do have a problem with is companies that actively curate and promote content claiming section 230 protections. They are no longer acting in the form of a common carrier, they are acting more like a newspaper or TV station in choosing what is broadcast. They should still have strong, robust protections but not a blanket out when they choose to editorialize.
If that's your problem (Score:5, Informative)
Re: Figures Alito dissented (Score:2)
If nothing else, it should have been stayed (and should be stuck down) because the law has no meaningful interpretation. No matter what criteria you filter and sort by (even random, sequential, alphabetical, or topical), someone can get pissed and sue you under this law.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, because that TOTALLY happened when RBG passed away.
Re:Figures Alito dissented (Score:5, Interesting)
The difference now is that one party has demonstrated that it is more than willing to sabotage the confirmation process to the point where only their party gets to pick new Supreme Court Judges.
When a judge dies in the first year of a Democratic Presidents term, and the Republicans control the Senate, expect that seat to not be filled for another 3-4 years at least.
Re:Figures Alito dissented (Score:4, Interesting)
Senator Mitch McConnell has pretty much asserted that position -- anything that benefits him/Republicans, even if it directly contradicts something he/they've said or done before, is okay. The Filibuster needs to go.
Re: (Score:2)
Be careful what you wish for. Lower court nominations are already allowing in all kinds of unqualified individuals.
Re:Figures Alito dissented (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't disagree. What's that saying, "In a democracy, the people get the government they deserve."
Re: (Score:3)
Right wing Democrats want to keep the filibuster because it means they don't have to do anything for their voters except blame the filibuster. The voters aren't blameless either they keep getting scared of change and voting for right wingers even as those right wingers make everything worse every year.
It's insanity, because the Republicans have shown that they will dump the filibuster whenever it suits them. It is only a hedge against Democrats. The Republicans aren't interested in new laws refining government, protecting civil rights and managing capitalism as economies change for the future. They are interested in removing the restrictions and management that government provides to benefit the kleptocracy. They have stacked the SCOTUS and most of the other federal court circuits, not to mention many of
Re: (Score:1)
When a judge dies in the first year of a Democratic Presidents term, and the Republicans control the Senate, expect that seat to not be filled for another 3-4 years at least.
There may never be another 1st year of a Democratic president again. The GOP has pretty much ensured they will win every POTUS election going forward.
Re: (Score:2)
What's frustrating is that the Democrats don't seem to be doing anything about it. I hear some excuses about them not being able to get reforms through, but they aren't even trying.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, a much more extreme person will be the replacement. I mean c'mon, no matter which side you are on, Kavanaugh is a dumbass frat boy and is totally and completely unqualified - he is nothing more than a political tool.
You know it's terrible as he is (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I know all 6 freedoms in 1A.
The gov't may not respect an establishment of religion.
The gov't may not prohibit free exercise of religion.
The gov't may not prohibit free speech.
The gov't may not prohibit free press.
The gov't may not prohibit peaceful assemblies.
The gov't may not prohibit petitions.
Respecting is like having an official religion; which would allow the 10 comm. on gov't property without also allowing 10 "anti-commandments" as well.
Free exercise is what we normally expect that the gov't can't mak
Re: (Score:2)
Respecting is like having an official religion
No respecting is giving legitimate recognition. I respect stop signs because I recognize their usefulness (and legal backing). The government shouldn't be recognizing/respecting any religion at all. That's just part of a citizen's personal life.
Re: (Score:2)
Freedom of association is a thing and he knows it.
Although that applies to public spaces and Twitter/Facebook (etc) are private companies.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Twitter/Facebook (etc) are private companies.
It's the private companies' freedom of association that the parent is talking about. Conservatives fought tooth-and-nail for corporations to have these rights for decades and now they're getting exactly what they asked for.
Thanks, I misread it as about the individual, but you're right on both counts. Politicians should be careful about what they wish for ...
Re: (Score:2)
So he would be against the 2nd amendment then?
That's an amendment and not in the original document.
Re: (Score:2)
The Bill of Rights (first ten amendments) were written and ratified around the same time as the main Constitution and intended to be a part of it from the beginning. They are, in effect, part of "the original document" despite technically being amendments. Even the later amendments went through the prescribed ratification process and obtained the endorsement of a supermajority of the states, which puts them far above any bills passed by Congress, much less mere reinterpretation of the Constitution (as amend
Re: (Score:2)
You post this every time and don't have the guts to put your name to it. Pretty much think you're a dumbass or a Russian bot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you think they wouldn't pay more to see it happen to your favored group?
