Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'West Mall' started by Joe Fan, Jul 25, 2016.
While Twitter is a private company and can thus set its own policies, it should not benefit from Section 230 protections while demonstrating clear bias.
See Section 230 Protections
Laura Loomer says she is willing to take her Free Speech case against Big Tech to the SCOTUS
A three-judge panel ruled that Big Tech can steamroll the rights of Loomer and other individuals deemed guilty of wrong-think.
“Freedom Watch argues that we should infer an agreement primarily from the Platforms’ parallel behavior, as each company purportedly refused to provide certain services to Freedom Watch. But, as the district court explained, parallel conduct alone cannot support a claim under the Sherman Act,” the three-judge panel decided.
“In general, the First Amendment ‘prohibits only governmental abridgment of speech,’” the judges explained in their ruling, referencing the Manhattan Community Access Corp. vs. Halleck case.
Despite the fact that Big Tech entities receive special privileges from the federal government in order to operate, they were deemed non-state actors in this court ruling. They can discriminate, act as Big Brother, impose Orwellian sanctions, and even potentially influence elections with their monopoly power, according to the inexplicable court ruling.
Loomer believes that the decision is bogus and motivated by partisan politics. She and her legal counsel intend to take the case all the way up to the Supreme Court, hoping that the nation’s highest court will defend freedom of speech in America.
Laura Loomer Plans to Take Landmark Free Speech Case Against Big Tech Giants to Supreme Court - Big League Politics
Here is the full text of what i think is the final version of the EO on social media censorship
The article is trying to rip the court, but they're following the case law fairly well. Two out of the three judges on the panel are Republican appointees. My guess is that they don't want to make that massive of a shift in jurisprudence. They'd rather the Supreme Court do it if it's going to be done. If the Court grants cert, we might see a weird breakdown. I could see Roberts ruling with Google but perhaps see Ginsburg ruling with Loomer.
It is an interesting issue. But Roberts hates political hot potatoes. So no cert probably. But, as with all things, we will see.
I agree. What would change the game is if another circuit stepped out on a limb and ruled against the social media networks. That would force the Court's hand.
Balanced thoughts on how the situation with bias in social media and the new EO.
Notes on Trump's Executive Order for Tech Companies | Jeff Deist