States are being given control over social media and what you can see on those platforms

The decision in NetChoice v. Paxton reinstates an unconstitutional Texas law that seizes control of the major social media platforms’ content moderation process, requiring them to either carry content that those platforms do not wish to publish or be so restrictive it would render the platforms unusable.

This law is unconstitutional because the First Amendment prohibits the government from ordering private companies or individuals to publish speech that they do not wish to be associated with.
Vox

If they can regulate your body, they can regulate your mind. Remember that you asked for this, conservatives.

Top | Newest First | Oldest First

AthrillatheHunt · 51-55, M

As usual it’s all conservatives fault . Lol

View 1 more replies »

Fukfacewillie · 56-60, M

@AthrillatheHunt I don’t see much conservativism.

AthrillatheHunt · 51-55, M

@Fukfacewillie we are a hyper consuming country that’s for sure .

Graylight · 51-55, F

@AthrillatheHunt In this case, it absolutely is.

redredred · M

If you get your information from the state you’re already too far gone.

View 3 more replies »

redredred · M

@Graylight are we talking about vaccine passports?

Graylight · 51-55, F

@redredred Zero vaccine mandates. No one was held down.

redredred · M

@Graylight no one lost their jobs? No one was refused service anywhere? Are you sure?

Changeisgonnacome · 61-69, F

The government has a responsibility to guarantee free speech. It means the government has to fund competing platforms and news outlets. Sadly: Americans like confusion more than a free press or democracy.

NerdyPotato · M

@Changeisgonnacome the government has to guarantee free speech by not arresting people for their opinion. It is not the government's responsibility to give everyone a platform for anyone to hear you.

SW-User

requiring them to either carry content that those platforms do not wish to publish

And THAT is what the actual violation of constitutionally-protected "free speech" consists of, as the violation is being done by a government, to a private entity (even if it's traded of a public stock exchange, that does not make it a public entity like a government).

Why is this so difficult to understand for the right wing?

Actually, I don't think it's an understanding problem at all. I think they know full well what the First Amendment means, but nevertheless have no qualms about trying to twist it to fit what they want it to mean when they want to amplify their own voices and suppress those of others, even going so far as to try to quasi-nationalize the private property of others (Twitter servers) to amplify their own voices.

How deeply ironic.

Moreover, it takes a, ahem, Big Government to moderate private, non-government servers.

Did I mention irony?

But hold on a minute. If you listen to folks like @hippyjoe1955 (hippyjoe1955) , Twitter is a government (DARPA) server already, sooo ...

https://similarworlds.com/social/twitter/4329547-So-Elons-purchase-of-Twitter-is-on-hold?sort=1

Well now, that's just a step beyond irony ...

Now, how long will it take for a right wing SCOTUS to school these GQP judges?

https://www.vox.com/2022/5/12/23068017/supreme-court-first-amendment-twitter-facebook-youtube-instagram-netchoice-paxton-texas

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

Fukfacewillie · 56-60, M

@LvChris Every website like 4Chan.

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

Add a comment...