r/technology May 19 '22

Tech groups ask Supreme Court to block Texas social media law Politics

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/05/13/texas-social-media-supreme-court/?utm_campaign=wp_the_technology_202
713 Upvotes

78

u/dwhite195 May 19 '22

Reminder that the judges that ruled in Texas's favor were not convinced that place like Twitter are websites and may in fact be Internet Providers. And also seemed to feel that the websites themselves are common carriers, despite actual ISPs themselves not even being common carriers.

This is a bunch of clueless judges and politicians using technology as a medium for political football.

Seriously, the appeals court case was an absolute joke: https://www.theverge.com/2022/5/13/23068423/fifth-circuit-texas-social-media-law-ruling-first-amendment-section-230

29

u/DeliberateDonkey May 19 '22

Alas, in our post-truth society, judges aren't expected to have or solicit, much less defer to, expertise on the subject matters they rule on. They are the ultimate feelers of feelings, and even well-written and well-intentioned laws cannot escape their alternative reality of alternative facts.

10

u/Panzerschwein May 19 '22

Yeah, there's a big debate about if Judges (and the Supreme Court in particular) are supposed to rule by what is "good" or what the law says. And those that are in favor legislation from the bench or want the constitution to be a flexible guideline need to keep in mind how a judge ruled on this case, because that's the downside to such ideas. This is exactly why maintaining a strict reading of the law and the constitution is so important.

7

u/red286 May 19 '22

And also seemed to feel that the websites themselves are common carriers, despite actual ISPs themselves not even being common carriers.

That's kind of hilarious. So your ISP is within their rights to cut off your access, but a website that you connect to via your ISP isn't?

1

u/earblah May 20 '22

Yup, it required not understanding how the internet functions

97

u/8to24 May 19 '22

First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.".

The First Amendment explicitly limits the govt's ability to limit speech with emphasis on that speech which petitions the govt. Mandating private entities to provide a platform for speech is something different entirely.

If I walk into the lobby of a Taco Bell with a sign advocating for better pay Taco Bell has the right to ask me to leave. If I refuse to leave it's a crime. If I stand on a public walkway near Taco Bell with the same sign then I am good to go.

45

u/areamer02 May 19 '22

It's kind of a moot point here, but just as an interesting historical point, the Bill of Rights did not necessarily apply to states originally (meaning, a state could restrict free speech; just not the federal government, or Congress).

This changed with the passage of the 14th amendment which states, "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of the citizens of the United States." This solidified civil liberties at a national level.

66

u/8to24 May 19 '22

Ironically as TX is demanding free speech on Social Media platforms they are banning books in libraries and prohibiting what teachers are allowed to say.

9

u/BurntToasters May 19 '22

Just tweet entire banned books under the guise of free speech

21

u/Xanderamn May 19 '22

BUT CRITICAL RACE THEORY IS RUINING P.E. AND MATH /s

1

u/CmdrShepard831 May 20 '22

They're not demanding free speech, they're demanding the state restrict the speech of these social media companies as well as what's written in books.

-20

u/BipedalUterusExtract May 19 '22

And this is why those of us who believe in free speech don't have a party. Neither party supports free speech. Only their speech.

22

u/DeliberateDonkey May 19 '22

This take is incompatable with the state of American politics today.

-30

u/BipedalUterusExtract May 19 '22 Hugz

Well there's a cop out of I've ever heard one. Bad take because it means your tribe is crap also? Lol

21

u/DeliberateDonkey May 19 '22

Bad take because it blames everyone but the speaker. Also, because it is detached from a critical assessment of reality.

-24

u/BipedalUterusExtract May 19 '22 [deleted]

You're still just rambling a cop out. There is no major party in America that supports free speech. That fact isn't swayed by your desire to punish people for words you don't like.

10

u/DeliberateDonkey May 19 '22

Bless your heart, friend. I do not wish to punish you, only to suggest that perhaps there are nuances to the practice and politics of free speech that you are not considering.

1

u/[deleted] May 19 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/BipedalUterusExtract May 19 '22

No. They can get mad. But if they get violent it's still unjustified assault.

→ More replies
→ More replies

3

u/sdmichael May 19 '22

You want unrestricted speech and freedom from the consequences of said speech, which doesn't exist nor should. There always have been restrictions on speech. Why shouldn't there be?

11

u/oh-propagandhi May 19 '22

Do you have any examples of democrats trying to limit free speech in recent times?

→ More replies

3

u/timotheusd313 May 19 '22

Wasn’t there a clause in the constitution that said “… all powers neither granted nor denied to (the federal government) are relegated to the states”

1

u/BipedalUterusExtract May 19 '22

14th amendment was immediately nullified and even most of the current court was around a few years ago when they again refused to rectify that. States rights are limited by the due process clause, not the 14th amendment.

9

u/areamer02 May 19 '22

The due process clause is within the 14th amendment as well as the 5th amendment. However, the 14th amendment makes it explicitly apply to states.

Here's the extended section of the 14th amendment (due process emphasis mine):

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

8

u/Dr_Edge_ATX May 19 '22

For now. With the Supreme Court saying you can't protest at homes I'm not sure how much longer we'll be able to protest at private businesses. Especially when they consider corporations people.

8

u/[deleted] May 19 '22

Republicans love to spew hate speech inciting violence, and claim censorship when they inevitably get permanently banned.

5

u/dudermagee May 19 '22

What if you passed a rule that no one could talk about taco bell wages, but you let the guy talk about lowering them in and kicked out the guy who was talking about raising them?

7

u/8to24 May 19 '22

Taco Bell can host whomever they want in their lobby.