Re: (Score:1)
Caveservatives
So I guess we're screwed (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
It comes down to the core of the problem: socially liberal people see opinions they don't like related to social causes and call the person who posted them racist, xenophobic, etc. Then it opens them up to call it hate speech, which the platforms then censor. All of this is in an effort to silence the normal without taking the time to understand that these socially normal people might have a point, that point being why they're normal in the first place.
not being informed while copying and pasting a pre-selected library of responses to a given opinion is universal and should be right in that list after racist and xenophobic. in a private or public discussion an individual can just disagree and leave but a moderated platform? the problem is, in order to be a constructive gathering, to be a constructive platform some speech must be disallowed.
Re: (Score:1)
Hypothetical: tomorrow a study comes out proving that say, transgenderism is a treatable psychological condition caused by parenting. Will you call it transphobic, or will you accept the outcome. My guess is you'll react by calling it the latter and using your excuse by saying, "in order to be a constructive gathering, to be a constructive platform some speech must be disallowed".
My point is exactly the nature of your comment.You have decided, no matter what that you lean a certain way and I must lead the opposite way. BECAUSE that helps you promote your agenda. You will never bother to ask my opinion because being constructive, in that way is not your goal. As privilege of association allows you to not bother. Not, attacking you I am just outlining what I see as facts. And if I am to argue any point that is aligned against yours, I'd better be ready to really argue as if in court,
Re: (Score:1)
something else...I just watched the Amber Heard trial ending. And judging by the reactions throughout the media, I'm convinced that a certain decision was expected because some amount privilege was assumed. People were expected to have picked a side based on their knowledge of some recent film appearance, People were expected to have a public opinion on either involved, based on trivial knowledge of a person they never met, and spread it all over the internet thus affecting the outcome.. therefore people ar
Re:So I guess we're screwed (Score:5, Interesting)
As long as it's against the viewpoint of the man in power at those platforms, it's removed.
Which is exactly what Gag and Gettr and Truth Social do. In fact, Truth Social has a clause in its TOS which says if you say anything mean about the con artist, you're banned.
And yet, not once have I heard anyone among those who claimed they're being "censored" on FB or Twitter or whatever, complain about this censorship.
Re: (Score:3)
Which is exactly what Gag and Gettr and Truth Social do. In fact, Truth Social has a clause in its TOS which says if you say anything mean about the con artist, you're banned.
And yet, not once have I heard anyone among those who claimed they're being "censored" on FB or Twitter or whatever, complain about this censorship.
Yes totally uncanny about how you, on the major platforms where your ideological peers have not been censored and have no reason to go elsewhere, are not complaining about being censored on the teensy spinoff platforms that exist only to harbor refugees from the main platforms.
Personally, I am entirely okay with Truth Social saying "this is a conservative site" in their TOS. Likewise with places like Democratic Underground existing and banning conservatives is also fine with me. Freedom of association is e
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Much as I despise them for their speech "regulation" (e.g. Hunter's laptop news), I don't think we need an extra law to regulate them -- every new law adding another moving part to the system so it's best avoided if possible. Better to remove something like their Section 230 protection, or let the market take care of it, as in the case of Musk buying Twitter. Which I also think makes other forms of censorship less likely given that this whole is unpluggable. And I still don't want them to not be able to rem
Re: (Score:2)
Whether you agree with S230 protections, or disagree with them, codified in law is the correct place for policy- not a web of jurisprudence.
Re: (Score:1)
it means..., just because some sort of privilege is assumed by just being in a conversation and it is assumed one's right to allow whatever to fall out of their mouth, all of this is covered by the constitution...no it is not. everybody involved has a right to opinion but in a constructive way. So one cannot join a public discussion, decide they oppose a given opinion, then amend destructive non factual points to their reply assuming a privilege to do so. a moderated forum has a constitutional agenda and th
Re:So I guess we're screwed (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean...for starters...that's LITERALLY what the first amendment says. Private organizations have the right to express themselves. No where in the constitution does it say the most popular platform has to allow everything. I mean...no where. Everyone is free to start their own service. There's no constitutional right beyond the fact *government* can't tell you what speech to put up.
Telling a company they HAVE to allow speech they don't want is the same as telling them they can't express themselves.
Nice job wanting to wipe your ass with the constitution. I'll be glad when the first is eliminated in courts so we can eliminate the second. The rest will fall too. HOORAY PROHIBITION!
Re: (Score:2)
I mean...for starters...that's LITERALLY what the first amendment says. Private organizations have the right to express themselves. No where in the constitution does it say the most popular platform has to allow everything. I mean...no where. Everyone is free to start their own service.
If they couldn't use the patent system (or the implied threat of using it), and thus the US government, to block other companies from creating alternative platforms that compete with them but choose to allow the content they'
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's a fine line to walk though. When a company says we are allowed editorial discretion and shouldn't be forced to publish things we don't agree with, that means they implicitly agree with and should be held accountable for what is posted.
