Feedback United States 5th Circuit just dropped a nuke - The Beacons are lit!

[mindlessobserver]

Rejoice @Null the trumpets sound in your hour of need!

"Section 230, which reflects Congress's judgement that the Plaintiff are not "speaking" when they host other peoples speech. OUR decision is still further reinforced by the COMMON CARRIER doctrine, which vests the Texas Legislature with the Power to prevent platforms from discriminating against Texas Users. Finally, even if all of thats wrong and section 7 does regulate the Platforms Speech, it satisfies the intermediate scrutiny that APPLIES TO CONTENT NEUTRAL RULES"

NETChoice L.L.C v. Ken Paxton, Case 21-51178.

Wake up, smell the napalm Keffals and Cloudflare! Get FUCKED

5th Circuit upholds Texas law forbidding social media ‘censorship’ — again

The ruling is a win for Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in their efforts to combat what they call censorship of conservative viewpoints by social media companies.

www.politico.com

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22417944-document

 

[Meat Target]

Silly Kiwi. Troons are above the law.

 

[Solid Hyrax]

I'm not too familiar with US law, but is this applied federally or just in the state of Texas?

 

[mindlessobserver]

I'm not too familiar with US law, but is this applied federally or just in the state of Texas?

Its binding law in the 5th circuit now. More importantly though, its primary persuasive in every other circuits, because a precedent set in one can be referenced to argue before another. If another circuit comes out against an established ruling, it guarantees a trip to the US Supreme Court because the one thing the SCOTUS hates more then anything else is two diametrically opposed precedents. Which is why in almost all situations an Appeals Court will defer to the persuasive ruling unless they like living on the edge.

Long story short, even if Null can't sue in the 5th circuit where this ruling is binding, he can bring a case foreword and cite it as justification. This is a published ruling, and is final as far as the 5th circuit is concerned. Social media companies are officially common carriers in the States of Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi.

 

[Pee Cola]

Long story short, even if Null can't sue in the 5th circuit where this ruling is binding, he can bring a case foreword and cite it as justification. This is a published ruling, and is final as far as the 5th circuit is concerned. Social media companies are officially common carriers in the States of Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi.

Whilst this may be true, there's the tiny issue of whether or not a lawsuit (or lawsuits) would make commercial sense for Null and/or the Farms.

Even if he wins, he could be hundreds of thousands of dollars out of pocket unless the Judge awards him costs. Then there's issue of such a ruling being dragged out on appeal. The companies and/or individuals Null needs to take on have much deeper pockets than he does.

IMHO the most commercially prudent action Null could take would be to allocate his financial resources into making the Farms harder to take down, such as expanding Kiwimesh and developing inhouse DDoS mitigation capabilities.

Who knows, costs for the latter could potentially be recouped by selling said DDoS mitigation to people and organisations that have been put off by how the likes of Cloudflare can withdraw services at whim and without a satisfactory explanation.

Of course if a lawyer who is a free speech absolutist with a point to prove wants to represent Null and/or the Farms pro bono, that's a different story. Though given the amount of billable hours required, said lawyer would have to be very keen. Time is money y'know.

 

[PointOfNoReturnPoint]

Its binding law in the 5th circuit now. More importantly though, its primary persuasive in every other circuits, because a precedent set in one can be referenced to argue before another. If another circuit comes out against an established ruling, it guarantees a trip to the US Supreme Court because the one thing the SCOTUS hates more then anything else is two diametrically opposed precedents. Which is why in almost all situations an Appeals Court will defer to the persuasive ruling unless they like living on the edge.

Long story short, even if Null can't sue in the 5th circuit where this ruling is binding, he can bring a case foreword and cite it as justification. This is a published ruling, and is final as far as the 5th circuit is concerned. Social media companies are officially common carriers in the States of Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi.

So, all Null has to do, is just find a Texas TLD/DDOS guard and hes gold? This is fucking tits! Troons lets see you beat the legal system.

 

[MadDisaster]

I don't imagine it would be financially viable, but it would certainly be interesting. Most lawsuits end up settling, so if a lawyer was interested, it could help the farms financially. Who knows. But, I suspect it's going to be something to watch if some of these things force policy changes online.

 

[mindlessobserver]

Oh man, this thing is fucking gold. Sorry for the sperging, but I have to keep quoting. Jesus fuck I never thought I would see something like this come from the federal court. I am grinning like the fucking Cheshire cat right now.

"In urging such sweeping relief, the platforms offer a rather odd inversion of the First Amendment. That Amendment, of course, protects every persons right to "the freedom of speech." But the platforms argue that buried somewhere in the person's enumerated right to free speech lies a CORPORATIONS UNENUMERATED RIGHT TO MUZZLE SPEECH. (Holy shit, the court literally italicized muzzle. That was not me, that was them!)

"The implications of the platforms' argument are staggering. On the platform' view, email providers, mobile phone companies, and banks could cancel the accounts of anyone who sends an email, makes a phone call, or spends money in support of a disfavored political party, candidate, or business. 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," Puckingham 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.