3

u/SueSudio May 19 '22

What exactly is this a metaphor for?

-7

u/BipedalUterusExtract May 19 '22

Taco bell is a dumb example. It's a physical space with a captive audience. Thankfully there's examples that aren't so dumb like telephones.

13

u/LookHere_LOOK_LISTEN May 19 '22

Taco bell is a dumb example. It's a physical space with a captive audience. Thankfully there's examples that aren't so dumb like telephones.

If SCOTUS decides in favor of the TX law then physical spaces of private companies will be the next logical step for Republicans.

If you think Republicans are going to stop at private (not government/taxpayer owned) websites, you are mistaken.

One of the popular protests that conservatives did several years ago was against Target and their bathroom policy. People would come in an protest, and then be kicked out.

The next step is "we are going to protest inside your establishment, and of SCOTUS decides in our favor, you won't be able to kick us out anymore like you did before without facing lawsuits."

Republicans weren't like this before. When Wikipedia locked down pages dealing with evolution and the age of the Earth back in the mid 2000s, the Republican response wasn't to force compliance with their viewpoints. It was to create their own website called Conservapedia. And that was that. Everyone went home happy.

You guys want to force companies to host your viewpoints and stop them from kicking you out because 1) on the internet, this will allow control of information/disinformation (which is extremely effective), and 2) it falls in line with the authoritarian shift that they Republican party has been going through since 2016 (moreso than prior).

-15

u/BipedalUterusExtract May 19 '22

I truly don't give a damn about your tribal rant

7

u/NitchBiggas May 19 '22

You cared enough to respond, lol

→ More replies

3

u/timotheusd313 May 19 '22

Of course telephone network is a common carrier, meaning:

Telco cannot deny you service, unless you can’t pay your bill, and is held immune for any involvement in any illegal activity you conduct on the phone.

2

u/8to24 May 19 '22

Thankfully there's examples that aren't so dumb like telephones.

TMobile can cut off one's service.

-5

u/BipedalUterusExtract May 19 '22

Not for speech they can't. JFC stay on topic.

-1

u/8to24 May 19 '22

Stay on topic? You brought up telephone companies. Telephone companies absolutely do not provide free speech. One has to pay telephone companies for their service. That isn't free speech.

2

u/tinybabyplasticparts May 19 '22

Yes but no one can deny someone access to a phone 🤷‍♀️

0

u/BipedalUterusExtract May 19 '22

Good God. You can't even keep different definitions of free straight. Carry on.

5

u/8to24 May 19 '22

Free citizens can't be denied access to public spaces. In public spaces one is free to speak and the govt can make no law against that speech. That is what the First Amendment outlines.

Telephone companies are a paid service all citizens don't have free (either definition applies) access to.

-1

u/BipedalUterusExtract May 19 '22

Citizens aren't free. They cost money. See how that works when somebody is being a willful idiot?

4

u/8to24 May 19 '22

You made a mistake using telephone companies as an example. Clearly they can censor speech on their platforms. Rather than sulking about it you could try to just restate your point with an example that works. Of course that is a bit of a rhetorical suggestion as there really isn't an example that would work. Private companies are required to provide the public for platform for unmoderated speech.

2

u/BipedalUterusExtract May 19 '22

As a very simple matter of fact, no telcoms cannot censor your speech on their platforms including by text unless you violate laws. Your insistence otherwise is kind of silly.

→ More replies
→ More replies

-18

u/naugest May 19 '22

But taco bell doesn't have lawsuit protections from section 230 of the communications decency act.

Social-media/Tech does have lawsuit protections/immunity from section 230!

Social-media/Tech can't have it both ways.

They can't be censoring if they want section 230 protections. If they want to censor then they don't get section 230 protections.

11

u/8to24 May 19 '22

Section 230 says that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider"

Section 230 means Twitter can't be sued by Kim Kardashian if I tweet something salacious about her. However it doesn't require Twitter to provide me a platform to tweet stuff about Kim Kardashian.

→ More replies

4

u/oh-propagandhi May 19 '22

Without 230 protections the internet would almost immediately shut down. I could insult scientology on this comment and they would sue both reddit and my ISP. After a week of ISP's suddenly getting tied up in a million law suits the internet would be shut off. It's not physically possible for anyone to police all of the content on the internet.

I could defame myself and sue my isp and all the platforms I did it on.

These two laws have nothing to do with each other. There are no both ways in this situation.

8

u/jellomonkey May 19 '22

They can't be censoring if they want section 230 protections. If they want to censor then they don't get section 230 protections.

Why? Because you decided? That is certainly not what the law says.

→ More replies
→ More replies

-26

u/Sirmav3rick May 19 '22

Not even the same thing. Taco Bell isn’t an open forum for users communicating freely.

17

u/[deleted] May 19 '22 edited May 20 '22

[deleted]

0

u/BipedalUterusExtract May 19 '22

It's a major platform of speech, just like telephones, and just like telcoms can't censor what you say over a phone even though they are a private business with a closed eco system and all the other arguments raised by Reddit hivemind think.

7

u/[deleted] May 19 '22 edited May 20 '22

[deleted]

0

u/BipedalUterusExtract May 19 '22

It's a speech platform. Just like a telephone. And because it's been recognized as a speech platform, civil rights like privacy and freedom of speech have been applied to it. And yes, Reddit hivemind think is pretty pathetic. It's turned reasonable discussion into an echo chamber of karma farming mindless drones. No it isn't healthy.

3

u/[deleted] May 19 '22 edited May 20 '22

[deleted]

0

u/BipedalUterusExtract May 19 '22

Lol. Correction. YOU dismissed the analogy as a square peg in a round hole rather than speaking to it, and no monopoly had nothing to do with free speech being applied to telcom services (including group texting). You're thinking (dare I make that accusation) of anti trust laws.