But they quite often also hold the position that they aren't responsible for what is posted and shouldn't be held accountable.
It's one or the other, common carrier or private organization.
Re: (Score:2)
It's one or the other, common carrier or private organization.
I generally agree with this, but there is a middle gray area for things like removing bots, solicitations, pornography, and of course flagrant sedition. Just because they don't want their site to be a megaphone for Russian trolls doesn't mean they're editorializing.
Re: (Score:2)
This is why USC title 47 section 230 was written: to EXPLICITLY establish that censorship is encouraged, and that things that are not censored are still the sole responsibility of the author.
Like it or not, the law is clear.
Re: (Score:3)
There was something called the fairness doctrine for mass media, but that was ended in 1987 and formally pulled from the rules in 2011. Now the only expectation is that media does formally call for the murder of the Vice President or publishing maps of schools that are especially in need of a mass shooting event.
The real precedent for these not at all groundbr
Re: (Score:2)
In that context- it makes sense. You can't have the government be arbiter of communications without a fairness doctrine.
Fairness doctrine never applied to communications that took place over a privately-owned resource (the internet).
Re: (Score:2)
but we are not surviving Fox News, it's been doing more harm than an army of Russian agents! The democracy is nearing it's demise and Fox has a huge role in the decline and soon will be helping in the fall.
Re: (Score:2)
This means FB, Twitter, Instagram, Google, whatever other social media companies that support one party will get to delete/ban there other party and there's nothing anybody can do about it.
Nothing anybody can do about it, other than just take their business elsewhere, you mean?
Town Square Argument (Score:1)
Re:Town Square Argument (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Users can easily access numerous different commercially-offered sites beyond Twitter and Facebook, or they can stand up their own service if they don't like any of the offered terms of service
I think you're conveniently forgetting where platforms have been banned from AWS [theverge.com], Google apps [techcrunch.com], and Apple store [theverge.com] simultaneously. Meanwhile, Facebook and Youtube, which later turned out to be the main offenders in the accusations levied, never got punished.
When both the frontend distributors and the backend infrastructure providers are cutting you off, it's no longer a case of being able to go build your own. This isn't the the 90s when you can just deliver some static html off your cable broadband and show u
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't the the 90s when you can just deliver some static html off your cable broadband and show up in search results.
You don't have any right to show up in search results, but I disagree. You can do that. You just also don't have any right to demand that people notice you, visit your site, and care. If your static html page is compelling, you'll get traffic.
You're just lazy; you don't want to put in the effort. You want to steal the use of someone else's technology to amplify your crap instead of earning it or building your own.
So why has their been so much freakout about Elon Musk buying Twitter?
Half people who liked Tesla and SpaceX but are finding Elon to be his own worst enemy. Hal
In many cases, no, you can't start a service (Score:3)
Yes, it's true that in many cases the content being "deplatf
Re: (Score:2)
The American Nahtzee Party, you know real genuine pro genocide white supremacist swastika wearing nahtzees have a website. They found a first amendment webhost (who's ToS are anything not literally illegal).
It's called Dreamhost and they're not even expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
The thing about having an opinion about moderation, if you have never moderated a site your opinion is mostly uninformed of what is really going on. Ask any moderator you come across what shit they have to deal with, like all the assholes who points to specific rules saying "it doesn't specifically say that I can't do X!".
Did you know that many moderators for the larger platforms suffers from PTSD because of all the shit they have to see when they moderate?
And in regards to the public square argument, are y
Re: (Score:1)
I like the idea of transparency that explains the moderation rules of privately owned platforms*. However, regulating them as a town square makes no legal sense. Truth Social clearly demonstrates that alternatives can be built and that users are interested. It also clearly demonstrates that its failure was from awful execution of their product and services. Regardless of your opinion of Truth Social, from a technical point-of-view it was poorly built and its features poorly implemented. Lawmakers would have
Re: (Score:3)
Twitter? Facebook? They do not.
The idea of private property being a public square comes from the idea that since you have to let anyone in, the public is there- you can't really restrict if they do publicly legal stuff.
Particular internet services don't fit any real analogue without torturing your logic.
Holding Twitter as a public square is akin to holding the Playboy Mansion as one.
Re:Town Square Argument (Score:4, Insightful)
I would argue that these websites need to be considered the town square in order to require free speech regulations to apply to them.
They're not. The very idea is nonsensical.
We are in a very strange area where they are controlling most public communication similar to a town square
In actuality, very little communication occurs in 'town squares.' When was the last time you hung out in your village's common to listen to the news being read by a town cryer, you idiot? Instead you get your news from a private newspaper, private tv news, private radio news, private Internet news, etc., and you can choose which private news provider you prefer, and you can even decide to be one yourself, if you like, acting privately, accountable to no one.
