The judge is arguing under the basis that social media is a publisher. Platforms are not given editorial privileges under section 230. This also completely ignores the premise that platforms are considered the public square. A federal judge legislating from the bench, again, and will never be held accountable.
Maybe this doesn't count since it's not social media, but not long ago YouTube won a case against PragerU and the judge ruled that they are not a public square.
The Taliban also decided they're not obligated to host LGBTQ views in Afghanistan. It would be a violation of their 1st amendment rights to prevent them from "deleting" alphabet people.
Why do corporations even have rights? That needs to be fixed legislatively. I'd be fine with special exception given for small companies, but rights should be for humans. At some point the company becomes a separate beast independent of the employees/owners. Like when it incorporates and takes money from the public. It needs to be kept on a leash.
When you can constantly flip between which category you fall into by the case.... Maybe they should have to actually pick one to get protection? Maybe if the R party was a thing they could have done something about this? Oops, time to fundraise!
The judge is arguing under the basis that social media is a publisher. Platforms are not given editorial privileges under section 230. This also completely ignores the premise that platforms are considered the public square. A federal judge legislating from the bench, again, and will never be held accountable.
Obama appointee.
I think it's even simpler: corporations are not people, thus are not citizens, thus have no rights.
Everything was lost the second corporations were given personhood.
Maybe this doesn't count since it's not social media, but not long ago YouTube won a case against PragerU and the judge ruled that they are not a public square.
In other news North Korea declares itself a person and demands its 1st amendment right to "moderate" its citizenry.
The Taliban also decided they're not obligated to host LGBTQ views in Afghanistan. It would be a violation of their 1st amendment rights to prevent them from "deleting" alphabet people.
Well the idea that corporations are people is a true as a legal fiction. If you stop there it sounds perfectly logical.
Why do corporations even have rights? That needs to be fixed legislatively. I'd be fine with special exception given for small companies, but rights should be for humans. At some point the company becomes a separate beast independent of the employees/owners. Like when it incorporates and takes money from the public. It needs to be kept on a leash.
When you can constantly flip between which category you fall into by the case.... Maybe they should have to actually pick one to get protection? Maybe if the R party was a thing they could have done something about this? Oops, time to fundraise!
If freedom of speech is a narrow law rather than a founding principle, then you don't really have freedom of speech.
Yet another judge proving most aren't qualified to sit on the bench.