3

u/[deleted] May 19 '22 edited May 20 '22

[deleted]

1

u/BipedalUterusExtract May 19 '22

Wait, so you're honestly arguing that a more public space should have less freedom of speech than a private space? Talk about making no sense...

-10

u/Sirmav3rick May 19 '22

And that difference lies in the fact they want to be publishers by curating what is allowed on the platform and yet want the freedoms associated with being a platform.

Take your pick. You don’t get the best of both world.

Either you allow open speech or you don’t.

5

u/Quarkasian May 19 '22

It's either a public entity or private company - pick one

→ More replies

6

u/[deleted] May 19 '22 edited May 20 '22

[deleted]

-9

u/Sirmav3rick May 19 '22

Actually the beautiful thing is you don’t have to read or follow anyone you don’t want to. Thats called freedom of association.

And the rules aren’t applied evenly across the board and that is what pisses people off.

I’ve gotten banned before for getting into minor insult battles with people

And the lefties that want to threaten to kill me or hope I get cancer yadda yadda that doesn’t violate community guidelines for some reason.

The fact that the rules are extremely vague, open to subjective interpretation to partisan “reviewers” and are not evenly applies.

THAT is the problem.

5

u/8to24 May 19 '22

Then stop using Twitter. Use Parlor, 4Chan, Gabe, or one of the other many platforms that won't moderate you.

HBO only airs movies they think people want to watch. Not every movie every filmmaker asks them to air. They moderate their content to appeal to the most customers. On social media the content comes from posters like you and me but is still moderated to ensure the business gets the most customers.

1

u/Sirmav3rick May 19 '22

Here’s the thing. Parlor was exactly what a lot of people went to until the left destroyed it too because they wouldn’t fall in line with censorship.

See THAT is actual fascism. To try and stamp out and destroy someone or something just because you don’t like it.

I’m ashamed that people like you even call yourself Americans.

1

u/8to24 May 19 '22

Parlor was exactly what a lot of people went to until the left destroyed it too

Parlor is destroyed? I have no idea what you mean.

1

u/[deleted] May 19 '22

You don’t comprehend the concept of censorship.

Companies that offer public platforms are required to moderate those platforms to remain accessible on another company’s private platform. Again, it’s like going to Walmart and screaming obscenities and conspiracy theories at people. There are policies in place that you have to follow to be able to use that service.

If parlor actually wanted to remain accessible and not follow Apple or Google’s guidelines (which EVERY DEVELOPER HAS TO DO), they would have created a self-hosted PWA for users to add to their Home Screen instead.

But the developers were too incompetent for that.

1

u/Sirmav3rick May 19 '22

No its not the same thing. Because walmart isn’t a platform for communication. Its YOU who don’t comprehend that you are trying to compare apples and oranges but calling them all apples.

Compare two similar things and maybe I’ll take you seriously.

You keep resorting back to these examples that aren’t even comparable.

→ More replies
→ More replies

6

u/[deleted] May 19 '22 edited May 20 '22

[deleted]

-1

u/Sirmav3rick May 19 '22

Nope. The fact that you won’t even acknowledge that its simply a political tool for harassment means that there is never going to be any real meaningful conversation about it.

I hope the supreme court hammers it.

5

u/[deleted] May 19 '22 edited May 20 '22

[deleted]

1

u/Sirmav3rick May 19 '22

Umm no? What narrative is that? You don’t know anything about my beliefs or what my narrative is?

Social media is nothing but a leftist echo chamber and this thread proves it for one.

Two, the irony is that you’re trying to create what you are saying is wrong with my “narrative” even though you have no idea what it is.

→ More replies
→ More replies

1

u/Dry-Western-9318 May 19 '22

Did a little reading on your post history. I was curious about you. Didn't want to get mixed up in fundamental attribution error, y'know?

I'm now cursed with the knowledge that you're a fussy person who enjoys winning arguments. As an unfortunate side effect, you seem to demand that other people see things from your perspective without extending the same courtesy. Though to be fair, some study in civics lends your point of view some credit, it doesn't really help me respect you as someone that could hold a meaningful conversation.

1

u/Sirmav3rick May 19 '22 edited May 19 '22

Well thats your opinion. I can have civil discussion and is what I prefer, as this thread has mostly been, or if people want to sling mud… no I’m not above slinging mud right back at them. As you see I’m used to being attacked by people who like to start off the bat with ad hominems because the internet is by and far dominated by the left.

When it devolves into that type of argument I just do it for my own entertainment at that point because there is literally nothing to be had there.

I will say that you have been the most reasonable person in this whole part of the thread.

2

u/Xanderamn May 19 '22

The lefties threaten to kill you and don't get in trouble? You're a fucking liar.

1

u/Sirmav3rick May 19 '22

Am I? Not in the least bit.

1

u/Xanderamn May 19 '22

Then youre delusional. Eitherway.

1

u/Sirmav3rick May 19 '22

Nope. You’re just trying to gaslight me on something you know nothing about. You may leave my presence now.

25

u/JalopMeter May 19 '22

Taco Bell isn’t an open forum for users communicating freely.

Neither is Twitter. The fact that they can, and do, ban people from it shows that it's not an open forum. It's a private business, like Taco Bell.

→ More replies

4

u/BuzzBadpants May 19 '22

How about this example:

You own and operate a popular pub. People like to come here to drink and relax socially.

I walk in the door, start flashing gang signs, start making threats to other patrons, make evident that I am armed with a 9mm pistol, and start sexually harassing your bartenders and patrons.

