- Thread starter Joe Fan
- Start date
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
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
See Section 230 Protections
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Laura Loomer says she is willing to take her Free Speech case against Big Tech to the SCOTUS
Laura Loomer Plans to Take Landmark Free Speech Case Against Big Tech Giants to Supreme Court - Big League Politics
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.
“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
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.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
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.
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
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
Notes on Trump's Executive Order for Tech Companies | Jeff Deist
Burn that piece of **** to the ground.
What are the odds the hack is Chinese in origin? Dio? Any guesses?
Nah, Twitter is really good for some things but people who don’t use it just hear about the negative stuff. Facebook too, and I can’t stand Facebook personally, but I know it has some legit and valuable use cases.
No idea but at the moment it seems to be strictly focused on getting dummies to part with their bitcoin thinking they will get more in return. It’s working. Last report I saw showed that 11 bitcoin have been sent which is a little over $100k worth.
When I worked for the State and was the back-up to the section's IT people, I used to joke with them I was going to lock them out when I got pissed and quit. Their reply was "but we have backdoors," to which I was always quick to reply that I knew that...and the back door would be locked and bolted. The wry grins then filled the room...they KNEW they had an Administrator that had their back. But they always tried to keep a check on my pulse just in case...This is crazy. It’s still going on. I can’t believe they haven’t shut this down yet.
That would actually be the best thing for Parler that could ever occur...Twitter subscription model would mean that the lefties would have their own echo chamber since those with common sense would go elsewhere...I’m not sure if this is the best time to announce this or the worst time
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
-
President Biden Accountability Thread
- Started by 2003TexasGrad
- Replies: 4K
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
