Federal court upholds Texas social media law, clearing way for users to sue over censorship

[MinTrut]

It’s a thread where you make the exact same unsupported argument.

The government can’t convert privately owned property to public space because they feel like it.

POMPS is POMPS, and free speech can't be legally suppressed with a few obvious exceptions.

For example:

Privately Owned Public Space Overview - DCP

Privately Owned Public Space POPS are an amenity provided and maintained by a developer for public use, in exchange for additional floor area. In 2007, the NY City Council adopted revised standards to facilitate the design and construction of unique and exciting outdoor spaces that are truly...

www1.nyc.gov

“This webpage offers an overview of New York City’s Privately Owned Public Spaces (POPS), which are outdoor and indoor spaces provided for public enjoyment by private owners in exchange for bonus floor area or waivers, an incentive first introduced into New York City’s zoning regulations in 1961.”

NYC offered private owners incentives to get them to allow their spaces to be used for the public.

It is a voluntary agreement.

There is no such agreement with social media websites.

See above; I look forward to SCOTUS weighing in.

 

[Marener]

POMPS is POMPS, and free speech can't be legally suppressed with a few obvious exceptions.

You’re being tautological.

It doesn’t seem like you know what you’re talking about since you can’t explain how government can make private property into public space by waving their hands.

Hint. They can’t.

 

[MinTrut]

You’re being tautological.

POMPS is POMPS bra.

It doesn’t seem like you know what you’re talking about since you can’t explain how government can make private property into public space by waving their hands.

Straw man argument.

Hint. They can’t.

See above.

 

[Marener]

POMPS is POMPS bra.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Really?

Then straighten it out.
How does that work, exactly?

Bake my cake!

 

[Harpy Eagle]

There will be no need to. They will simply shut down.

That is these people's goal

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The law only applies to websites with 50 million users or more.

Truth Social will never be affected.

Which is unconstitutional

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Private owners/maintainers of public space cannot legally restrict/censor free speech.

Liar.

 

[MinTrut]

View attachment 698623

LOL!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

That is these people's goal

Your government social media deplatformed THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

 

[Marener]

Your government social media deplatformed THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

It’s called freedom.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Your government social media deplatformed THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

Tis not mine nor the government's, but so fucking what. Why should the THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES get special treatment?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Tis not mine nor the government's, but so fucking what. Why should the THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES get special treatment?

They get their orders from democrats

 

[Viktor]

Good. So Texans can now sue.

Particularly since we know that Biden and his Rat Pack administration have been working with social media companies to censor people.

This is needed nationally.

​

A federal appeals court on Friday evening upheld Texas’ social media law, ruling that residents can sue big tech companies for censoring political viewpoints.​

​

The 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a lower court ruling that had blocked the law from taking effect.​

​

“Today we reject the idea that corporations have a freewheeling First Amendment right to censor what people say,” Judge Andrew S. Oldham wrote in the majority opinion.​

​

The ruling clears the way for Texans and the Texas Attorney General's office to file lawsuits against Big Tech giants like YouTube, Twitter and Facebook if they take down or censor certain political viewpoints.​

​

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton tweeted out after the victory: “I just secured a MASSIVE VICTORY for the Constitution & Free Speech in fed court: #BigTech CANNOT censor the political voices of ANY Texan!”​

​

...​

Federal court upholds Texas social media law, clearing way for users to sue over censorship

Texans now have the ability to sue big tech social media companies that censor certain political viewpoints

justthenews.com

​

Many legal scholars contend that, in the present day situation where a few social media giants have a virtual monopoly on internet discourse, the first amendment demands that they be accountable in court for their very powerful choices of who to block and who to allow. Whether they are privately owned is not the issue. What matters is their pervasive influence and control of public discourse.

 

[PoliticalChic]

​

Many legal scholars contend that, in the present day situation where a few social media giants have a virtual monopoly on internet discourse, the first amendment demands that they be accountable in court for their very powerful choices of who to block and who to allow. Whether they are privately owned is not the issue. What matters is their pervasive influence and control of public discourse.