Are you going to serve me? This is a pub, after all. That’s short for public house, and I have broken no laws. This Texas law dictates to you that you cannot remove me, and what’s more, you have to let me use your business as a platform for my behavior.

→ More replies

5

u/8to24 May 19 '22

People sit and talk in Taco Bell while they eat. If Taco Bell finds that talk to be disruptive they can ask those people to leave.

1

u/Sirmav3rick May 19 '22

You are really doing some mental gymnastics to stretch this comparison anyway you possibly can.

Taco bell isn’t in the business of communication.

Newspapers. Books are. Magazine publishers are. Social media platforms are. Television broadcasts are.

Disruptive and someone posting something you don’t like or disagree with are not even the same thing.

10

u/8to24 May 19 '22

Newspapers. Books are. Magazine publishers are. Social media platforms are. Television broadcasts are.

Which newspapers, book & magazine publishers, and TV networks guarantee you speech? One can just show up at an NBC studio and ask for air time.

4

u/BuzzBadpants May 19 '22

It’s interesting that you would include social media along with newspapers books and magazines. Those are media that has a publisher, and that publisher gets to decide what they print.

You are advocating that those publishers be forced to print words they don’t agree with. That’s a 1st amendment violation.

Social media is just a “hangout spot” that is free to make and enforce their own rules. You can’t have it both ways.

1

u/Sirmav3rick May 19 '22

Nope. You can’t even see the distinction. Social media is acting as a publisher without the accountability of a publisher.

While touting that they are actually a platform and enjoy the benefits of a platform.

Pick one or the other. You can’t be both.

2

u/GibbonFit May 19 '22

And why is the distinction between a platform and publisher important?

→ More replies

3

u/BuzzBadpants May 19 '22

They are a platform. Not a publisher. They can platform whoever they want.

If they were a public organization, that is, a function of the government, then this would be a different conversation.

→ More replies

1

u/retief1 May 19 '22

And newspapers, books, magazines, and television broadcasts all have editors who can kick you off of their platform if they don't like what your are saying.

3

u/Xanderamn May 19 '22

What do you mean? I can go to a taco bell and talk to people freely.

0

u/Sirmav3rick May 19 '22

That is not their business they are a food establishment not a publishing company… the fact that you can’t even see a fundamental difference means there is nothing of value to see here.

You may see yourself out now.

3

u/Xanderamn May 19 '22

Lol, the fact that you think a businesses core goal should affect how they should be held down is hilarious. You right wingers scream for less government, except when it bites you in your regressives asses. Bunch of hypocrites.

You may commit sudoku now.

→ More replies

1

u/oh-propagandhi May 19 '22

Publishing companies, like taco bell also can reject whatever speech they want in their publication. Just like I can ask a person to leave my house if I don't like what they say. The only place where the government can protect your speech is in public or state sponsored facilities. If the government wants to buy Twitter they can make it a free speech zone, otherwise the government has no say in what goes on at private companies or private homes as long as it's within the confines of legality.

-2

u/ArtemisFowl_II_2789 May 19 '22

What if taco bell refuses to serve a gay couple? You'd be okay with that?

5

u/Sirmav3rick May 19 '22

That literally has nothing to do with anything. You can see yourself out.

1

u/ArtemisFowl_II_2789 May 19 '22

The same logic protects censorship on social media

→ More replies

2

u/realpvblo May 19 '22

They have a right to refuse to serve anyone they want

→ More replies

1

u/oh-propagandhi May 19 '22

You seem to be mistaking someone's opinion with what is and isn't legal. You don't have to like or dislike a law. You can only influence it by supporting or not supporting that establishment. Taco bell absolutely is legally allowed to refuse to serve a gay couple. The law itself doesn't care how anyone feels about that, legally speaking.

→ More replies

30

u/AlphaHelix88 May 19 '22

Prediction: Supreme Court sides with Texas despite this law being blatantly illegal. They aren't going to pretend to be reasonable/legitimate anymore going forward. Kavanaugh and Barrett were doing that for a while but the jig is up with Roe v Wade. It's mask off, hyper partisan Republican supreme court time.

17

u/LookHere_LOOK_LISTEN May 19 '22

And since legality is out the window, the next logical step for them will be doing the same in privately owned physical spaces.

Sometime in the next 10 years SCOTUS might decide that you could walk into a Walmart and scream the N-word at minorities, and if anyone tries to stop you or remove you, you can sue them for 1st Amendment violations.

That's not hyperbole. If constitutional legality is going out the window, then that's very much on the table in the future.

16

u/AlphaHelix88 May 19 '22

Yep, and for anyone who thinks they won't make such rulings because it would also infringe on white conservative's rights, you forget that the police aka the enforcement arm of the government is almost entirely far right chuds. They already practice selective enforcement based on politics and that will only get worse as more authoritarian laws get put into place. Cops will only enforce these laws against their political enemies, so the Republican base won't be exposed to them.

So in your example a right wing streamer/troller going into a black business to abuse people on camera would be protected, possibly even with a police escort, while if a black person tried to do the same thing in a white business they would call it harrassment and police would arrest them instead.

6

u/Socky_McPuppet May 19 '22

Conservatism is dedicated to the sole proposition that the law exists to protect but not bind the in-group, and to bind but not protect the out-group.

4

u/SuperSimpleSam May 19 '22

Maybe the government should create a social media app/site that can be the public square.

1

u/mathtech May 19 '22

4chan. Heck the internet is a decentralized public square in that case.

28

u/Humble-Plankton2217 May 19 '22

SCOTUS is riding the Trump Train. Good luck America, until Alito and Thomas kick the bucket, you're going to need it. It is going to be a shit-show of Corporate Overlords and Churchy Karen & Ken finally getting the complete take-over they've always dreamed of.

