National Unrelated, but Pertinent Federal Court Ruling

[Provincial]

A judge of the 5th Federal Circuit Court ruled Friday, Sept. 16th, upholding a Texas law that prohibits censorship by social media platforms. The ruling classifies these platforms as publishers, and makes them liable for restricting free speech.

This is sure to end up at the Supreme Court, and if upheld, will cause major changes in the platforms handling of speech that they disagree with. It will be fun to watch if it turns out that way!

This may have serious ramifications for the Second Amendment. One of the comments on a Fox News article about this subject included this statement:

" It is becoming clear that the government under Biden, et al has been privately cajoling and instructing tech companies to censor content that disagrees with the "party line" of the administration. There are already ample Supreme Court decisions that prohibit the government from engaging or instructing a non-government entity to enforce restrictions or abrogation of rights against citizens that the government can not legally enforce or abrogate itself. I predict that there will soon be some big legal cases coming on that front, as there is strong evidence that is exactly what the government has done using the private tech tyrants."

It is clear that this is happening with gun control. Now that Bruen has laid out limits to restrictions, we may see some cases that raise the same issues mentioned in the comment I quoted.

Link to Fox News article:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fe...-first-amendment-right-to-censor-for-big-tech

Read More

 

[Alexx1401]

If this does go to SCOTUS and they side with the court? The party who has come to think censorship is the best thing since sliced bread will be in full meltdown. Hair on fire, screaming in the street.

 

[arakboss]

If the SCOTUS takes this and rules as the 5th circuit did, does that mean private stores won't be permitted to prohibit us from exercising 2nd Amendment right while shopping at their stores.

 

[Provincial]

If the SCOTUS takes this and rules as the 5th circuit did, does that mean private stores won't be permitted to prohibit us from exercising 2nd Amendment right while shopping at their stores.

If you have to bake a cake for an occasion that is against your religion, it makes sense that a business would not be able to exclude anyone who is exercising their Constitutional rights.

 

[WillametteWill]

If this does go to SCOTUS and they side with the court? The party who has come to think censorship is the best thing since sliced bread will be in full meltdown. Hair on fire, screaming in the street.

I'll bring popcorn for the viewing party.

 

[bradsteen]

If this does go to SCOTUS and they side with the court? The party who has come to think censorship is the best thing since sliced bread will be in full meltdown. Hair on fire, screaming in the street.

I'd pay to see that.

 

[MichaelH]

This might not have the ultimate impact conservative folks want. Seems to me that folks who like freedom and dislike government interference in citizen's lives should be troubled by courts (I.e. a branch of Government) imposing restrictions the constitution imposes on government behavior onto private individuals or entities. There are many ways this could go sideways for folks of all political persuasions. That decision will get overturned at the appellate court level and the USSC won't grant cert because they're ideologically small government conservative.

 

[billdeserthills]

If the SCOTUS takes this and rules as the 5th circuit did, does that mean private stores won't be permitted to prohibit us from exercising 2nd Amendment right while shopping at their stores.

Unfortunately I just never seem to see any 'no gun' signs at private businesses--too bad they don't make their signs more noticeable

 

[arakboss]

This might not have the ultimate impact conservative folks want. Seems to me that folks who like freedom and dislike government interference in citizen's lives should be troubled by courts (I.e. a branch of Government) imposing restrictions the constitution imposes on government behavior onto private individuals or entities. There are many ways this could go sideways for folks of all political persuasions. That decision will get overturned at the appellate court level and the USSC won't grant cert because they're ideologically small government conservative.

The argument could be made that when you are open to the public that constitutional and even State rights have to be respected.

 

[MichaelH]

What's funny is super progressive folks have been pushing at this too, but for different reasons. They feel silenced by the algorithm rather than being banned. My prediction is the Supremes don't want to touch this issue and it will only get there if there is a circuit split.

 

[WillametteWill]

This might not have the ultimate impact conservative folks want. Seems to me that folks who like freedom and dislike government interference in citizen's lives should be troubled by courts (I.e. a branch of Government) imposing restrictions the constitution imposes on government behavior onto private individuals or entities. There are many ways this could go sideways for folks of all political persuasions. That decision will get overturned at the appellate court level and the USSC won't grant cert because they're ideologically small government conservative.

You are correct in that it is difficult to determine the unintended consequences of where this is going. What I hope it changes is social media and other media hiding behind Section 230, which had an original purpose of protecting them from what individuals post on their platforms (agree with this) to twisting it to protect them when they act as the censor, while colluding with the government, or from liable suits when they lie about "misinformation" of posts that have a disparaging effect on the posters, including de-monetizing or de-platforming.

They have been having it both ways; we don't want to be liable for what people post but we also want to tell the world that (some) people are evil, racist, stupid, deniers, terrible gun owners, etc. and ruin their lives, because, you know, we are smarter than everyone else and should rule the world.

 

[NeoBlackdog]

The party who has come to think censorship is the best thing since sliced bread will be in full meltdown. Hair on fire, screaming in the street.

Good. We'll know who to go out and pee on to stop the fire!

 

[Stomper]

If you have to bake a cake for an occasion that is against your religion, it makes sense that a business would not be able to exclude anyone who is exercising their Constitutional rights.

The way around that "cake issue" is simply tell them (or "they") that you charge starting at $30k for a basic 8" two-layer "gay wedding" cake and charge upward from there as it gets fancier…. problem solved.

 

[Provincial]

What's funny is super progressive folks have been pushing at this too, but for different reasons. They feel silenced by the algorithm rather than being banned. My prediction is the Supremes don't want to touch this issue and it will only get there if there is a circuit split.

The article linked in the OP indicates that there already is a circuit split.

 

[Provincial]

The way around that "cake issue" is simply charge $30k for a basic 8" two-layer cake and charge upward from there…. problem solved.

And give discounts based on your beliefs!

 

[Stomper]

And give discounts based on your beliefs!

Whatever works, it's your bottom line.

 

[MichaelH]

I read "judge" singular and assumed district court. My fault, but I doubt that's the last word from the 5th Circuit.

Wait, corporations aren't people? I thought the Supremes said they are?

 

[Arnis]

Corporations will be people when they can serve jail sentence, and not until. Despite any fancy arguments to the contrary. I can come up with a quick list of a few hundred! Meanwhile, the article mentioned was from a self-styled "Entertainment organization" not a news source...can't have it both ways, that's'bi'....

 

[MichaelH]

Corporations will be people when they can serve jail sentence, and not until. Despite any fancy arguments to the contrary. I can come up with a quick list of a few hundred! Meanwhile, the article mentioned was from a self-styled "Entertainment organization" not a news source...can't have it both ways, that's'bi'....

I fully agree that's how most real people would view "people". The Citizen's United holding showed the USSC (SCOTUS wasn't in vogue when I started using this abbreviation back in law school) thought differently to find Corporations have individual free speech rights. Seems if that's true—whether I think that's B.S. or not—that principle would apply to this dispute too.

 

[OldguyZ]

If this does go to SCOTUS and they side with the court? The party who has come to think censorship is the best thing since sliced bread will be in full meltdown. Hair on fire, screaming in the street.

I'd gladly support this.