8 ms·

Texas’ Unconstitutional Social Media Law Allowed to Proceed

45 points by panarky 4y ago

t4lkjlkjl5yt34 4y ago
- Finnucane 4y ago
  The first amendment gives private entities such as Twitter the right to curate what’s on their site. AKA “freedom of the press belongs to those that own the press.” Twitter isn’t the government and it doesn’t control the rest of the internet.
version_five 4y ago
The title is editorialized and different from the title in the article, specifically the addition of "unconstitutional" The article said a lower court found it unconstitutional, but that was struck down. Unfortunately it didn't explain why the court struck it down (presumably because that would have spoiled the narrative) so I don't know if it was a technicality or if the higher court found it was constitutional.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- perihelions 4y ago
  EFF likely changed their own title; "unconstitutional" is present in the url string. (I'm not OP) edit to add: https://web.archive.org/web/20220512173904/https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/05/blow-free-speech-texas-unconstitutional-social-media-law-allowed-proceed-pending https://web.archive.org/web/20220512173904/https://www.eff.o...
  - version_five 4y ago
    Good catch, I didn't see that!
- Finnucane 4y ago
  No, the lower court issued an injunction and the higher court lifted it. The case is still being argued.
josephcsible 4y ago
The EFF has really lost their way. They should not be defending Big Tech censoring the Internet.
- scarface74 4y ago
  I wonder if Trump’s Truth platform would allow “free speech”? I’ve been banned from RedState repeatedly.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
  > ... Big Tech censoring the Internet. Big Tech is literally publishing the Internet: it can be seen on Instagram, Twitter, Youtube, Twitch, TikTok, etc. (I don't include Google Search and other search providers because they're not generally considered "social media".) The law would allow Texans to sue big tech specifically for not publishing their individual stuff, which could easily be argued as an infringement, by law, of their own speech rights. If you intend to be arguing that Big Tech has too much of a hand in what gets published, I at least would be one to agree. It should still be the case, however, that they are able to choose what they publish.
- saynay 4y ago
  By arguing for the free speech rights over government compelled speech?
- commandlinefan 4y ago
  I'm sympathetic to attempts to rein in overzealous social media moderation but... this position is entirely consistent with the EFF for as long as I remember there being an EFF. A law that says you can't moderate social media strikes me as worse than leftist moderators.
rudolph9 4y ago
People seem to confuse freedom of speech with antitrust issues when it comes to social media curating content. They’re private companies, they can curate content as they see fit. If someone doesn’t like it, use a different platform. If one platform is too dominant then it’s an antitrust issue.
- version_five 4y ago
  Yes, I think that's the most sensible framework for looking at this. The challenge is that antitrust laws may need to be updated or reinterpreted for platform companies. And there doesn't seem to be too much political will for that. All sides mainly seem to support laws and private action that align with censoring views they disagree with and forcing hosting of views they support. Well only make progress when people (a) agree there will be views they don't like or agree with on the internet and (b) as you say, outside of a monopoly power situation, private companies can choose what they decide to publish or not publish.
- fragmede 4y ago
  Just because it's a private company doesn't mean zero rules apply to it. You can't just start a restaurant (a private company) and say no blacks allowed.
  - olliej 4y ago
    You can as a restaurant require a certain level of clothing. That can be used for overtly discriminatory purposes, but is allowed. (Some social media) can say “here are the rules you need to conform to: don’t threaten people, don’t propagate racist abuse, etc” they can’t say “we don’t accept black people”, but if they have rules that apply to everyone, then it’s their own right. Musk wants trump on Twitter because musk recognizes that buying favour is super easy with trump.
    - jfengel 4y ago
      I think he just recognizes that Trump is a money-printing machine for Twitter.
capguy255 4y ago
The unintended consequences of this seem off the charts. It's not clear what type of moderation is acceptable under the law. The law was designed to target big sites, but very little stops someone from registering tens of millions of users on a site with a particular slant, posting something that will obviously get moderated, and then suing the site. I can imagine that both active moderation and meta-moderation by voting would expose a site to litigation.
- panarky 4y ago
  > The law was designed to target big sites Curious that "big site" is defined as 50 million users and not, say, 1 million users. Maybe because the right-wing authors of this law want right-wing sites to be able to grow and still be exempt from the law, to allow right-wing communities to continue censoring views they don't like. For example, Truth Social (2 million users), Gettr (3 million users) and Gab (4 million users).
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
rayiner 4y ago
Let me see if I understand the left’s conception of free speech here. 1) A corporation producing a political movie about a candidate isn’t free speech. 2) But a corporation censoring content based on political views is free speech.
- barbacoa 4y ago
  For those who don't get the reference. #1 is referring to the Citizens United SCOTUS ruling.
  - notreallyserio 4y ago
    Oh, so important context was left out. Standard argument technique.
- TimPC 4y ago
  This might be extremely controversial but I think Facebook should be able to take down pornography on their platform. Since pornography is considered speech in the US that means I’m not a free speech absolutist. I’m not sure where the right line to draw is but it’s clear platforms need some censorship rights over their platforms.
  - h2odragon 4y ago
    How about "pornography is OK but only if you're $RACE?" The issue at issue isn't "can they moderate content" but "should content moderation be applied equally"
    - notreallyserio 4y ago
      That doesn't appear to be the case in HB 20, at all, although proponents have certainly tried to claim it is.
- dctoedt 4y ago
  1. A corporation is a legal fiction created by government gift to signify that the individuals participating in the corporation's affairs have limited financial exposure when they would otherwise be subject to unlimited exposure for the corporation's debts and liabilities. If, as a condition of that limited liability, a relevant governing body wants to restrict what can be published in the name of a corporation, no individual's free speech is being restricted. Congress should be able to impose such restrictions under the Commerce Clause and/or the Republican Form of Government Clause; states should be able to do so under their general police powers; all subject to the usual constitutional restrictions (equal protection, due process, etc.). 2. A corporation can (or at least should be able to) allow or forbid content on its own platform as it sees fit --- but by the same reasoning as #1, a relevant state legislature should be able impose conditions on limited liability, and logically those conditions could include free-speech [EDIT:] restrictions on content moderation (subject to federal constitutional constraints, e.g., under the Supremacy Clause).
mikkergp 4y ago
This seems like one of the situations where the law is overly broad on-purpose to get reasonable people to take a position on it that seems unreasonable if only taken at face value, but has overly broad implications that reasonable people would be concerned about.
hitovst 4y ago
When the criminal "Civil Rights Act" came to be, people got confused about what is public property, and what is private property and no one else's business.