Today, WE REJECT THE IDEA THAT CORPORATIONS HAVE A FREE WHEELING FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO CENSOR WHAT PEOPLE SAY.




Holy fucking shit.

 

[Pee Cola]

So, all Null has to do, is just find a Texas TLD/DDOS guard and hes gold?

Or maybe start a Texas-based cybersecurity company to provide these services.

This is a real long shot, but the dude that just hired Louis Rossmann, Eron Wolf, is a Texan. He's also a billionaire and comes across as being based enough to give zero fucks about trannies, if the seethe over on this forum is to be believed.

This is the Code of Conduct (archive) for his organisation, FUTO. Note the following:

Social Media

We want to take social media back to the beginning of the internet, where creators would publish their work to the entire world. To bring this back, we want to develop tools and protocols for creators to publish directly to their audience w/o companies getting in the way.

FUTO endeavors to invest in social media systems with no political censorship. To the extent that content moderation is necessary, consumers and parents should be in control of whatever moderation system is employed.

I know this is but I see enough parallels between Null and Rossmann to make this plausible.

Louis is a self-taught self-starter that pushed back on Big Tech to the point where he's now one of the most knowledgable people in the repair of Apple equipment and the unofficial figurehead of the right-to repair movement. Wolf is now bankrolling FUTO to push back on Big Tech as a result of Rossmann's activism.

Null is a self-taught self-starter that pushed back on Big Tech where he's now one of the most knowledgable people in the field of DDoS mitigation and cybersecurity and the unofficial boogeyman of the anti-free speech movement. There's money to be made in DDoS mitigation, and it's an industry that's in desperate need of real competition.

Eron Wolf doing for Null and online censorship what he did for Louis Rossmann and right-to-repair would be the stuff dreams are made of.

 

[UmQasaan]

CF didn't take down KF because they wanted to censor political voices. They blocked it because a retard fedposted and there was pressure from trannies with money. Judges will take one look at this site and rule in favor of the corporation with money. This is an utter nothingburger. Please don't get your hopes up because you will be sorley disappointed when it doesn't pan out due to us being poor

 

[PointOfNoReturnPoint]

Or maybe start a Texas-based cybersecurity company to provide these services.

This is a real long shot, but the dude that just hired Louis Rossmann, Eron Wolf, is a Texan. He's also a billionaire and comes across as being based enough to give zero fucks about trannies, if the seethe over on this forum is to be believed.

This is the Code of Conduct (archive) for his organisation, FUTO. Note the following:

I know this is but I see enough parallels between Null and Rossmann to make this plausible.

Louis is a self-taught self-starter that pushed back on Big Tech to the point where he's now one of the most knowledgable people in the repair of Apple equipment and the unofficial figurehead of the right-to repair movement. Wolf is now bankrolling FUTO to push back on Big Tech as a result of Rossmann's activism.

Null is a self-taught self-starter that pushed back on Big Tech where he's now one of the most knowledgable people in the field of DDoS mitigation and cybersecurity and the unofficial boogeyman of the anti-free speech movement. There's money to be made in DDoS mitigation, and it's an industry that's in desperate need of real competition.

Eron Wolf doing for Null and online censorship what he did for Louis Rossmann and right-to-repair would be the stuff dreams are made of.

That really sounds like a match made in heaven. Now if this were to happen obviously the time frame isn't any time soon bur even if it aint overnight its likely concrete.

CF didn't take down KF because they wanted to censor political voices. They blocked it because a retard fedposted and there was pressure from trannies with money. Judges will take one look at this site and rule in favor of the corporation with money. This is an utter nothingburger. Please don't get your hopes up because you will be sorely disappointed when it doesn't pan out due to us being poor

It just says speech, it doesn't define if it is regarding anything in particular. Unless its something like a credible bomb threat or something of that nature it would fit in such a loose definition that it wouldn't go anywhere in court.

 

[UmQasaan]

It just says speech, it doesnt define if it is regarding anything in particular. Unless its something like a credible bomb threat or something of that nature it would fit in such a loose definition that it wouldn't go anywhere in court.

speech that incites lawless action is not protected by the first amendment, credible or not. It wouldn't help to say that the threat was ambiguous

 

[Ultrapenguin]

Well that's pretty cool, court.

I think there are way, way more based people out there than it seems, and lots of people who are sick of all this shit. The problem is just that they aren't the ones who are in control of the lines of communication, which is exactly why sites like this are considered so fucking dangerous. It seems unimportant, but the fact is that all it takes is a small number of people realizing others feel the same way they do for collective ambition to spread.

The fact these kinds of ruling directly address that is a good sign.

Or maybe start a Texas-based cybersecurity company to provide these services.

I don't know if I'm confused or if everyone else is confused.
Section 230 is an issue of liability. It means you can't be held legally or civilly responsible for what your users post so long as it's addressed in a reasonable amount of time.

Josh isn't being sued or charged with anything, so it wouldn't be immediately helpful.

