Quote of the Day
President Joe Biden’s administration in a Monday amicus brief pushed the Supreme Court to rule against Republican-led states’ laws that prevent online censorship.
Florida and Texas have enacted laws to stop Big Tech platforms from censoring content due to viewpoint, and the Biden administration asked for the Supreme Court to review them, according to the brief. Specifically, the Biden administration requested for the Supreme Court to rule against the states’ laws and in favor of social media companies’ right to censor.
Jason Cohen
August 15, 2023
Biden Admin Pushes Supreme Court To Rule Against Red State Laws Blocking Online Censorship
Censorship, except for confidential and similar information, tells you everything you need to know about individuals as well as governments. If they demand the silence of others it means they are unable to defend their intellectual stance. I.E. they are liars and should be treated appropriately.
If they can’t censor what’s going on. How they going to control the narrative when shit goes hard south?
You can’t attack Idaho, or have your feral friends in technicals shooting up neighborhoods without censorship?
Selective rob, rape, and pillage isn’t going to work without it. It’s more necessary than gun control to communist takeovers.
So ya, they’re going to go hard after enemy comms.
And since Biden is just Obama’s third term as revolutionary dictator. What else we expect?
What about the first amendment rights of the big tech companies?
Do people really want the State of Texas and Florida telling companies what they have to say?
The tech companies are like bookstores, not a platform or publisher.
Would you be okay if California passed a law that said all bookstores, including Christian bookstores, had to sell pro LGBTQ books?
Social media platforms are different from bookstores. They are closer to a telephone company. To the average user, they provide more of a service than a product.
I think the bookstore analogy is better than the telephone company.
The user experience that the telephone company provides me, isn’t affected by other people using the service. For example, when I call a friend, I don’t care that the on another line someone else is screaming the n-word at someone else. So the telephone company doesn’t need to protect its user’s experience by banning the n-word screamer.
The social media companies have a user experience to protect, which leads to them banning users that are antithetical to the experience they want users to have. I don’t want to go to facebook to see all the internet garbage. I want a somewhat curated experience, like in a bookstore. And before we call for social media companies to be labeled as publishers, it is unreasonable for the SMC and the bookstore to know if they are displaying liable material, and therefor they shouldn’t be held liable for what they display.
Ya, but in your bookstores case. They tell everyone they sale everybody’s books. Then they turn around and remove the ones that tell on the crimes of their political friends.
Withhold vital/lifesaving medical information books. And attempt to “curate” the communist ideology as mainstream. 1A for me, but not for thee.
And generally jump into politics like a 12 year old doing a cannonball into a swimming pool. Then want to complain about politicians coming after them?
SMC’s are the ones that put themselves in the political crosshairs by becoming a communist tool for censorship.
Don’t start nothing, won’t be nothing.
This isn’t about who gets to use the n-word, where.
“They tell everyone they sale everybody’s books”
The SMCs don’t say that anything can be posted, they write the rules (normally called community standards) for what is acceptable and what isn’t. You may not like the rules, think they are poorly written, believe they are being interpreted incorrectly, that doesn’t matter.
“Then they turn around and remove the ones that tell on the crimes of their political friends.
Withhold vital/lifesaving medical information books. And attempt to “curate” the communist ideology as mainstream.”
As is their 1A right to do so, they can do all of those things. You can start a SMC or bookstore and only sell your ideals that’s totally legal.
If your problem is that the SMCs/bookstore is being a hypocrite for saying everyone is welcome while also restricting access, then so be it. That’s legal
“1A for me, but not for thee.”
The SMCs/bookstores aren’t the State, we don’t get 1A expression protections in other people’s businesses
“And generally jump into politics like a 12 year old doing a cannonball into a swimming pool.”
Which is legal.
“Then want to complain about politicians coming after them?
SMC’s are the ones that put themselves in the political crosshairs by becoming a communist tool for censorship.
Don’t start nothing, won’t be nothing.”
To be clear I don’t care when politicians complain about SMCs. Politicians complaining is protected speech. I care when politicians want to pass laws that restrict 1A protections.
“This isn’t about who gets to use the n-word, where.”
True, but I use the example of the n-word-screamer to show why SMCs would want to restrict those people, but telephone companies do not have any interest in restricting those people, and why the telephone companies gave up the right to censor so they could gain immunity from liability.
Hey Kevin, SMC’s cannot act as “contributions in kind” for politicians. Nor can they censor for the government.
Both of which are illegal, and were committed by many an SMC. And if not for some very twisted legal logic on constitutional rights for corporations. We wouldn’t be having this discussion.
As an example, can a firearms manufacturer claim a 2A right to make and sale firearms to anyone? As in shall not be infringed? How about suppressors?
Cause the same communist government that gives your SMC’s a total pass to discriminate for what they like, has been working overtime on destroying the gun industries rights. Have they not?
Didn’t we hear Joke Biden say he was going to destroy the gun industry? And that no rights are absolute?
Which bring us to a real question. Why is a communist totalitarian want to be government so protective of their damn near complete monopoly on information transfer, that they hide behind the 1A?
They couldn’t give a crap less about the constitution, nor to whom it applies any other time. Am I right?
Personally, I agree with you. Business should be allowed to discriminate anyway they want.
You white? You don’t eat in this restaurant.
Sorry Lizzo, your not Playboy pin-up material.
Only fags on this SMC! All proud, all the time!
No guns allowed in this establishment!
It’s called the freedom of association. It ain’t even in the constitution.