45 points by panarky 4y ago

Finnucane 4y ago
The first amendment gives private entities such as Twitter the right to curate what’s on their site. AKA “freedom of the press belongs to those that own the press.” Twitter isn’t the government and it doesn’t control the rest of the internet.

The title is editorialized and different from the title in the article, specifically the addition of "unconstitutional" The article said a lower court found it unconstitutional, but that was struck down. Unfortunately it didn't explain why the court struck it down (presumably because that would have spoiled the narrative) so I don't know if it was a technicality or if the higher court found it was constitutional.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
perihelions 4y ago
EFF likely changed their own title; "unconstitutional" is present in the url string. (I'm not OP) edit to add: https://web.archive.org/web/20220512173904/https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/05/blow-free-speech-texas-unconstitutional-social-media-law-allowed-proceed-pending https://web.archive.org/web/20220512173904/https://www.eff.o...
- version_five 4y ago
  Good catch, I didn't see that!
Finnucane 4y ago
No, the lower court issued an injunction and the higher court lifted it. The case is still being argued.

josephcsible 4y ago

The EFF has really lost their way. They should not be defending Big Tech censoring the Internet.

scarface74 4y ago
I wonder if Trump’s Truth platform would allow “free speech”? I’ve been banned from RedState repeatedly.
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
> ... Big Tech censoring the Internet. Big Tech is literally publishing the Internet: it can be seen on Instagram, Twitter, Youtube, Twitch, TikTok, etc. (I don't include Google Search and other search providers because they're not generally considered "social media".) The law would allow Texans to sue big tech specifically for not publishing their individual stuff, which could easily be argued as an infringement, by law, of their own speech rights. If you intend to be arguing that Big Tech has too much of a hand in what gets published, I at least would be one to agree. It should still be the case, however, that they are able to choose what they publish.
saynay 4y ago
By arguing for the free speech rights over government compelled speech?
commandlinefan 4y ago
I'm sympathetic to attempts to rein in overzealous social media moderation but... this position is entirely consistent with the EFF for as long as I remember there being an EFF. A law that says you can't moderate social media strikes me as worse than leftist moderators.