I think a law more likely to pass would be a law requiring transparency on when and why moderation of any kind was made, including how much a post's reach was promoted or demoted. It seems much more beneficial and legal.
The answer will be 'Because we didn't like what was being said, taking into consideration and weighing all factors of which we were aware at the time, as we saw fit.' I.e. a non-standard standard. Any mechanistic standard will just be worked around. Slashdot doesn't invite ASCII art or swastikas and yet we have some shithead who posts them all the time because he gets around the rules as implemented in crummy filters. Moderation, to the extent it's possible, requires a human touch, and humans aren't standardized, and they'll be busy; it'll be snap decisions based substantially on instinct. But it's not a big deal.
Re: (Score:2)
Be honest with yourself. You want to be able to use the influence and reach of the big sites without doing the investment or work to get there. And you twist the logic to try and fit that into some ideological persecution because the whole notion is ridiculous. You can't just go into Walmart and pull a ladder down and scream whatever you want at everyone with a bullhorn. Same rules apply to Twitter or Facebook. You have *no right* to be there. They allow you to be there at their discretion, as it has always
Expectation vs Reality (Score:2)
Next Week (Score:2)
They will change their minds; because this court has proven it's nothing but a political arm of the party that packed it and will ruin it's own reputation to satisfy it's masters.
Re: (Score:2)
Look at the political plays of Thomas's wife - these people are the masters that you refer to, what they do is mostly a show.
Does HB20 really do what the summary says it does? (Score:1)
I opened the PDF file and skimmed through it, but where does it say online platforms are prohibited from moderating or removing content based on viewpoint?
All I see is where they are required to publish transparency reports and provide an appeals process when content is moderated or removed, but maybe I skimmed too quickly. On the other hand, maybe the social media companies are arguing that those requirements
Re:Does HB20 really do what the summary says it do (Score:5, Interesting)
Section 120.002, subsection b) applies only to social media companies who have 50 million or more active users in a month. In other words, only the top five or so companies. This would exclude Gab, Gettr, and Truth Social as none of those come close to that many active monthly users.
Section 120.051, subsection a), item 3 specifically requires the above companies explain how they curate content on their site. That's the part you're looking for. This portion of the law wants the companies to explain why one item is removed but another is not. This is another charade trying to expose how only "conservative" viewpoints are being "censored".
Section 120.052 goes even further. It requires companies to outline what content is allowed to be posted, explain how they arrived at the decision, and oddly, provide a means for users to report illegal and such posting (isn't this already done?).
As for the rest, it is as you say. It's simply Big Government wanting to enact burdensome regulations on private companies. Something I thought Repubicans were against. Apparently not.
Re: (Score:2)
As for the rest, it is as you say. It's simply Big Government wanting to enact burdensome regulations on private companies. Something I thought Repubicans were against. Apparently not.
In other words, red meat from people who should know better for people who don't.
Re: (Score:1)
One viewpoint is written as an opinion or is a provable fact, so it stays. The other is an easily-observable objective lie being touted as fact, so it goes.
That law would be dead in the water anyway (Score:2)
New splash screen on your friendly social media page: "Dear visitor, our services are not available in Texas. By clicking "agree" you declare that you are not a citizen of Texas and that Texan laws do not apply to you".
Re: (Score:2)
First things first... (Score:1)
Before they can force social media platforms to do this, they'll need to take some steps first.
1. Throw out Citizens United that stated corporations are "people" with the same rights as citizens.
2. Make ISPs common carriers that must follow Net Neutrality, you can't expect platforms to be neutral if our access isn't.
3. Force judges, Congress, and anyone else making decisions about technology, to pass a basic course in understanding it.
Aside from anecdotal cases . . . (Score:2)
It's been a developing hypothesis of mine that "trolling the right" is the big money maker, and it's used by both echo chambers and critics. I am a progressive thinker, and a conservative advocate for change (keep moving consistently in a positive direction that doesn't 'lose' too many people along the way), and I don't see how anyone can
Re: (Score:1)
The internet should be free, so I don't think many people will support it. I'm glad that nowadays, the internet provides people with many services, and I think dating ones are useful for people like me who have problems communicating with people. I usually use datinger.uk/reviews/flirt/ [datinger.uk] to find a reliable dating website and make new connections, and it works for me.
Re: (Score:1)
I hope that dating sites will never be blocked, because for me, as a shy and modest person, free cougar dating sites uk [datinger.uk] are almost the only way to meet people. It's really difficult for me, so I prefer the online dating format. I think this is a good way to immediately understand if a person is right for me or not.