3 ms·

> Yes. The question is: Why in this case is the ACLU more concerned with the first amendment rights of billion-dollar corporations more than those of individual

by danans 3y ago

> Yes. The question is: Why in this case is the ACLU more concerned with the first amendment rights of billion-dollar corporations more than those of individual Americans? Because only the First Amendment rights of the billion-dollar corporations are being infringed upon by the state in the case before SCOTUS. By contrast, the "individual American" here isn't being infringed upon by the state. If the state sent the law enforcement to arrest someone exercising their free speech (in a way that doesn't cause harm to people - threatening people and worse acts don't count as free speech), that would be First Amendment infringement. Even then, there are limits - i.e. gag orders in court cases. > The ACLU that defended marchers in Skokie in the spirit of "I disagree with what you say but I defend to the death your right to say it" They still support Nazis' right to speak their beliefs, but they don't have a right to use another private entity's bullhorn to do it.

shagie 3y ago
> Because only the First Amendment rights of the billion-dollar corporations are being infringed upon by the state in the case before SCOTUS. Also note the "only the First Amendment rights of the billion-dollar corporations" which gets into a part that is likely overlooked. https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/02/26/us/supreme-court-arguments-social-media/794b9bb8-204e-533c-a217-8cdb967ee8e9?smid=url-share https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/02/26/us/supreme-court-arg... (full unlocked article if that link doesn't work https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/02/26/us/supreme-court-arguments-social-media?unlocked_article_code=1.YU0.ifNf.8pjP4YPDLKBA&smid=url-share https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/02/26/us/supreme-court-arg... ) > Justice Elena Kagan seems skeptical of Clement’s argument that the fact the laws regulate only larger social media platforms is a First Amendment violation. Clement insists that under Supreme Court precedent, discriminating based on size is such a violation. This gets into the Bill of Attainer ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder#United_State... ) where laws are written to impact specific individuals or companies and depriving them of rights or property without due process or through legislation. https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2021/7072/BillText/er/HTML https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2021/7072/BillText/er/... 453 (g) "Social media platform" means any information service, 454 system, Internet search engine, or access software provider 455 that: 456 1. Provides or enables computer access by multiple users to 457 a computer server, including an Internet platform or a social 458 media site; 459 2. Operates as a sole proprietorship, partnership, limited 460 liability company, corporation, association, or other legal 461 entity; 462 3. Does business in the state; and 463 4. Satisfies at least one of the following thresholds: 464 a. Has annual gross revenues in excess of $100 million, as 465 adjusted in January of each odd-numbered year to reflect any 466 increase in the Consumer Price Index. 467 b. Has at least 100 million monthly individual platform 468 participants globally. 469 470 The term does not include any information service, system, 471 Internet search engine, or access software provider operated by 472 a company that owns and operates a theme park or entertainment 473 complex as defined in s. 509.013. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_social_platforms_with_at_least_100_million_active_users https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_social_platforms_with_... Why not 100,000 monthly average users? Or gross revenue of $1 million? If YouTube comments are part of this, would Amazon reviews be too? Consider also if this law would this prohibit Amazon from removing the reviews of someone who posts "MAGA Sucks" on every listing of a red hat? Clearly, the solution to the Florida law is to classify the Googleplex as a theme park.

by danans 3y ago

shagie 3y ago

> Because only the First Amendment rights of the billion-dollar corporations are being infringed upon by the state in the case before SCOTUS. Also note the "only the First Amendment rights of the billion-dollar corporations" which gets into a part that is likely overlooked. https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/02/26/us/supreme-court-arguments-social-media/794b9bb8-204e-533c-a217-8cdb967ee8e9?smid=url-share https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/02/26/us/supreme-court-arg... (full unlocked article if that link doesn't work https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/02/26/us/supreme-court-arguments-social-media?unlocked_article_code=1.YU0.ifNf.8pjP4YPDLKBA&smid=url-share https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/02/26/us/supreme-court-arg... ) > Justice Elena Kagan seems skeptical of Clement’s argument that the fact the laws regulate only larger social media platforms is a First Amendment violation. Clement insists that under Supreme Court precedent, discriminating based on size is such a violation. This gets into the Bill of Attainer ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder#United_State... ) where laws are written to impact specific individuals or companies and depriving them of rights or property without due process or through legislation. https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2021/7072/BillText/er/HTML https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2021/7072/BillText/er/... 453 (g) "Social media platform" means any information service, 454 system, Internet search engine, or access software provider 455 that: 456 1. Provides or enables computer access by multiple users to 457 a computer server, including an Internet platform or a social 458 media site; 459 2. Operates as a sole proprietorship, partnership, limited 460 liability company, corporation, association, or other legal 461 entity; 462 3. Does business in the state; and 463 4. Satisfies at least one of the following thresholds: 464 a. Has annual gross revenues in excess of $100 million, as 465 adjusted in January of each odd-numbered year to reflect any 466 increase in the Consumer Price Index. 467 b. Has at least 100 million monthly individual platform 468 participants globally. 469 470 The term does not include any information service, system, 471 Internet search engine, or access software provider operated by 472 a company that owns and operates a theme park or entertainment 473 complex as defined in s. 509.013. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_social_platforms_with_at_least_100_million_active_users https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_social_platforms_with_... Why not 100,000 monthly average users? Or gross revenue of $1 million? If YouTube comments are part of this, would Amazon reviews be too? Consider also if this law would this prohibit Amazon from removing the reviews of someone who posts "MAGA Sucks" on every listing of a red hat? Clearly, the solution to the Florida law is to classify the Googleplex as a theme park.