Unless there's some clause somewhere, these faggot companies are still 100% within their rights to rescind service without justification. Outside of maybe suing journalists for defamation/libel, he doesn't have much he can do to anyone. They're a bunch of companies deciding it's more financially advantageous to drop KF.

If it's true that payment processors are threatening these companies, which is what Josh said and what it sure seems like, then it doesn't matter where they are, the pressure they're exerting is economic and global.

The system isn't going to save anyone anymore, niggers. You and your peers are going to have to figure it out on your own.

 

[Darkholme's Dungeon]

The system isn't going to save anyone anymore, niggers. You and your peers are going to have to figure it out on your own.

"They have made their decision, now let them enforce it." - Twitter, probably.

 

[PointOfNoReturnPoint]

I don't know if I'm confused or if everyone else is confused.
Section 230 is an issue of liability. It means you can't be held legally or civilly responsible for what your users post so long as it's addressed in a reasonable amount of time.

Josh isn't being sued or charged with anything, so it wouldn't be immediately helpful.

It's possible it may be a new or acceptable interpretation of the law. That has happened before. I cannot cite an example right now but it is not always a face value situation in the legal system.

 

[Toolbox]

CF didn't take down KF because they wanted to censor political voices. They blocked it because a retard fedposted and there was pressure from trannies with money. Judges will take one look at this site and rule in favor of the corporation with money. This is an utter nothingburger. Please don't get your hopes up because you will be sorley disappointed when it doesn't pan out due to us being poor

What trannies with money? Maybe there were a select few grifters like keffals, but most of it was a twitter tranny army and they just 'convinced' retard journalists and tech employees to do their bidding.

 

[Pee Cola]

What trannies with money? Maybe there were a select few grifters like keffals, but most of it was a twitter tranny army and they just 'convinced' retard journalists and tech employees to do their bidding.

Fong has millions in Google money, not to mention a network of other like-minded people with similar means. Not necessarily troons themselves, rather those who are only too happy to suck the amhole for clout.

 

[Mapface]

I'm not too familiar with US law, but is this applied federally or just in the state of Texas?

doesn't matter, texas will secede

 

[Darkholme's Dungeon]

It's possible it may be a new or acceptable interpretation of the law. That has happened before. I cannot cite an example right now but it is not always a face value situation in the legal system.

It's not, it's applying known law. The difference is Texas has reclassified social media larger than a number of viewers as common carriers. See bolded.

Supreme Court precedent instructs that the freedom of speech includes “the right to refrain from speaking at all.” Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705, 714 (1977); see also W. Va. State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642 (1943). So the State may not force a private speaker to speak someone’s else message. See Wooley, 430 U.S. at 714. But the State can regulate conduct in a way that requires private entities to host, transmit, or otherwise facilitate speech.

Our decision (D) is reinforced by 47 U.S.C. 8 § 230, which reflects Congress’s judgment that the Platforms are not “speaking” when they host other people’s speech. Our decision (E) is still further reinforced by the common carrier doctrine, which vests the Texas Legislature with the power to prevent the Platforms from discriminating against Texas users. Finally, even if all of that’s wrong and Section 7 does regulate the Platforms’ speech, it (F) satisfies the intermediate scrutiny that applies to content-neutral rules.

Under these precedents, a speech host must make one of two showings to mount a First Amendment challenge. It must show that the challenged law either (a) compels the host to speak or (b) restricts the host’s own speech.

It goes on to define compelled speech in as newspaper, which tailors information it chooses to publish, versus where SM doesn't actually tailor most stuff. It goes on to note that spam filitering isn't considered "tailoring speech". I guess there is an appeal point that the algorithm is tailoring speech, but then they would not have section 230 protection.

We reject the Platforms’ efforts to reframe their censorship as speech. It is undisputed that the Platforms want to eliminate speech—not promote or protect it. And no amount of doctrinal gymnastics can turn the First Amendment’s protections for free speech into protections for free censoring.

I don't think this applies to Null however, because this is for social media companies, not CDN companies like cloudflare and AWS

If DDOS providers/CDNs get considered a content carrier the cope will be real.

 

[PointOfNoReturnPoint]

It's not, it's applying known law. The difference is Texas has reclassified social media larger than a number of viewers as common carriers. See bolded.




It goes on to define compelled speech in as newspaper, which tailors information it chooses to publish, versus where SM doesn't actually tailor most stuff. It goes on to note that spam filitering isn't considered "tailoring speech". I guess there is an appeal point that the algorithm is tailoring speech, but then they would not have section 230 protection.


https://youtube.com/watch?v=a8MZBUoQt68
I don't think this applies to Null however, because this is for social media companies, not CDN companies like cloudflare and AWS

If DDOS providers/CDNs get considered a content carrier the cope will be real.

What I am reading out of this is that they cannot regulate what is said on a platform because the platform is not speaking in and of itself. But that doesn't mean they have to defend all platforms like kiwifarms for it if the content doesn't fit the definition of a social media website.