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

[Darkholme's Dungeon]

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.

The Texas statue specifically lists a requirement of "active" users (50 million) alongside other requirements. It only applies to those who fit those criteria. It has nothing to do with a host like cloudflare or AWS deciding to kick your ass off because they don't like you. Basically, the Texas law is narrowly curtailed to prevent censorship of political issues/opinions in Texas by social media (not AWS or CDNs). It applies for a civil remedy (Damages and injunctive relief) alongside empowering the attorney general to sue for relief on behalf of the people of Texas but not receive damages (Think anti-trust).

The platform argument was they they weren't a publisher but several of their arguments point to (in the majority opinion) them being a publisher. You can't have your cake and eat it too, and courts hate it when you try to make semantics arguments on them to do an end run around the law*.

*Except when they really don't want to take a case (See, SCOTUS and the Trump election case), sue before for injunction? Denied because no damage done! Sue after for relief? Denied because issue is moot.

 

[Trianon]

The opinion is absolutely right that these corporations lie in order to corner the market. It's much harder to create viable alternatives once they reach that 50 million user threshold because by then they are colluding with app marketplaces and payment processors to ban speech across multiple platforms and sink startup competitors. But if they had been open about their policies from the outset, they never would have achieved that monopoly.

 

[anustart76]

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.

Looking at the article, the opposing circuit judgments are already in play. This ruling conflicts with one from the 11th circuit that stopped a similar bill in FL from happening:

The 5th Circuit decision conflicts with a May opinion by the 11th Circuit which held that major provisions of a similar social media law in Florida violate the First Amendment.

These conflicting rulings could be cause for another appeal to the Supreme Court, whose May ruling did not touch on the merits of the underlying Texas case.

 

[bd3rZIKr]

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.

 

[Dyn]

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

This.

The ruling here is good for retarded boomers who are mad they can't post about covid concentration camps on twitter. It does nothing for us, and it does nothing for Null.

 

[Dog-O-Tron 5000v5.0]

It may not be applicable to our situation with providers of services and IPs and such, but it's a step in the right direction.

The bigger argument to overcome is the contention that speech is violence--that doxng, archiving, dead naming, showing quotes and porn videos they want suppressed because they want to reinvent themselves--they say all this is incitement to attack and is unprotected by the First Amendment just the same as shouting fire in a theater. They even extend thus to mocking them in any way, that it's "hate speech" and thus illegal.

You need rulings on that as well, or the corporations they have in their pockets or threatened will continue to knock down places like KF.

 

[Bent_Duck]

[...] 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.

See if Heilburg will take the case...