Federal appeals court upholds controversial Texas social media law ...

[Dr. Who]

"otherwise flawed" - I'm not sure what that means.

I haven't read the actual decision, and probably won't til this weekend. Courts are doing backflips these days to reach agenda-based decisions. The ACA decision was entirely agenda-based. The scrivener's error case - agenda-based. You could argue that the abortion decision was agenda-based, though RBG would say it was to correct a poor constitutional rationale.

A little play on words. The court substituted the word 'similar' for the word 'otherwise' in its analysis of CDA Section 230, changing the meaning entirely.

[Chris]

The point I'm arguing is that 'similar' is not a synonym for 'otherwise'. It almost holds the opposite meaning.

Otherwise is defined as meaning: in circumstances different from those present or considered; or else; in other respects; apart from that; in a different way.

Laws turn on the meanings of words. A court that would interpret 'otherwise' to mean 'similar' in a law, is not just presenting a meaningless odd reading, it is a court attempting to rewrite that law to mean what it wants it to mean, not what it actually means. The court was actually ruling on the meaning of S 230 and doing so through a complete misinterpretation of its wording.

I think it's clear by now you "read" things differently. Similarity is implied in the syntax. And, no, the court wasn't ruling on S 230 but on HB 20.

[Dr. Who]

I think it's clear by now you "read" things differently. Similarity is implied in the syntax. And, no, the court wasn't ruling on S 230 but on HB 20.

It did in fact rule on the meaning or perhaps more accurately, the intent, of S 230 - that's what this little exercise was:


" But the Platforms’ argument finds no support in § 230(c)(2)’s text or context. First, § 230(c)(2) only considers the removal of limited categories of content, like obscene, excessively violent, and similarly objectionable expression. It says nothing about viewpoint-based or geography-based censorship. Second, read in context, § 230(c)(2) neither confers nor contemplates a freestanding right to censor. Instead, it clarifies that censoring limited categories of content does not remove the immunity conferred by § 230(c)(1). So rather than helping the Platforms’ case, § 230(c)(2) further undermines the Platforms’ claim that they are akin to newspapers for First Amendment purposes. That’s because it articulates Congress’s judgment that the Platforms are not like publishers even when they engage in censorship."

[Chris]

It did in fact rule on the meaning of S 230 - that's what this little exercise was:


" But the Platforms’ argument finds no support in § 230(c)(2)’s text or context. First, § 230(c)(2) only considers the removal of limited categories of content, like obscene, excessively violent, and similarly objectionable expression. It says nothing about viewpoint-based or geography-based censorship. Second, read in context, § 230(c)(2) neither confers nor contemplates a freestanding right to censor. Instead, it clarifies that censoring limited categories of content does not remove the immunity conferred by § 230(c)(1). So rather than helping the Platforms’ case, § 230(c)(2) further undermines the Platforms’ claim that they are akin to newspapers for First Amendment purposes. That’s because it articulates Congress’s judgment that the Platforms are not like publishers even when they engage in censorship."

It ruled on HB 20 based in part on a plain reading of S 230.

I'm not interested in semantic games.

[Newpublius]

Even the ACLU disagrees with the principle of common carrier being applied to the web.

Many people think the principles underpinning common carrier absolutely should apply to the likes of Verizon or other ISPs, right? Major aspects of the internet kind've already have the concepts of common carrier already 'applied' to them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizo..._v._FCC_(2014) and then subsequently, I think Trump admin cancelled net neutrality? I think it was restored? Many things are in a state of flux in this industry, but ultimately the question isn't whether or not the principles underpinning common carrier will apply to the internet as a whole, they will, the issue is going to be to what extent.

So Facebook and Twitter ultimately may escape it, they might, that could be a toss up, and you could even say maybe Facebook gets it, but maybe not Twitter, that's possible, but if you recall when Amazon/AWS terminated Parler? AWS and services like that probably fall on the other side of it.

