A federal appeals court on Wednesday reinstated a Republican-backed Texas law that prohibits large social media companies from banning users over their political viewpoints.
What would this mean for those you have been suspended? Had posts deleted?
The law does not provide any specific civil penalties for breaking the law, besides allowing users to sue to recuperate their court costs from the company found in violation. The law also empowers the attorney general to pursue violations.
I would think it would be going forward, right? Isnāt that how laws work? I did not read the article just the headline :).
Coogfans will argue this is a special purpose website, and besides, government has no right to say who can post what on a private website. Oh, wait a minuteā¦
Instagram has disabled access to certain filters for users in Texas due to violations of the use of those filters and texas law.
FaceBook is owned by Meta shareholders (for example), who elect a board, who hires a CEO, who institutes Terms of Service. No government needed.
Trump Social is owned by itās SPAC (for example) who elect a board, who hires a CEO, who institutes Terms of Service. No government needed.
Coogfans is owned by an individual who institutes Terms of Service. No government needed.
Contrary to the argument that apps like FB and Twitter are so powerful (widely used) as to constitute a special class of public utility, you can start and host your own website for a few hundred dollars.
With sufficiently effective marketing savvy and subsequent investment, you can grow it to be as big as Twitter or Facebook. And institute your own TOS. No government needed.
Agreed, no government needed but Texas and the 5th circuit court seem to think differently.
This is all true, so the government needs to get out of the protection business. If the private company decides to ban or post something that someone wants to sue them over, then they should not be protected by the government as an innocent bystander like the phone company. Then 100% the government should not be needed. But as long as private companies can ban and prohibit whatever they feel and also have no repercussions for peopleās published works then the government needs to stay involved. Newspapers are subject to libel and slander laws from anything they post, they are a private industry with that check and balance. If DWAC or Meta want those checks and balances then they can have the government taken out.
Canāt have it both ways.
So, government canāt force you to sell a cake to somebody of which you disapprove, but can force you to post offensive/contrary viewpoints on your bulletin board. I get it! No, actually, I donāt get it.
But the cake business does not have special protections currently. They can get sued. They can get caught in legal fights that they choose to fight. If Facebook wants to ban someone there is no legal repercussions so there is no consequence for malfeasance. If a baker does not want to bake a cake, we have seen that they are driven to court to defend their position.
If wal mart banned say, Black Live Matters supporters from entering their stores and buying their products, the outcry would be insane. It is a private company, with stockholders and a ceo, but they could do that. They would be sued and the DOJ would file the largest legal case in the history of legal cases. But when a company of similar value like facebook can do it to a political party and itās members, it is their right as a private company?
Ian, Section 230 should be reviewed, maybe refreshed. Iām not an expert. I can say with some certainty that making message boards liable for user content will do nothing but tighten moderating standards.
Iām free to use websites according to the TOS. Iām also free to start my own website with my own TOS. If Facebook or Twitter is unfriendly to oneās viewpoint, go post elsewhere like Trump Social or Gab. For many, the thrill is in trolling, threatening, doxing, and intimidating those with contrary viewpoints, which is why the conspiracy crowd wants free run of Twitter and FB.
UH vs Tulsa in first round of AAC Softball tournament on ESPN+ right now.
Hereās why websites donāt want a repeal or reworking of Section 230. An Instagram post by one soccer playerās wife about another soccer playerās wife is now the subject of a lawsuit.
Paid for and sponsored by the googleās people dictatorship.
Did you read the article? Itās definitely not a hit piece. Itās not even opinion.
Really?
Tell me how itās a hit piece.
Itās not a borderline pornographic display of pro conservative beliefs. Thereforeā¦hit piece.
Not a hit piece?
This is from our friend Bryant:
For those who would love a TL;DR
Conservative court sides with conservative. No reason given, most likely because there is no viable legal reasoning.
This invites these types of responses.
Ā©Copyright 2017 Coogfans.com