5 ms·

> The discussion was mostly about Thomas and Gorsuch’s confusion over 230 I find this distressing. If anyone should know what the law says, it should be a Supr

> The discussion was mostly about Thomas and Gorsuch’s confusion over 230 I find this distressing. If anyone should know what the law says, it should be a Supreme Court Justice. I know they have clerks and aides to help them with all that - the ability to know the whole law and all its variations and caveats is a monumental, and almost inhuman task. A Supreme Court justice shouldn’t mix up parts a law. They should know what it says, and what it does not say.

LudwigNagasena 3y ago
If a case has reached the Supreme Court, it means that many judges have been confused along the way. And it says more about the law than judges. It rather seems that the author has very strong convictions and bias.
- sircastor 3y ago
  I think if a case reaches the Supreme Court it really only means that the person prosecuting it is able to bankroll appeals far enough to get there - they didn’t get the answer they wanted. Beyond that, the court can either hear it out or push it back down.
  - LudwigNagasena 3y ago
    There are restrictions on appeals, as far as I understand. You can’t just frivolously appeal anything until it reaches the Supreme Court. And if a law is straightforward, it is a waste of money and time anyway.
AnthonyMouse 3y ago
They know what it says, Masnick is being disingenuous. Section 230(c)(1) says that platforms aren't liable "as the publisher or speaker" for third party speech even if they moderate. The platforms are arguing that moderation is first party speech, implying that doesn't apply. Masnick is presumably referring to 230(c)(2), which protects platforms against liability for moderation decisions. But the title of that subsection is "Civil liability" and parts of these laws impose administrative/criminal penalties. Which is presumably why the platforms are trying to make a First Amendment argument to begin with instead of just relying on Section 230.
- hn_acker 3y ago
  > They know what it says, Masnick is being disingenuous. > Section 230(c)(1) says that platforms aren't liable "as the publisher or speaker" for third party speech even if they moderate. The platforms are arguing that moderation is first party speech, implying that doesn't apply. You are mixing up two kinds of speech. In the article, Mike Masnick is arguing that the user's post is third-party speech, no matter how much the platform boosts or downranks the post. The platform's decision to boost, downrank, or remove the post is first-party speech. The platform's terms of service are first-party speech. The Florida and Texas laws unnecessarily restrict the platforms' moderation decisions, which are first-party speech protected by the First Amendment, on the basis of the contents of third-party speech i.e. holding the platforms liable as the publisher for third-party speech i.e. violating Section 230. Strict scrutiny requires that laws which serve some state interest use a method which is least restrictive of constitutional rights in achieving that state interest [1]. Allowing social media sites to be held liable for user posts violates strict scrutiny. There already is an available remedy for users' third-party speech which does not restrict platforms' first-party right to moderate: putting liability only on the users who authored the speech. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny#Applicability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny#Applicability
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    > The Florida and Texas laws unnecessarily restrict the platforms' moderation decisions, which are first-party speech protected by the First Amendment, on the basis of the contents of third-party speech i.e. holding the platforms liable as the publisher for third-party speech i.e. violating Section 230. They aren't incurring liability for hosting third party speech. Even if they left 100% of everything up they wouldn't be violating these laws. What the laws are trying to do is impose penalties for the first party act of censorship, whereas what you get from 230(c)(1) is protection for the first party act of not removing third party speech. > There already is an available remedy for user's third-party speech which does not restrict platforms' first-party right to moderate: suing the users of the posts. But there isn't a remedy for the third-party speaker whose posts are capriciously removed from a dominant platform, which is what the laws are trying to address.

LudwigNagasena 3y ago

If a case has reached the Supreme Court, it means that many judges have been confused along the way. And it says more about the law than judges. It rather seems that the author has very strong convictions and bias.

sircastor 3y ago
I think if a case reaches the Supreme Court it really only means that the person prosecuting it is able to bankroll appeals far enough to get there - they didn’t get the answer they wanted. Beyond that, the court can either hear it out or push it back down.
- LudwigNagasena 3y ago
  There are restrictions on appeals, as far as I understand. You can’t just frivolously appeal anything until it reaches the Supreme Court. And if a law is straightforward, it is a waste of money and time anyway.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago

They know what it says, Masnick is being disingenuous. Section 230(c)(1) says that platforms aren't liable "as the publisher or speaker" for third party speech even if they moderate. The platforms are arguing that moderation is first party speech, implying that doesn't apply. Masnick is presumably referring to 230(c)(2), which protects platforms against liability for moderation decisions. But the title of that subsection is "Civil liability" and parts of these laws impose administrative/criminal penalties. Which is presumably why the platforms are trying to make a First Amendment argument to begin with instead of just relying on Section 230.

hn_acker 3y ago
> They know what it says, Masnick is being disingenuous. > Section 230(c)(1) says that platforms aren't liable "as the publisher or speaker" for third party speech even if they moderate. The platforms are arguing that moderation is first party speech, implying that doesn't apply. You are mixing up two kinds of speech. In the article, Mike Masnick is arguing that the user's post is third-party speech, no matter how much the platform boosts or downranks the post. The platform's decision to boost, downrank, or remove the post is first-party speech. The platform's terms of service are first-party speech. The Florida and Texas laws unnecessarily restrict the platforms' moderation decisions, which are first-party speech protected by the First Amendment, on the basis of the contents of third-party speech i.e. holding the platforms liable as the publisher for third-party speech i.e. violating Section 230. Strict scrutiny requires that laws which serve some state interest use a method which is least restrictive of constitutional rights in achieving that state interest [1]. Allowing social media sites to be held liable for user posts violates strict scrutiny. There already is an available remedy for users' third-party speech which does not restrict platforms' first-party right to moderate: putting liability only on the users who authored the speech. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny#Applicability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny#Applicability
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  > The Florida and Texas laws unnecessarily restrict the platforms' moderation decisions, which are first-party speech protected by the First Amendment, on the basis of the contents of third-party speech i.e. holding the platforms liable as the publisher for third-party speech i.e. violating Section 230. They aren't incurring liability for hosting third party speech. Even if they left 100% of everything up they wouldn't be violating these laws. What the laws are trying to do is impose penalties for the first party act of censorship, whereas what you get from 230(c)(1) is protection for the first party act of not removing third party speech. > There already is an available remedy for user's third-party speech which does not restrict platforms' first-party right to moderate: suing the users of the posts. But there isn't a remedy for the third-party speaker whose posts are capriciously removed from a dominant platform, which is what the laws are trying to address.