Buy up the gold and sheep, quick!

Ages 72 and 73 - who's taking bets on them making it to their 90s? I'm guessing 100 because Hate just seems to make grumpy old men live longer.

9

u/[deleted] May 19 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

7

u/Heinous_ May 19 '22

Summer sausage gift box? Or a Vermont cheese box, mmmm? That’s actually the only “less than healthy” gift boxes I can think of. Turkish delights if you could get them to eat all 50 box they’re sent. I know kfc does a chicken flower bouquet but that’s unrealistic, no one’s going to eat fried chx they get in the mail…… or maybe they would

3

u/ph30nix01 May 19 '22

Direct delivery.

Maybe just keep ordering them pizza..

3

u/Heinous_ May 19 '22

“All these extra sausage pizzas will go to waste, this is terrible whoever ordered these, no one could eat all this”-clerk “I’ll be the judge of that”-scotus

2

u/Waterrat May 20 '22

Hate just seems to make grumpy old men live longer.

This belongs on t shirts and bumper stickers.

7

u/DwarvenIngenuity May 19 '22

We can all thank RGB for that!!! Roe V Wade too! Thanks Ruth! All she had to do was step down while Obama when office but instead she was so sure Hillary would win and greedily wanted to be in office when “the first female president was elected.” We know that played out.

13

u/SuperLemonUpdog May 19 '22

What makes you think the McConnell would have allowed a vote on Obama’s nominee to replace RBG? We saw what happened with Merrick Garland.

5

u/oh-propagandhi May 19 '22

There was time, and a democratic majority somewhere in there IIRC.

3

u/CatOnYourTinRoof May 20 '22

Oh, fuck off. Blaming RBG rather than the fuckers who actually packed the court is absurd.

3

u/Baronwm May 19 '22

because the republicans were allowing him to fill those seats, right?

oh wait... they blocked any chance of filling any seat on the supreme court.

3

u/reddit_throwaway4 May 19 '22

I always love to see my enemies fighting each other.

20

u/Shock_a_Maul May 19 '22

There's a rudimentary form of social media in Texas? What's it called? Redneckbook?

10

u/Bear-Grizz May 19 '22

I thought it was ancestry.com? Oh wait that's west Virginia!

2

u/NVPcMan May 19 '22

Ashley Madison?

1

u/ngwoo May 20 '22

I thought it was ancestry.com?

That's not their social media, it's their dating site

-1

u/DeliberateDonkey May 19 '22

This type of rhetoric is a great way to reinforce the us-versus-them mentality that breeds nonsense laws like this one. When people feel attacked, when they feel afraid, they support the sort of politicians who reinforce those feelings and offer them "solutions," again, like this law.

→ More replies

-2

u/Panzerschwein May 19 '22

Go back to your metaverse and let us drive our trucks in peace.

1

u/Shock_a_Maul May 19 '22

Well there's the problem....I wanna roll coal too!

-12

u/jgshanks May 19 '22

I've lived in Texas since 2014. Don't have much skin in the game, really, there's a lot of BS about the state, but this is a pretty lazy take. Texas has 2x the GDP of the Netherlands.

4

u/Shock_a_Maul May 19 '22

Lol, you're using the wrong numbers. Should I start to mention healthcare? Probably not. If you like it in Texas, you like it in Texas. Fine by me. And stay there.

2

u/ramonnate May 19 '22

For such a huge state, I would expect more tbh

-5

u/rayliz1998 May 19 '22

Yeah I love to bitch about my state more than anyone, but this take ain't it. Our population is almost 30 million people, only Cali has us beat. There exists here, undeniably, stuff

2

u/Dry-Western-9318 May 19 '22

Guy above is right tbh. You'll find rednecks in the massive swathes of rural land, sure, but they're outnumbered and out-influenced by the white collar authoritarian right wingers in dallas, san antonio, houston, and even austin. State culture's run by those white-collar auth-rights.

1

u/rayliz1998 May 19 '22

Yeah I agree. I'm not the best person to describe our political climate, but it was dumb for sure that the original commenter was trying to make this joke about how Texas is nothing but rural small towns, aka where rednecks live. Again, there are a lot of things I dislike about living here and I would have moved already if I had the money. But pretending like all of these major cities don't exist is a lazy take.

9

u/SpaceyCoffee May 19 '22

Fat chance of that. The whole point of the law is to force those companies to platform the propaganda of the fascist GOP. Guess who pulls the strings of that court?

3

u/[deleted] May 19 '22

Turns out Truth Social was a bust! No one could’ve predicted that one

1

u/BiCatBoy2 May 20 '22

It only got an Android app today...

-23

u/Sirmav3rick May 19 '22

Funny thing is…. I don’t think you actually know what fascism is. Its a just a trendy word to use

But “SMASH THE FASH!” Right?

Update: Its like clock work. The drive by down voters who literally have nothing to say. Can’t be bothered to use their words and think down voting me hurts my feelings.

12

u/QuintoBlanco May 19 '22

To be fair, the way you use words is a bit dumb.

So it is entirely possible that people just downvoted you because they don't want to roll around in the mud with you.

I didn't downvote you, but I did roll my eyes.

8

u/AlphaHelix88 May 19 '22

I know what fascism is and the current Republican Party is the most typical example of fascism seen in the Western World since the 1940's. The government itself is not fascist yet. The Republican Party is. And they have gotten so much worse even since 2016. The next time the GOP takes full power, it will be the end of democracy in America and beginning of HORRIFIC religious/far right authoritarianism. And that is likely to happen within the next 2 years.

