article full of propaganda that falsely states what texas law does, plus in their desperate attempt to bash this court opinion, they use arguments that got destroyed in the same court opinion.
some example.
Its supposed anti-censorship provisions are so strict that it would likely prevent the major social media platforms from removing content touting Nazism or white supremacy
protected speech.
Under existing First Amendment law, individuals and private businesses have a right to speak their own minds, and also a right not to speak when they do not wish to. [...]This freedom allows companies to choose which viewpoints of its users it publishes, too
nobody is stopping them to speak their own mind or refrain from doing so for example on their company account. they are arguing that them censoring viewpoints on their own platform is a First Amendment expression, which is not. also they aren't even publishers.
Given the current state of events, I think a second civil war and dissolution of the union are more likely than our corrupt government ever overturning citizens United. Much like mass immigration and giving money to Israel, corporate personhood is one of those things that is opposed by a super majority of the citizens but is nevertheless a complete given for everyone in Washington.
I don't construct the right as free speech for corporations. However, corporations are groups of people. They have individual rights which they can presumably exercise as a collective as well. To say otherwise is to say that: A pamphlet by John Smith is protected, but a pamphlet by Citizens for Sovereignty (repr. John Smith) is unprotected.
The issue seems to come at size. Corporations may be large groups of people who are not ideologically connected but economically. Then one influential person within the group may claim to speak on behalf of all of them without confirming that even most of them agree. This is more difficult for me.
article full of propaganda that falsely states what texas law does, plus in their desperate attempt to bash this court opinion, they use arguments that got destroyed in the same court opinion.
some example.
protected speech.
nobody is stopping them to speak their own mind or refrain from doing so for example on their company account. they are arguing that them censoring viewpoints on their own platform is a First Amendment expression, which is not. also they aren't even publishers.
Given the current state of events, I think a second civil war and dissolution of the union are more likely than our corrupt government ever overturning citizens United. Much like mass immigration and giving money to Israel, corporate personhood is one of those things that is opposed by a super majority of the citizens but is nevertheless a complete given for everyone in Washington.
I don't construct the right as free speech for corporations. However, corporations are groups of people. They have individual rights which they can presumably exercise as a collective as well. To say otherwise is to say that: A pamphlet by John Smith is protected, but a pamphlet by Citizens for Sovereignty (repr. John Smith) is unprotected.
The issue seems to come at size. Corporations may be large groups of people who are not ideologically connected but economically. Then one influential person within the group may claim to speak on behalf of all of them without confirming that even most of them agree. This is more difficult for me.