At yesterday’s Supreme Courtroom listening to for oral arguments in Moody v. Netchoice, Justice Clarence Thomas questioned …
source
At yesterday’s Supreme Courtroom listening to for oral arguments in Moody v. Netchoice, Justice Clarence Thomas questioned …
source
It's the bait and switch. They want all the protections against liability that are afforded to a public forum but also all the control that comes from being a publisher. In recent years we also learned that these platforms were censoring on behalf of government agencies. That is a clear 1st amendment violation.
You ether are curating content (i.e picking and choosing) and can be sued for said content, or you’re a means of communication that is bound by the first amendment. It’s not that difficult.
Who is the arbitrator of such language????? B.S. Thank God for good men like Justice Thomas.
NO one <i>wants</i> to be censored. But, if I send you a mem that says either "Libtards suck" or "MAGA sucks"(pick the one that bothers you) and tell you to email that to all of the people in your address book, do you have the right to refuse? Is your refusal to forward this an attempt to censor me or simply not supporting me? How is your refusal to send to all of your contact list different than X not wanting to send out that message?
I recall a certain flag burning incident that happened in the outfield of a major league baseball game in process some 40 years ago, where one player stepped up to put out the fire and save the flag. The flag burner wanted to censor OUR US FLAG and what it stands for (not unlike Biden's open border policy does right now, come to think of it), and when the flag burner's case got to the SCOTUS, the 9 justices said it was OK to censor our flag and burn it, using the 1st amendment as the reason, Mr Thomas. Your court protected the flag burner's "right" to censor. That being the case, there should be no censorship of social media. People can say whatever they want, and no company hosting a social media site should be held financially responsible for what was said.
We shouldn't have one law for flag burners, and a different law for social media content. Free speech should be free speech.
Yes! And, just think, they are trying so hard to get him out of the Supreme Court. Why? Because he stands for the United States Constitution & they don't! They'd love nothing better than to rewrite it their own way! He is as true American as they get! Love you Justice Thomas.
I wish there were more judges on the Supreme Court like you!
Section 230 in the FCC was put into place to encourage the media companies to grow. But the 230 regulation, not a law, given to media companies doesn't allow for any accountability for anything. They can have full rein on just about anything, everything they say & do & not have any legal consequences whatsoever. If that's the case, then this is so wrong in so many ways.
I've said it many times. Clarence Thomas is the ony true Judge left after Scalia mystriously died in Texas.
The second a social media platform begins censoring public comments, they become a PUBLISHER and are no longer protected by Section 230!
If you are just a communications provider, you may only remove criminal content. If you are a publisher, then you are subject to defamation and libel torts. You can't have it both ways.
Man they realy wanna stop people from talking.
I think the idea pf 230 absolutely needs to be upheld for the internet to function. But if you don't want to act in accordance with it, if you have the power and ability and willingness to editorialize, then you should be free to do so – and subsequently not need nor enjoy the protection of 230. It's as simple as that. They should not be able to have it both ways.
If they want to be editors then they should pay their lobbyist to push for the deletion of their 230 status. Since this has come up they have violated section 230 and be open to law suits!
How the hell are these judges able to remember every case law ever written? It amazes me when a lawyer mentions say johnny vs june, then blurts out what he thinks it stood for, it never fails that one of the justices always has the ammunition to counter the lawyer… genius.
Imagine being the guy who has to defend Big Tech being predators
Clarence,You' the man.
Charcoal toothpaste and soaps are coming your way.
These sites should operate exactly the same as phone companies. You dont hold it against T-Mobile if a person calls someone to commit a crime.
Silly. It was an "open frontier" to begin with. But here we go, let's make policy assuming the virtual world will remain stagnat, being monopolized by but a few. Mark my words, within but a few generations, any thoughts of the net being a free tool will be banned.
Unplug or teach it to be a tool, take care of your own neighbors and quit just handing over all your intellectual property.
A program is programmed by programmers, and there is ZERO freedom in any artificial systems.
That lawyer is talking 90 miles a minute to keep from saying…it fires every time your finger bumps the trigger.
If you are editing the third party speech , then it is Not third party speech , it is Only your view .
These new lawyers are truly representing f'in evil. Its weird to watch it in real time since I was a kid.
BS…. when an entity has greater power than the individual, it then unbalances equity
Who decides what's bad?
Clarence Thomas is a blessing to America.
Can’t have your cake and eat it too. Take your pick, and let us decide your faith.
What a bunch of disingenuous liars these platforms are. They are essentially controlled by government agencies who brazenly censor political speech of which the authoritarian political class disapproves. These platforms are supposed to be neutral forums – that is the premise of Section 230. They are not publishers and therefore cannot engage in editorial control. They have instead become conduits for authoritarian leftist propaganda, while simultaneously shutting down and deplatforming populist dissenters. They blatantly abuse the First Amendment rights of their users. All this nonsense about shutting down misinformation is just more propaganda.
Yep
Imagine pretending Clarence Thomas isn't on the GOP payroll
The 1st Amendment does not protect the "Right To Not Be Offended.". Frankly, that "Right" has Never Existed, nor should it ever exist. Those suggesting there is such a right, are Ignorant and Despotically Authoritarian.
What part of freedom is not understood?
Section 230 must be removed. If these website were fair and balanced then this problem would have never happened. The problem is social media was fair and balanced politically again this problem would have not happened. The government has violated first amendment.
“It complles speech”?
Always remember that all the people screeching "Muh private companies can do what they want" in defense of big tech censorship clapped like brainless seals when the dems suggested passing regulation targeting twitter in the wake of Musk's purchase.
We are just a conduit, except we also need editorial descretion….ummm
Where can we listen to the entire hearing?
the lawyer for Netchoice is 100% wrong on the legislative intent of sec. 230. And to use the term " bad stuff" kept off their sites is ridiculous. Originally sec. 230 was designed to keep illegal activity off not " bad stuff" the internet provider didnt like. That was a poor response by counsel.
Bad content? Therin lies the bs.
FREE SPEECH IS FREE SPEECH, NOT CENSORED SPEECH
That's exactly how a communist would express himself while corrupting principles of freedom…. That's exactly how they subverted the Constitution and took over the country…. All he's saying is.."stop messing with our propaganda outlets!"
If what the lawyer says is correct why is it that MSM outlets like CNN and msnbc fall under the freedom of the press statutes when they spew conjecture and hearsay in there shows. who censors THEIR LIES….. I mean content…. I meant content.
Honest!
To make his client's websites "useful", they have to have the right to censor speech. GTFOH!
His key was advertisers , follow the money people