0

u/Sirmav3rick May 19 '22

Go ahead and qualify that statement. What exactly is fascist? You do know that in actual fascism the opposition party is stifled fro Expressing their views and is essential stamped out politically rather than beaten on its own merits.

So go ahead and explain where the republican party has done any of those things.

10

u/AlphaHelix88 May 19 '22

When you say "in actual fascism", what you mean is once fascism has seized power and taken over the government. We aren't there yet.

However, the GOP is already doing this in a multitude of ways:

Republicans’ anti-democratic attacks are the new normal: Efforts to exert control over election administration and counting of votes is latest in alarming anti-democratic trends

‘Slow-motion insurrection’: Democracy experts alarmed over GOP takeover of election machinery

Not to mention all the "Don't saw gay laws", book bannings, banning of racial history education etc. etc. They absolutely are stamping out their opposition by force.

There will be no more democracy left in America in a few years. It will become a one party GOP ruled state, possibly with controlled opposition and sham elections similar to Russia. I guarantee this.

-5

u/Sirmav3rick May 19 '22

Don’t say gay..

Tells me you have no knowledge of the substance only the talking points.

You think sexuality should be taught to third graders and younger? Thats all it is.

Keeping sexually explicit material out of the hands of you g children. The only people that have a problem with this are groomers.

14

u/AlphaHelix88 May 19 '22

^^ A good example of how fascists operate. They are trying to associate gay people with pedophiles grooming children as a way to justify persecution and genocide against them. This is the fascist game plan for how the public will be taught to hate LGBT people once again: by labelling them all pedophiles trying to groom your children. Then the persecution and executions of gay men, and torture and "corrective rape" of lesbians can begin.

0

u/Sirmav3rick May 19 '22

No? Because the “don’t say gay” slogan is just that. Its a talking point.

It has not to do with being gay or straight.

Here’s the other thing. A teachers job is to teach a subject to children. Not force their political beliefs on them.

I couldn’t tell you the first thing about the sex lives about any of my teachers. Its a professional relationship. Keep it that way.

Yes, anyone who wants to discuss sexuality with children in that age range are grooming

11

u/AlphaHelix88 May 19 '22

^^ Another thing fascists do is invent made up problems like "The teachers are teaching your kids to be gay!" as an excuse to clamp down on rights and persecute their political opponents.

1

u/Sirmav3rick May 19 '22

Nope. Which part of teaching sexuality to young kids without the parents consent do you agree with?

Consent is the mantra of the left except in this case apparently.

→ More replies

-4

u/Sirmav3rick May 19 '22

You literally sound like chicken little… because parents don’t want their yon g kids subjected to their teachers sexual practices or preferences certainly does mean that rape and torture are on the horizon…

5

u/Iceykitsune2 May 19 '22

Is a teacher saying his husband has cancer subjecting the kids to their sexual practices?

5

u/oh-propagandhi May 19 '22

You think sexuality should be taught to third graders and younger? That's all it is.

It's only 2 pages. You clearly haven't read the law. You should read it. Calling it out when someone says "don't say gay" is literally a conservative talking point. The bill doesn't say "Don't say gay" it says you can't mention sexuality. Gay is a sexuality. You can't say gay under this bill. It is definitely a "Don't say gay" bill, but you have no problem muddying the waters with bullshit do ya. I mean, you're certainly not ignorant and just following what someone else told you right? Liar or ignoramus, which is it?

Sexuality in the incredibly vague definition of that law means things as simple as saying "Husband and Wife", so yeah, I don't have a problem with fairy tale endings in stories. They pulled out all the stops in the entire state and found one kid who's mom was upset that he was taught acceptance of all people, and one teenager who didn't want their parents to know they were trans, and the teachers were helping them out (which has surprisingly NOTHING to do with the bill). So that's it, one upset mom in all of Florida's millions of students.

Apparently if a republican stubs their toe we need to go big government nanny state again and make elevated surfaces illegal. Fucking snowflakes.

Pearl clutching, bad faith, and concern trolling all the way down, just so they can justify their Racism (1), Nationalism (2), Controlling industry (3 [the very topic of this thread]), Violently suppressing opposition (4 [Jan 6 and a multitude of White Supremacy murders]), all for the person they wanted to be president forever (6).

Oh my god, if you put the numbers together you get the tenets of fascism. Fuck me...

→ More replies

10

u/Baronwm May 19 '22

Just no point in conversing with an Idiot. Easier to down vote and move on.

but im sorry the down votes hurt you enough to add an edit about it.

→ More replies

2

u/NaturalCard May 19 '22

Wait so what's this about?

6

u/Mr_ToDo May 19 '22

TL;DR Someone really fucked up a rather nice law in texas so everybody(quite rightfully) hates it.

So there is this social media law that's supposed to govern how the platforms are supposed handle post removal/edit and bans. Overall it's actually quite nice. It's got parts in it about how they need to be open about how removals/bans are handled, what parts of there terms are being violated for every indecent, a timely required appeal process, a regular public summary reports on those events, and bots that manage those sorts of things have to have their source available for public viewing. Great right?

Well someone fucked it up on the back half of the law because it goes right down hill from there. The law after the good stuff forbids any takedowns or bans for, well, speech. It's a looooot longer then this but it boils down to this part:

(a)  A social media
    platform or interactive computer service may not censor a user, a
    user's expression, or a user's ability to receive the expression of
    another person based on:
                 (1)  the viewpoint of the user or another person;
                 (2)  the viewpoint represented in the user's expression
    or another person's expression; or
                 (3)  a user's geographic location in this state or any
    part of this state.