rudolph9 4y ago

People seem to confuse freedom of speech with antitrust issues when it comes to social media curating content. They’re private companies, they can curate content as they see fit. If someone doesn’t like it, use a different platform. If one platform is too dominant then it’s an antitrust issue.

version_five 4y ago
Yes, I think that's the most sensible framework for looking at this. The challenge is that antitrust laws may need to be updated or reinterpreted for platform companies. And there doesn't seem to be too much political will for that. All sides mainly seem to support laws and private action that align with censoring views they disagree with and forcing hosting of views they support. Well only make progress when people (a) agree there will be views they don't like or agree with on the internet and (b) as you say, outside of a monopoly power situation, private companies can choose what they decide to publish or not publish.
fragmede 4y ago
Just because it's a private company doesn't mean zero rules apply to it. You can't just start a restaurant (a private company) and say no blacks allowed.
- olliej 4y ago
  You can as a restaurant require a certain level of clothing. That can be used for overtly discriminatory purposes, but is allowed. (Some social media) can say “here are the rules you need to conform to: don’t threaten people, don’t propagate racist abuse, etc” they can’t say “we don’t accept black people”, but if they have rules that apply to everyone, then it’s their own right. Musk wants trump on Twitter because musk recognizes that buying favour is super easy with trump.
  - jfengel 4y ago
    I think he just recognizes that Trump is a money-printing machine for Twitter.

capguy255 4y ago

The unintended consequences of this seem off the charts. It's not clear what type of moderation is acceptable under the law. The law was designed to target big sites, but very little stops someone from registering tens of millions of users on a site with a particular slant, posting something that will obviously get moderated, and then suing the site. I can imagine that both active moderation and meta-moderation by voting would expose a site to litigation.

panarky 4y ago
> The law was designed to target big sites Curious that "big site" is defined as 50 million users and not, say, 1 million users. Maybe because the right-wing authors of this law want right-wing sites to be able to grow and still be exempt from the law, to allow right-wing communities to continue censoring views they don't like. For example, Truth Social (2 million users), Gettr (3 million users) and Gab (4 million users).

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

rayiner 4y ago

Let me see if I understand the left’s conception of free speech here. 1) A corporation producing a political movie about a candidate isn’t free speech. 2) But a corporation censoring content based on political views is free speech.

barbacoa 4y ago
For those who don't get the reference. #1 is referring to the Citizens United SCOTUS ruling.
- notreallyserio 4y ago
  Oh, so important context was left out. Standard argument technique.
TimPC 4y ago
This might be extremely controversial but I think Facebook should be able to take down pornography on their platform. Since pornography is considered speech in the US that means I’m not a free speech absolutist. I’m not sure where the right line to draw is but it’s clear platforms need some censorship rights over their platforms.
- h2odragon 4y ago
  How about "pornography is OK but only if you're $RACE?" The issue at issue isn't "can they moderate content" but "should content moderation be applied equally"
  - notreallyserio 4y ago
    That doesn't appear to be the case in HB 20, at all, although proponents have certainly tried to claim it is.
dctoedt 4y ago
1. A corporation is a legal fiction created by government gift to signify that the individuals participating in the corporation's affairs have limited financial exposure when they would otherwise be subject to unlimited exposure for the corporation's debts and liabilities. If, as a condition of that limited liability, a relevant governing body wants to restrict what can be published in the name of a corporation, no individual's free speech is being restricted. Congress should be able to impose such restrictions under the Commerce Clause and/or the Republican Form of Government Clause; states should be able to do so under their general police powers; all subject to the usual constitutional restrictions (equal protection, due process, etc.). 2. A corporation can (or at least should be able to) allow or forbid content on its own platform as it sees fit --- but by the same reasoning as #1, a relevant state legislature should be able impose conditions on limited liability, and logically those conditions could include free-speech [EDIT:] restrictions on content moderation (subject to federal constitutional constraints, e.g., under the Supremacy Clause).

mikkergp 4y ago

This seems like one of the situations where the law is overly broad on-purpose to get reasonable people to take a position on it that seems unreasonable if only taken at face value, but has overly broad implications that reasonable people would be concerned about.

hitovst 4y ago

When the criminal "Civil Rights Act" came to be, people got confused about what is public property, and what is private property and no one else's business.