Fifth circuit gonna fifth circuit (Texas free speech decision)

Easy, many votes for President Biden were more against trump. the effort was successful, by 7M votes.

 

The Eleventh Circuit considered Florida's nearly identical law and issued an opinion today. Three very conservative judges upheld the decision striking down the law for violating the First Amendment. That's how insane the Fifth Circuit's ruling is.

I guess DeSantis should go run Texas. Their courts are far more willing to pee all over the Constitution and pretend free speech isn't a thing, just like Ron.
https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202112355.pdf

 

They believe in free speech, depending on what was said and who said it. If the wrong person says the wrong thing, there are “political consequences.” That is true freedom in a Florida freed from “wokeness.”

 

. Anyway, good news for GC and the mods here!

 

I dreamt last night that we had multiple good candidates to choose from for president and governor. Then I woke and the last election had us choose between Biden and Trump and DeSantis and Gillum. It's a waking nightmare.

 

Have not read this. Think it applies to this thread

 

Ken White really captures the absurdity of the Alito-Thomas-Gorsuch adherence to legal standards through a bit of hyperbolic absurdity

 

Supreme Court Blocks Texas Law Regulating Social Media Platforms
“The Supreme Court on Tuesday blocked a Texas law that would ban large social media companies from removing posts based on the views they express. [This is temporary only.]

“Justice Alito wrote that the issues were so novel and significant that the Supreme Court would have to consider them at some point.

“This application concerns issues of great importance that will plainly merit this court’s review,” he wrote. “Social media platforms have transformed the way people communicate with each other and obtain news. At issue is a groundbreaking Texas law that addresses the power of dominant social media corporations to shape public discussion of the important issues of the day.

“Justice Alito said he was skeptical of the argument that the social media companies have editorial discretion protected by the First Amendment like that enjoyed by newspapers and other traditional publishers. “It is not at all obvious,” he wrote, “how our existing precedents, which predate the age of the internet, should apply to large social media companies.”

It’s odd an originalist would make the latter statement. It portends that the Constitution will be interpreted to mean private companies may not regulate speech, which is not in the Constitution.

We know where this is headed. I’m looking forward to seeing how they justify interfering with the right of a private company to regulate speech, especially if people who post are informed that the company retains the right to prohibit some forms of speech. (I don’t know if companies do that, but they should as a term of use.)

 

Are forums considered social media?

 

merge with the other thread. without the stupid title

 

The fact that three of the Republicans wanted to uphold the stay only further demonstrates how full of shit they are.

 

Maybe they will find a way around the stay? Perhaps they will overrule the Supreme Court.

 

Scary that 3 Justices would affirm this law. Whenever Kavanaugh, Roberts and Barrett join them, we will see freedoms erode. The only doctrines that Alito, Gorsuch and Thomas support are those that transfer power to right wing governments.

 

No it isn’t odd. There were newspapers when the constitution was ratified. There was no internet. Or TV for that matter. Or movies. Or phones. Or radios. Could not have been originally intended. You see? Originalism at its finest. And it is not the right to regulate speech, but the right to not be forced to host speech.

 

You seem to misunderstand what free speech is per the Constitution. It's certainly not about commercial enterprises not being able to moderate their own platforms as you seem to believe.

 

Fifth Circuit - companies cannot be compelled to have benefit plans that might mean people have sex, but their First Amendment rights don't allow you to block racism

 

Just from that snippet, it seems like the Court is arguing that Twitter is a monopoly, but I don't know if it actually made that ruling.

 

Is this case specifically related to Twitter, i.e., the fifth circuit is saying that Twitter has to allow hate speech on their platform???

 

Nothing in your reply was needed after "clue" in the first sentence.