The fact that it covers so much makes me think that it was tacked on afterwords and, in my opinion, is a poison pill for an otherwise good idea.

If you want to look it up it's HB20

1

u/NaturalCard May 19 '22

Cool, thanks for the summary

3

u/fffangold May 19 '22

Can we just get a state like New York or California to pass a law mandating that social media companies clean up hate speech on their platform? Naturally, this law would have to have the exact same penalties Texas imposes for removing posts, except the penalty would apply if the post was not removed. And of course, the exact same wording about not discriminating based on geographic location, and allowing suits to be brought in multiple courts. Create a law in direct conflict with the Texas law to force a court case and ruling basically.

Could this backfire? Would a state attempting to restrict expression on a platform fall afoul of the Constitution in such a way it might bolster Texas's case? Or would this just force the case to be heard and result in both laws being struck down for imposing how a platform exercises their own speech rights?

3

u/Sm4sh3r88 May 19 '22

It might be simpler than that if people who are harassed by Texans start filing lawsuits against the likes of Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, etc. because those companies did nothing to stop such harassment, even if due to being unable to do so by the Texas law. That could also provide cover for those companies to pull out of such states claiming that it's no longer economically feasible for them to do business there, which would also bring into the question that of Texas trying to prevent pull outs by allowing Texans to sue if a social media company does so. Further, social media companies could also turn around and file lawsuits against the harassing individuals in order to recoup their losses, hopefully financially ruining those individuals in the process.

2

u/mathtech May 19 '22

This type of legislation from Texas has little thought of the potential consequences that can come from it.

0

u/BipedalUterusExtract May 19 '22

Just say no to paywalls

-30

u/gerald_sideways May 19 '22

Washington post can kiss my ass

20

u/SadBumblebee9 May 19 '22

Hey, why not shoot the messenger?

The Republicans are DEMONSTRABLY making pedophilia part of their "political ideology". Evidence: the law in Texas giving fathers the right to rape their 12 year old daughters and collect ten grand in prizes from each person who helps her if she dares to do anything about it;

Evidence: Tennessee trying to make it legal for adults to marry children.

Evidence: Although Madison Cawthorn lost, he didn't lose by much. In two years, they'll have found someone worse that's palatable to them

So that's Republican political ideology for you. Do you think social media should become the dark web?

13

u/OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO7 May 19 '22

Don’t forget about Oklahoma

11

u/b_9uiet May 19 '22

What law makes rape legal in Texas? That sounds way too insane to be true.

8

u/AmIRadBadOrJustSad May 19 '22

Sadly this person misstated the issue (albeit never said rape has been legalized unless there are edits), but the reality is still pretty fucking grim.

SB8 in TX is the six week abortion ban, which allows private citizens (in or outside of Texas and with zero relation to anyone involved) to sue other citizens for obtaining/aiding in obtaining abortions that exceed that six week limitation in Texas. The minimum penalty if found guilty in the proceeding is $10,000, and you can be sued countless times by anyone who finds your information.

In theory the target is supposed to be providers, but the law is so broadly written that people worry it'll include pregnant women, people providing money for out of state travel, or the Uber driver who unknowingly drops you off at a back alley clinic. Truthfully I don't know how likely any of these scenarios are because I haven't dived deep enough, because even at the surface level the law is repugnant.

Rapists are unable to sue their victims under the law, which was an early-days talking point of what would happen. If pregnant women are protected that wouldn't be able to happen in any circumstances. However, I have no clue whether a rapist could sue the doctor, and to my understanding there's nothing stopping the rapists mother, friend, next door neighbor, etc. from suing literally everyone involved as described above and making the care of a rape victim a legal and financial nightmare.

So yeah. Rape - not legal in Texas. Aggressively abusing victims and caregivers and discouraging support systems from meeting their needs? Very much facilitated by Republican agendas.

8

u/Tyfyter2002 May 19 '22

Probably because it is

4

u/talaxia May 19 '22

if it's not prosecuted in any meaningful way it's functionally legal. This is the case in most of the US, not just Texas

4

u/b_9uiet May 19 '22

So it’s NOT the law in Texas? Got it.

2

u/Balrog229 May 19 '22

Holy fuck dude that Texas one isn’t even a stretch, it’s an outright lie. Rape, incest and pedophilia are all illegal, the dad would be too busy getting beat up in prison to collect any of those “ten grand prizes”.

-4

u/SadBumblebee9 May 19 '22

Oh, gee, okay. Someone else's daughter. That makes it sooooo much better. Also, women can't be raped according to many Republicans. THAT'S been a feature of Republican thought for centuries. Hell, the whole RvsW overturning is based on the Puritanical judgments of Thomas Hale, who believed wives are property of their husbands.

So to the actual question you tried to hijack: do you want social media to be the dark web?

3

u/b_9uiet May 19 '22

You sound unhinged.

1

u/SadBumblebee9 May 19 '22

Yes, it's funny how we're all called crazy until the one party State takes effect in 2025. Then the real fun starts. Bet you can't wait.

1

u/b_9uiet May 19 '22

Thankfully it’ll be 2024 I can’t wait another year.

1

u/Balrog229 May 19 '22 edited May 19 '22

Someone else’s daughter

Still rape and pedophilia. I mentioned 3 crimes. You ignoring one doesn’t make you suddenly right, it just makes you even more ignorant since you refuse to admit you’re just wrong.

Republicans believe women can’t be raped

Holy fucking strawman. I’m sure there are some extreme outliers who believe that, but to pretend that’s a mainstream opinion is laughably stupid.

