Editorial decisions still protected by U. S. First Amendment

[Aachen]

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/07/texas-social-media-law-likely-violates-first-amendment-scotus-majority-says/

Despite insistence from some quarters that moderation would have new reins due to Texas and/or Florida law, the relevant appeals courts (Fifth and Eleventh) failed for inadequate analysis.

[Boblin the Goblin]

Look at that.

Just like everyone who understands the law said.

[Brian9824]

Oh I called this a while ago, said the Supreme court was going to overturn it

[Boblin the Goblin]

Originally posted by brian9824:

Oh I called this a while ago, said the Supreme court was going to overturn it

I like how they unanimously agreed it was a violation and 2/3 agreed in reasoning.

[xBCxRangers]

I think we all predicted that would happen. Obviously they have the means to monitor their fora. Which also means, they can be liable as to what's posted on their fora.

Bye Section 230.

[Boblin the Goblin]

Originally posted by xBCxRangers:

I think we all predicted that would happen. Obviously they have the means to monitor their fora. Which also means, they can be liable as to what's posted on their fora.

Bye Section 230.

Doubling down?

Bold move Cotton, let's see how it pays off.

[Aachen]

Originally posted by xBCxRangers:

…. Bye Section 230.

What?! From where’d you conjure the end of of’t?

…. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 is untouched by this being punted back to lower courts.

[Boblin the Goblin]

Originally posted by Aachen:

Originally posted by xBCxRangers:

…. Bye Section 230.

:homelol: What?! From where’d you conjure the end of of’t?

…. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 is untouched by this being punted back to lower courts.

Reading the articles would save so much time from typing comments.

[xBCxRangers]

Originally posted by Aachen:

Originally posted by xBCxRangers:

…. Bye Section 230.

:homelol: What?! From where’d you conjure the end of of’t?

…. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 is untouched by this being punted back to lower courts.

The rationale for Section 230, was that internet and online community needed to be protected, being they did not have the means to protect themselves. That is a law, not a constitutional protection.

Therefore, the Act created, rightfully at the time to regulate and protect online business back in 1996..

Obviously the SC is saying they "have" the means to do it, and so the online media companies, in lieu of social media, can likely be sued as to what's posted, being they have the means, and right, to eliminate what is posted.

And so the next shoe to drop, is now that the SC has articulated the companies reserve their rights, and means, to act on what it posted, they will also have the means to be sued as what's posted.

And that will be the argument Senators will make, particularly now with Mr Trump likely to be elected, with a new majority.

[Aachen]

Originally posted by xBCxRangers:

…. Obviously the SC is saying they "have" the means to do it, and so the online media companies, in lieu of social media, can likely be sued as to what's posted, being they have the means, and right, to eliminate what is posted ….

Post the text that is so obvious to you.

Companies were already sued rather than the software application themselves. Did you think that companies were not the target of these actions?

…. And so the next shoe to drop, is now that the SC has articulated the companies reserve their rights, and means, to act on what it posted, they will also have the means to be sued as what's posted ….

Slippery slope, eh? The majority wrote the Fifth failed to adequately address the broader impacts of the law. That’s not the SC stealth-killing Sec 230.

…. And that will be the argument Senators will make, particularly now with Mr Trump likely to be elected, with a new majority.

Senators making arguments rather than laws is the sort of grandstanding one can discount a lot.

…. And why do the horse-race odds matter to these chatty senators so?

[Brian9824]

Originally posted by xBCxRangers:

The rationale for Section 230, was that internet and online community needed to be protected, being they did not have the means to protect themselves. That is a law, not a constitutional protection.

Therefore, the Act created, rightfully at the time to regulate and protect online business back in 1996..

Not at all, the rationale for Section 230 was to protect businesses and individuals from the danger of being sued over the sharing of information that did not originate from them. So section 230 exists so that if a third party posts something the hosting site can't be liable for it. So for instance if someone posts something illegal Section 230 has nothing to do with how steam reacts. It exists to protect Steam from repercussions over someone else's actions.

[Boblin the Goblin]

Originally posted by xBCxRangers:

Originally posted by Aachen:

:homelol: What?! From where’d you conjure the end of of’t?

…. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 is untouched by this being punted back to lower courts.

The rationale for Section 230, was that internet and online community needed to be protected, being they did not have the means to protect themselves. That is a law, not a constitutional protection.

Therefore, the Act created, rightfully at the time to regulate and protect online business back in 1996..

Obviously the SC is saying they "have" the means to do it, and so the online media companies, in lieu of social media, can likely be sued as to what's posted, being they have the means, and right, to eliminate what is posted.

And so the next shoe to drop, is now that the SC has articulated the companies reserve their rights, and means, to act on what it posted, they will also have the means to be sued as what's posted.

And that will be the argument Senators will make, particularly now with Mr Trump likely to be elected, with a new majority.

This is amazing.

[rawWwRrr]

Originally posted by SlowMango:

Originally posted by xBCxRangers:

The rationale for Section 230, was that internet and online community needed to be protected, being they did not have the means to protect themselves. That is a law, not a constitutional protection.

Therefore, the Act created, rightfully at the time to regulate and protect online business back in 1996..

Obviously the SC is saying they "have" the means to do it, and so the online media companies, in lieu of social media, can likely be sued as to what's posted, being they have the means, and right, to eliminate what is posted.

And so the next shoe to drop, is now that the SC has articulated the companies reserve their rights, and means, to act on what it posted, they will also have the means to be sued as what's posted.

And that will be the argument Senators will make, particularly now with Mr Trump likely to be elected, with a new majority.

This is amazing.

You can feel your brain rotting as you read it.

[Aachen]

Originally posted by rawWwRrr:

You can feel your brain rotting as you read it.

But in lieu of what?!