It'll take decades, but it IS happening, slowly and surely, just like it did during the industrial age.

[Dr. Who]

Many people think the principles underpinning common carrier absolutely should apply to the likes of Verizon or other ISPs, right? Major aspects of the internet kind've already have the concepts of common carrier already 'applied' to them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizo..._v._FCC_(2014) and then subsequently, I think Trump admin cancelled net neutrality? I think it was restored? Many things are in a state of flux in this industry, but ultimately the question isn't whether or not the principles underpinning common carrier will apply to the internet as a whole, they will, the issue is going to be to what extent.

So Facebook and Twitter ultimately may escape it, they might, that could be a toss up, and you could even say maybe Facebook gets it, but maybe not Twitter, that's possible, but if you recall when Amazon/AWS terminated Parler? AWS and services like that probably fall on the other side of it.

It'll take decades, but it IS happening, slowly and surely, just like it did during the industrial age.

I agree that some aspects of the internet are quite similar to a common carrier like a cable company or telephone carrier, but the platforms and websites take on quite different characteristics that, as you implied, will need new 3rd and 4th industrial age principles to guide any legislation.

[Newpublius]

Well I find the Platform's reasoning altogether lacking on this. How they get out of protection of free speech a right to censor is nearly as odd as Roe's find in the right to protect private property a right to kill the unborn.

Another aspect of their unreasonable position is highlighted in the beginning of Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling: "What’s worse, the platforms argue that a business can acquire a dominant market position by holding itself out as open to everyone—as Twitter did in championing itself as “the free speech wing of the free speech party.” Blue Br. at 6 & n.4. Then, having cemented itself as the monopolist of “the modern public square,” Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730, 1737 (2017), Twitter unapologetically argues that it could turn around and ban all pro-LGBT speech for no other reason than its employees want to pick on members of that community, Oral Arg. at 22:39–22:52."

Its still the same basic logic of ensuring that a public accommodation cannot discriminate based on race or gender or whatever suspect classification you want. And that even applies to very small businesses as well.

CA has a case, which absolutely applied only to CA, about the right of people in CA to free expression in shopping centers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruney...nter_v._Robins

That's the 1980s, where the mall and other shopping strips held themselves out to be the public commons.

[Chris]

Its still the same basic logic of ensuring that a public accommodation cannot discriminate based on race or gender or whatever suspect classification you want. And that even applies to very small businesses as well.

CA has a case, which absolutely applied only to CA, about the right of people in CA to free expression in shopping centers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruney...nter_v._Robins

That's the 1980s, where the mall and other shopping strips held themselves out to be the public commons.

Yea, I brought up public accommodation much earlier, but few think it applies.

[LWW]

This ruling I have mixed thoughts on. I don't think big media should censor ideologically. But I don't think the government should regulate private business. But I don't think this is even a free speech issue.

Federal appeals court upholds controversial Texas social media law restricting content moderation

If they are a free 'FORUM' as they claim, then it definitely is a free speech issue.

If it is a content provider, one which accepts data from many sources and selects what they wish to print/publish/broadcast such as newspaper/radio/television then they have a much freer reign.

Eventually it has to be decided what they are in the legal sense, but it is totally dishonest them to present a public face as a claimed forum and a private face that claims the rights of a content provider.

[Dr. Who]

Its still the same basic logic of ensuring that a public accommodation cannot discriminate based on race or gender or whatever suspect classification you want. And that even applies to very small businesses as well.

CA has a case, which absolutely applied only to CA, about the right of people in CA to free expression in shopping centers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruney...nter_v._Robins

That's the 1980s, where the mall and other shopping strips held themselves out to be the public commons.

Except that there are no protected classes of speech, so the public accommodation logic couldn't be applied to prevent censorship. Under public accommodation, business can discriminate based on style of dress, political affiliation, the fact that you come from another country or if they just don't like the cut of your jib.