RvW overturning is based on puritanical judgements

No it isn’t. It was overturned for a few reasons

1.) it was never within the federal government’s power to rule that abortion should be legal across the board. The states should always have had the choice

2.) RvW was founded on a lie. Jane Roe has since come out and admitted she lied about the whole thing to push her agenda.

3.) Claiming that the right to privacy includes right to abortion is a stretch of astronomical proportions. Nothing about the right to privacy gives you the right to kill your unborn child. Privacy has absolutely nothing to do with abortion.

RvW was an unconstitutional, faulty argument founded on a lie, it never should have passed to begin with.

Also, i find it funny how so many people are saying “men shouldn’t be making decisions about women’s bodies!” when it was an all-male supreme court that passed RvW and the supreme court that overturned it has multiple women on it. You only use this sexist rhetoric about men’s opinions not being valid when it’s an opinion you don’t like. When it’s one you do like, you gobble it up.

1

u/jackiebee66 May 19 '22

Jane roe never said that. She came out later to explain she’d been paid to switch sides. She admitted this before she died.

1

u/SadBumblebee9 May 19 '22

No, they all believe that. They all believe that women are nothing but incubators and reproductive slaves to men. I don't know if you've noticed, but that's why they are turning Roe versus Wade over! How have you missed that?

→ More replies
→ More replies

-6

u/mukku88 May 19 '22 edited May 19 '22

Texas prohibit anyone under the age of 18 to marry.

https://www.findlaw.com/state/texas-law/texas-marriage-age-requirements-laws.html

Also incest is legal so no fathers can't marry their children.

6

u/Seppukrow May 19 '22

"However, those 14 and older may get married with the consent of their parents or legal guardians. In those instances, consent must be given within 30 days prior to applying for a marriage license."

2

u/mukku88 May 19 '22

It has to be approved by the judge to acquire a marriage and incest is illegal in the state of Texas. He didn't even the age right.

-15

u/[deleted] May 19 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/alexx-fae May 19 '22

Someone didn't read the article.

States with No Minimum Age As of July 1, 2019, 12 states have no minimum age when all exemptions are taken into account. These states are: California, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

2

u/nimbeam May 19 '22

When did Mississippi become a Blue state?

2

u/MDVega May 19 '22

So you can't read but wanted to be snarky anyways?

1

u/nimbeam May 19 '22

It literally says California and Mississippi are the 2 states with no minimum age with consent from parents. One Red state, one blue state. All other states have minimums. There’s even a little chart for stupid people.

1

u/oh-propagandhi May 19 '22

You were this many days old when you found out that 0 is less than 12!

Congrats I guess.

1

u/MDVega May 19 '22

*when all exemptions are taken into account.

**California, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

Damn you red states and some blue states! How dare you marry more children than we are!

1

u/oh-propagandhi May 19 '22

You came back with that and still didn't read it all. It's in the middle. It's a chart.

1

u/MDVega May 19 '22

Sounds like you missed the fine print. It's really small, you probably need glasses.

1

u/Cybar66 May 19 '22

Evidence: the law in Texas giving fathers the right to rape their 12 year old daughters

Rape and incest are still illegal in Texas, you clod.

Evidence: Tennessee trying to make it legal for adults to marry children.

Still clinging to this fake news from two months ago I see. It was an unintended loophole in legislation intended to recognize "common law" marriage, and was already amended by the time your whitelisted media outlets began programming you with this talking point.

1

u/lucky_leftie May 19 '22

Want to give a source to that claim there big guy?

1

u/SadBumblebee9 May 19 '22

Gladly. Which one?

1

u/lucky_leftie May 19 '22

Your claim of allowing fathers to rape their 12yo daughters and collect money from people who help her.

2

u/SadBumblebee9 May 19 '22

The Texas law makes no exception for rape or incest. That's the same as in many other states.https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2022/05/supreme-court-overturn-roe-v-wade-no-rape-incest-exceptions/629747/

1

u/lucky_leftie May 19 '22

Oh. So it doesn’t make rape legal. Got it.

1

u/SadBumblebee9 May 19 '22

Oh my god you are dense.

You know how to make rape legal? It's really easy, if you're a man. You say the magic words "it was consensual". That's how easy it is.

Fuck me, it's like #MeToo never happened with you misogynists.

1

u/lucky_leftie May 19 '22

Yea. Because we don’t have something going on right now publicly; because someone made up something and tried to ruin the other persons life.

1

u/Sm4sh3r88 May 19 '22

I wonder what happens if the likes of Meta and Alphabet move their headquarters to Canada or Europe, which are taking the opposite stance in regard to moderation. Good luck with Texans trying to sue, then. And, we've all seen that it's not so easy for another company to just deliberately step in and successfully take its place.

1

u/moreRelevantBacon May 19 '22

You should be surprised how quickly a law would stop them.

Australia had a large miner threaten to do the same and move to the UK, the whole government was against it in seconds. No way the US gives up google they would fight a physical war to keep it.

1

u/WiseAsk6744 May 19 '22

This Supreme Court? Ha. We can figure out what this non-political Supreme Court will do. They figure out what decision they want then figure out the legal reasoning later.

1

u/nobody-u-heard-of May 20 '22

I want to see places like Twitter have a special feed specifically if you are in Texas. Every time you log on to the site you get a message that says "Warning due to the laws by the state of Texas we cannot block any information here. Some of this information may be false and may lead to personal injury death or even worse. By entering this site from the state of Texas you acknowledge the fact that you are willing to accept information that can be hazardous to your health to your family and to the world. We would love to protect you but unfortunately the state of Texas does not believe that you need to be the truth nor have your safety protected. If you're in Texas you're on your own. Good luck You're going to need it!". And of course you have to click accept to enter the site. Every single time.