I'd be a bit more circumspect in tossing around that "legal scholars" stuff.

Did you see this?


Who are the Fascists? The Nazis? The Bolsheviks? The Maoists?


Yup.....you are, Democrats.

"LIKE THE NAZIS in the 1930’s, UC Berkeley School of Law has established “Judenfrei” (Jew-free) zones on campus​

Nine different law student groups at the University of California at Berkeley’s School of Law have begun this new academic year by amending bylaws to ensure that they will never invite any speakers who support Israel or Zionism. In America, more and more college campuses, heavily influenced by Muslim students, are trying to become “Israel-free zones,” free of the taint of what virulent anti-Semites like Congressmuslim Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), slander as an “apartheid state.”​

LIKE THE NAZIS in the 1930’s, UC Berkeley School of Law has established “Judenfrei” (Jew-free) zones on campus​

Nine different law student groups at the University of California at Berkeley’s School of Law have begun this new academic year by amending bylaws to ensure that they will never invite any speakers…

barenakedislam.com

 

[PoliticalChic]

​

Many legal scholars contend that, in the present day situation where a few social media giants have a virtual monopoly on internet discourse, the first amendment demands that they be accountable in court for their very powerful choices of who to block and who to allow. Whether they are privately owned is not the issue. What matters is their pervasive influence and control of public discourse.

Did you know that the Nazis had lots of "legal scholars" supporting their laws?



A passage from Daniel Silva’s novel, ‘The Unlikely Spy:’

"Hitler changed all of that. Hitler believed in the rule of men, not the rule of law. Within months of taking power he turned Germany's entire judicial system upside down.
Führergewalt. - Führer power- became the absolute law of the land, and Hitler's every maniacal whim was immediately translated into codes and regulations.

Vogel remembered some of the ridiculous maxims coined by the architects of Hitler's legal overhaul of Germany: 'Law is what is useful to the German people! Law must be interpreted through healthy folk emotions!
When the normal judiciary stood in their way the Nazis established their own courts- Volksgerichtshof, the People's Courts.

...in October 1933, when 10,000 lawyers stood on the steps of the Reichsgericht in Leipzig, arms raised in the Nazi salute, and swore 'to follow the course of the Führer to the end of our days.'"

 

[Viktor]

I'd be a bit more circumspect in tossing around that "legal scholars" stuff.

Did you see this?


Who are the Fascists? The Nazis? The Bolsheviks? The Maoists?


Yup.....you are, Democrats.

"LIKE THE NAZIS in the 1930’s, UC Berkeley School of Law has established “Judenfrei” (Jew-free) zones on campus​

Nine different law student groups at the University of California at Berkeley’s School of Law have begun this new academic year by amending bylaws to ensure that they will never invite any speakers who support Israel or Zionism. In America, more and more college campuses, heavily influenced by Muslim students, are trying to become “Israel-free zones,” free of the taint of what virulent anti-Semites like Congressmuslim Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), slander as an “apartheid state.”​

LIKE THE NAZIS in the 1930’s, UC Berkeley School of Law has established “Judenfrei” (Jew-free) zones on campus​

Nine different law student groups at the University of California at Berkeley’s School of Law have begun this new academic year by amending bylaws to ensure that they will never invite any speakers…

barenakedislam.com

YOU ARE MENTALLY ILL

 

[PoliticalChic]

YOU ARE MENTALLY ILL

Raciocination is not your forte, is it.


Better look those terms up....you dunce.

 

[Bezukhov]

Remember, friends, these are the same idjits that support a baker's right not to put a message on his cake, now complaining about another company not allowing a message they don't like on their server.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Remember, friends, these are the same idjits that support a baker's right not to put a message on his cake, now complaining about another company not allowing a message they don't like on their server.

You're not into freedom, huh?