Think your government would go along with that? How ’bout you?
Rights and freedom for everyone? No?
You are pivoting away from the original point that bookstores are a good analogy for SMCs, or are you conceding that point?
To be clear, I am making a legal argument not a moral one, because the post is about the Whitehouse sending an amicus brief to the Supreme Court. I can’t think of anything more legal
“SMC’s cannot act as “contributions in kind” for politicians. Nor can they censor for the government.
Both of which are illegal”
True
“and were committed by many an SMC.”
I don’t believe SMCs are doing contributions in kind by censoring their platform as they see fit. I don’t think the twitter files showed that the SMCs were censoring for the government. I have to admit, when the twitter files first came out, I was worried, but after reading them, and looking at the evidence provided, there isn’t anything here.
“And if not for some very twisted legal logic on constitutional rights for corporations. We wouldn’t be having this discussion.”
I don’t think it is twisted at all, SMCs have a right to create an the user experience they want. In the same way Joe has a 1A right to ban anything on his platform
“As an example, can a firearms manufacturer claim a 2A right to make and sale firearms to anyone? As in shall not be infringed? How about suppressors?”
Firearms manufacturers might have a right to exist, for example, I don’t think congress could pass a law that said all firearms manufacturers have to pay a 99% tax rate, or a bullet tax of $10,000 per bullet. But this is unrelated, SMCs and firearms manufacturers both have a 1A amendment to expression.
“Cause the same communist government that gives your SMC’s a total pass to discriminate for what they like”
In the same way the communist government is giving you a pass to walk your dog. The SMCs aren’t getting a pass to do anything. They simply are doing what they see is best for them.
“has been working overtime on destroying the gun industries rights. Have they not?
Didn’t we hear Joke Biden say he was going to destroy the gun industry? And that no rights are absolute?”
Even Based Biden is wrong on some things. But he is correct there are no absolute rights, well maybe 3A is absolute. Liable laws are an exception to the 1A, and I don’t think prisoners serving their time in prison should have a right to firearms.
“Which bring us to a real question. Why is a communist totalitarian want to be government so protective of their damn near complete monopoly on information transfer, that they hide behind the 1A?
They couldn’t give a crap less about the constitution, nor to whom it applies any other time. Am I right?”
I just disagree with all of this. They aren’t and nope
“Personally, I agree with you. Business should be allowed to discriminate anyway they want.
You white? You don’t eat in this restaurant.
Sorry Lizzo, your not Playboy pin-up material.
Only fags on this SMC! All proud, all the time!
No guns allowed in this establishment!”
Probably can’t discriminate against race, or sexual orientation, they are a protected class. But weight, and gun ownership, sure. Also, in your playboy example, playboy has freedom of expression right and they can discriminate against even protected classes.
“It’s called the freedom of association. It ain’t even in the constitution.
Think your government would go along with that? How ’bout you?
Rights and freedom for everyone? No?”
My opinion doesn’t matter, I am just using twisted legal logic
“To be clear, I am making a legal argument not a moral one.”
I understand and in many way agree.
But, here is the problem with that. The constitution is the legal framework of this country, because it serves justice and morality. As far as legal can serve those two ends.
Our forefathers understood the founding document as limited in that manner.
Thus the saying; “You have a republic, if you can keep it.”
And;” This constitution was wrote for moral and religious people. It is wholly unsuited to any other.”
Politicians and friends have been proving those statements true for the last 100 years.
No one wants to live in a purely legal or democratic world. Especially not the people your defending.
Their only hiding behind them for very immoral reasons.
I do not have a problem with private companies censoring as they see fit. Call it out and have at it. Their platform, their choice.
I do have a real problem with what the administration is glossing over in that they used embedded government agents in many of these companies to use them to allow the government to dictate what to censor by proxy. That end-run around the 1st Amendment is not allowed and the administration damn well knows it! Being ideological companions does not give you the ability to buy in private what you can’t do for free in public.
I want the Supreme Court to take him up on it. Then smack him down HARD. This is an issue I can see it not being a split decision on. Even the ACLU, for all of their descent from the pillar to the mud, would side against the government on for simple fear of the fact they could see a Republican administration doing it to them in the future.
“I do have a real problem with what the administration is glossing over in that they used embedded government agents in many of these companies to use them to allow the government to dictate what to censor by proxy.”
If this is true, I obviously would agree. I don’t think it is true. I believe you are referring to the twitter files. When the twitter files first came out, I was a bit worried it would be bad, SMCs working hand in hand with high ups in the White House. But that’s not what happened. The twitter files showed that Twitter had difficult internal discussions on what to do with the requests that were given to them. Twitter also rejected requests that came in.
Now if I am being reasonable, if you have a problem with the government telling SMCs “these people broke your TOS” I think that is a reasonable stance. I don’t have a strong opinion, and I have no problem with that. But, if you are telling me that the government is sending in undercover agents to hijack Twitter’s TOS enforcement branch. Nah.
How about Zucker confessing to the world that the FBI warned them of Russian disinformation on Hunter’s laptop right before the election?
And they did what? Acted to censor evidence of Biden’s corruption. For the propose of altering the election. I’m pretty sure Twitter acted the same.
Didn’t they?
They also helped the government cover the fact that Ivermectin was a cure for covid.
Which meant the emergency declaration for the vaccine was null and void. Which would have cost big pharma and friends billions. And shut off the power spicket of the communist plan.
And that cost how many lives?
But hey, glad to meet a man of principal in this world, Kevin.