Fifth Circuit Rejects the Idea of Tech Platforms Having Limitless Censorship Rights
And liberals react predictably: https://twitter.com/BrendanCarrFCC/status/1570886804953509890Support via donation:Patreon: https://tinyurl.com/y2jothtpSubscribestar: https://tinyurl.com/yyxov782...
"Today we reject the idea that corporations have a freewheeeling First Amendment right to censor what people say.”
"Judge Oldham draws on the longstanding distinction between entities, like the Big Tech companies here, that operate mainly as conduits for the speech of others and, on the other hand, a newspaper that primarily carries the newspaper's own speech.
Big First Amendment difference."
Sources: https://twitter.com/BrendanCarrFCC/status/1570886804953509890
https://twitter.com/BrendanCarrFCC/status/1570894475152732160
Archive Today: https://archive.ph/oGMkA
https://archive.ph/ODyDP
Wayback Machine Archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20220917121343/https://twitter.com/BrendanCarrFCC/status/1570886804953509890
https://web.archive.org/web/20220917124550/https://twitter.com/BrendanCarrFCC/status/1570894475152732160
A-fucking-men.
The tweet in the link presents a valid argument:
either the websites are conduits for the speech of others and they may be regulated consistent with longstanding regulations on similar entities like cable companies OR
the speech on their site is their own, and they lose the Section 230 protections that immunize them from liability.
Section 230 was put in place in the 90's to protect a website from being sued into oblivion because some random posted kiddie porn and they didn't see and remove it. The law specifically said it was to protect a nascent industry so it could grow.
The landscape has changed; the internet isn't in danger of being wiped out through litigation, websites like Twitter and Facebook are billion dollar powerhouses, and they do an admirable job of purging their site of any contend that doesn't align with their views. Time for the training wheels to come off.
Section 230 is still protecting smaller sites that don't have money to pay full-time censors, though. I don't think it is the problem. I don't even think the problem is that operators of websites get to censor what they want. The problem is Big Tech engages in clear anticompetitive behavior, and no one does anything about it.
For example: eBay should not be able to own PayPal. Google should not be able to own YouTube. Apple should not be allowed to run the sole app store for Apple hardware.
Like so many things, you don't need a new law. you need the government to do its fucking job.
Wrong on every level
Bravo. If you lick corporate boot, then you are not on the right.
"When you are more powerful than I am, I advocate against censorship because that is to my benefit, when I am more powerful than you are, I advocate for censorship, for the same reason."
The 5th Circuit is the least pozzed circuit in the country. It's like the anti-9th. They're the ones who stayed the clotshot mandate before the child sniffer was able to get a more receptive audience in the 6th Circuit.
most big tech censorship is done behind closed doors with no public records, and a significant amount is done at the request of the state department. that stuff isn't going away. this ruling might stop overt censorship, like a person having their account banned, and even that is doubtful.
That needs to be made illegal too. They'll still do it, but then at least the next administration will have power to wield the DOJ and use it against the previous one, and it will serve as a deterrent to CEOs forcing them to think before having any private calls with officials.
It's a pipe dream though, because the cozy relationship between the federal government and Big Tech is by design. They didn't fund LifeLog just so we could use it to coordinate the overthrow of their regime.
So, something good finally happened.
How far will it go?
Assuming Tech will just ignore & appeal higher?
Not sure what's next after the 5th?