Social Media = Common Carriers

[Manonthestreet]

Today we reject the idea that corporations have a freewheeling First Amendment right to censor what people say. Because the district court held otherwise, we reverse its injunction and remand for further proceedings. Fifth Circuit Rejects First Amendment Challenge to Texas Social Media Common Carrier Law
Bout time

 

[$ecular#eckler]

What? You think we all know what an "injunction" is? "Remand"? "Common Carrier Law"?

Are you kidding me???

Can't you at least provide a comprehensible snippet of the fucking article? 30,000 fucking messages and you haven't run into any opening posts that suck - that don't explain itself very well, and so you think this is comprehensible???

You better get one of your buddies on messager to paste a response for you.

 

[MisterBeale]

Today we reject the idea that corporations have a freewheeling First Amendment right to censor what people say. Because the district court held otherwise, we reverse its injunction and remand for further proceedings. Fifth Circuit Rejects First Amendment Challenge to Texas Social Media Common Carrier Law
Bout time

 

[MisterBeale]

What? You think we all know what an "injunction" is? "Remand"? "Common Carrier Law"?

Are you kidding me???

Can't you at least provide a comprehensible snippet of the fucking article? 30,000 fucking messages and you haven't run into any opening posts that suck - that don't explain itself very well, and so you think this is comprehensible???

You better get one of your buddies on messager to paste a response for you.

That is addressed in

Into The Metaverse (The Media Matrix — Part 3)​

The Media Matrix

I was going to post this in my Stay Informed thread, but it seems like it is a terrific, multi-part documentary that is not to be missed. I also thought about putting it into the philosophy section, or the history section, for it is more, really about the history, and evolution of how media has...

www.usmessageboard.com

Whenever there is a new way for the masses to communicate the reality of our existence, the ruling oligarchy necessarily subverts it. Just as they had with books, and just as they had with mass media.

So too, they are busy in the process of doing so with the internet. Anyone that remembers what the web was like, even a decade ago, knows what we are talking about.

 

[$ecular#eckler]

That is addressed in

Into The Metaverse (The Media Matrix — Part 3)​

Whenever there is a new way for the masses to communicate the reality of our existence, the ruling oligarchy necessarily subverts it. Just as they had with books, and just as they had with mass media.

So too, they are busy in the process of doing so with the internet. Anyone that remembers what the web was like, even a decade ago, knows what we are talking about.

And you are not interested in my ambition to reorder the government chartering system?

 

[MisterBeale]

And you are not interested in my ambition to reorder the government chartering system?

View attachment 697360

No, not at all.

At this point? You open up Pandora, the only folks that will be allowed in, are the folks that are already trying to destroy the guaranteed rights we have now.

I watch what these folks are doing, and have done.

1999 Seattle WTO protests - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[$ecular#eckler]

No, not at all.

At this point? You open up Pandora, the only folks that will be allowed in, are the folks that are already trying to destroy the guaranteed rights we have now.

Where did that rule, or law, come from???

I'm the leader, and I am asking you for assistance. Together we make the rules for the conventions. You're on the good side aren't you???
I'm not an elected or appointed politician, and I have no established investments, except for the pursuit of the convention series that I campaign.

I watch what these folks are doing, and have done.

1999 Seattle WTO protests - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I don't think you understand how a modern sophisticated constitutional convention will "work."

I don't think you understand how the Philadelphia Convention became what it was and is exploited in our civics studies, nor what was left out from our civics studies.

 

[1srelluc]

So it seems to me that if you live in Texas and you have been kicked off a site (anywhere) because their interpretation of their rules prohibited your right to free speech then you can sue the site.

It also seems that if a site is based in TX anyone can sue them for same no matter the state you live in.

I'm waiting to see if this just applies to TX residents/TX based social media or if it's a nationwide ruling.

Maybe try thinking about it. If this stands, a state like New York could easily pass a law that says that no social media platform with any number of users could kick off users or censor them.

If you do censor, the platform could be sued for it (which is what the Texas law allows for). Places like DU or a church-hosted message board would then be forced to allow anybody to say what they want to say even if it is fundamentally disruptive to their user base or they would face getting sued out of existence.

Imagine running a pro-life message board for organizing and then you wake up one day and you al, of the sudden have twice the membership you did the day before and they are all pro-choice people that showed up to spam the board with pro-choice speech.

If you kick them all off or delete their posts, you will get sued out of existence, which is what their plan was all along. -member on another site's thoughts

• https://www.bing.com/search?q=interpretation+logic&filters=ufn:"interpretation+logic"+sid:"bf4be868-b4a4-7a4c-6c38-34264858c2e3"&FORM=SNAPST

 

[MisterBeale]

Where did that rule, or law, come from???

I'm the leader, right now, and I am asking you for assistance. You're on the good side aren't you???



I don't think you understand how a modern sophisticated constitutional convention will "work."

I understand how power and money work, and I understand how the current Constitution works.

In order to call a Constitutional convention, you would need to have the cooperation of a vast majority of the State governments, and the representatives and Senators in Congress. These are all owned by the ruling elite. Thus, we would not have a guarantee of the current liberties enshrined in our bill of rights, as they are currently trying to eradicate them.

At least now, on its face, when small folks go to court, legally, they still have a small chance of redress.

You continue on about, needing a Constitution that is enforced, however, if we do not enforce the current one? There is no guarantee that a new one would be enforced. IN fact, you can count on the reverse.

I have already linked to you previously, proof, that all we need to do, is enforce the current one. That is the preferable solution.

We will never be able to call a Constitutional convention, without the cooperation of those corrupt ruling class interests, that are responsible for preventing the current constitution from being enforced.

https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf