Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Federal judge confirms that the First Amendment doesn't mean private companies are obligated to publish your idiocy   (huffpost.com) divider line
    More: Obvious, United States, Social media, U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman, Censorship, social media platforms, social media companies, President of the United States, United States Senate  
•       •       •

3288 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Dec 2021 at 5:55 AM (6 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



36 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2021-12-03 4:13:49 AM  
Whelp, there goes my plan for greenlights or settling for fat stacks from Drew.
 
2021-12-03 5:40:24 AM  
Tex-ASS.
 
2021-12-03 6:03:40 AM  
Honestly? It would have been funny to watch Nazi Cucks try to argue their way back on to Twitter.
 
2021-12-03 6:03:43 AM  
You can't make a private company publish your toxic stew. First Amendment rights mean the state can't censor you. But "we have the right to refuse service" enjoyed by private companies is sacrosanct.

The hypocrisy of these right wingers is that if a liberal gets banned from platforms they fall all over themselves to high-five each other and celebrate. I.E. Kathy Griffith.
 
2021-12-03 6:06:45 AM  
WHAT IS THE FIRST FARKING WORD?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The Texas government does not know how to read?
 
2021-12-03 6:11:09 AM  

theteacher: The Texas government does not know how to read?


Well it is made up of Texans.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/sta​t​e-rankings/us-literacy-rates-by-state
 
2021-12-03 6:13:20 AM  
The people who were stoked about the legislation and the Texas GOP for having done so, have already forgotten about it.

Which was always the plan.
 
2021-12-03 6:15:02 AM  

RasIanI: The people who were stoked about the legislation and the Texas GOP for having done so, have already forgotten about it.

Which was always the plan.


If the GQP didn't have performative chest-thumping, moralizing and legislating it wouldn't have anything.
 
2021-12-03 6:21:13 AM  

Astorix: You can't make a private company publish your toxic stew. First Amendment rights mean the state can't censor you. But "we have the right to refuse service" enjoyed by private companies is sacrosanct.


Not entirely. You can't refuse service on the grounds of being a member of a protected class. Fortunately opinion isn't a protected class and so shiat-stirrers can't claim illegal discrimination. They'll just have to stick to their own online toilets like Parler or Gab or whatever nonsense the MyPillow guy or TFG promises to build for them.
 
2021-12-03 6:24:57 AM  

Gordon Bennett: Astorix: You can't make a private company publish your toxic stew. First Amendment rights mean the state can't censor you. But "we have the right to refuse service" enjoyed by private companies is sacrosanct.

Not entirely. You can't refuse service on the grounds of being a member of a protected class. Fortunately opinion isn't a protected class and so shiat-stirrers can't claim illegal discrimination. They'll just have to stick to their own online toilets like Parler or Gab or whatever nonsense the MyPillow guy or TFG promises to build for them.


Getting political affiliation declared a protected class is their entire objective
 
2021-12-03 6:46:15 AM  
"Thanks to the decision made today, social media can continue providing high-quality services to Americans while simultaneously keeping them safe from irresponsible users and offensive content

Certainly would have been worse if the ruling went the other way but,
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-12-03 7:13:21 AM  

qorkfiend: Gordon Bennett: Astorix: You can't make a private company publish your toxic stew. First Amendment rights mean the state can't censor you. But "we have the right to refuse service" enjoyed by private companies is sacrosanct.

Not entirely. You can't refuse service on the grounds of being a member of a protected class. Fortunately opinion isn't a protected class and so shiat-stirrers can't claim illegal discrimination. They'll just have to stick to their own online toilets like Parler or Gab or whatever nonsense the MyPillow guy or TFG promises to build for them.

Getting political affiliation declared a protected class is their entire objective


But only for *their* specific political affiliation.
 
2021-12-03 7:27:56 AM  
I know this is going to sound like a stupid question, but why did this even end up in front of a judge.

Anyone who knows anything about the first amendment knows that it applies to the government, NOT private companies.

So how did this ever make it past the stage of filing paperwork?

That is a rhetorical question.  And the point is, it's not farking wonder that our courts are so clogged up.
 
2021-12-03 7:57:41 AM  
Meh this will only get more interesting when the same lawsuit comes up after 230 is repealed.
 
2021-12-03 7:58:22 AM  

Gordon Bennett: Astorix: You can't make a private company publish your toxic stew. First Amendment rights mean the state can't censor you. But "we have the right to refuse service" enjoyed by private companies is sacrosanct.

Not entirely. You can't refuse service on the grounds of being a member of a protected class. Fortunately opinion isn't a protected class and so shiat-stirrers can't claim illegal discrimination. They'll just have to stick to their own online toilets like Parler or Gab or whatever nonsense the MyPillow guy or TFG promises to build for them.


Talking of which, anyone know what happened to trump's loudly-touted alternative platform? I suspect it disappeared up its own ass like pretty much everything else he's involved with.
 
2021-12-03 8:02:02 AM  

ukexpat: Gordon Bennett: Astorix: You can't make a private company publish your toxic stew. First Amendment rights mean the state can't censor you. But "we have the right to refuse service" enjoyed by private companies is sacrosanct.

Not entirely. You can't refuse service on the grounds of being a member of a protected class. Fortunately opinion isn't a protected class and so shiat-stirrers can't claim illegal discrimination. They'll just have to stick to their own online toilets like Parler or Gab or whatever nonsense the MyPillow guy or TFG promises to build for them.

Talking of which, anyone know what happened to trump's loudly-touted alternative platform? I suspect it disappeared up its own ass like pretty much everything else he's involved with.


Funny you should ask Trump's social media site quietly admits it's based on Mastodon (msn.com)
 
2021-12-03 8:40:01 AM  

Smoking GNU: qorkfiend: Gordon Bennett: Astorix: You can't make a private company publish your toxic stew. First Amendment rights mean the state can't censor you. But "we have the right to refuse service" enjoyed by private companies is sacrosanct.

Not entirely. You can't refuse service on the grounds of being a member of a protected class. Fortunately opinion isn't a protected class and so shiat-stirrers can't claim illegal discrimination. They'll just have to stick to their own online toilets like Parler or Gab or whatever nonsense the MyPillow guy or TFG promises to build for them.

Getting political affiliation declared a protected class is their entire objective

But only for *their* specific political affiliation.


Obviously
 
2021-12-03 8:42:02 AM  

Smoking GNU: qorkfiend: Gordon Bennett: Astorix: You can't make a private company publish your toxic stew. First Amendment rights mean the state can't censor you. But "we have the right to refuse service" enjoyed by private companies is sacrosanct.

Not entirely. You can't refuse service on the grounds of being a member of a protected class. Fortunately opinion isn't a protected class and so shiat-stirrers can't claim illegal discrimination. They'll just have to stick to their own online toilets like Parler or Gab or whatever nonsense the MyPillow guy or TFG promises to build for them.

Getting political affiliation declared a protected class is their entire objective

But only for *their* specific political affiliation.


That's how fascism works, the laws protect the in-group and bind the out-group, and we really should crush it right now before even more bodies pile up. The right's obscene response to COVID was bad enough.
 
2021-12-03 9:02:10 AM  

theteacher: WHAT IS THE FIRST FARKING WORD?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The Texas government does not know how to read?


I think you mean they don't know how to read the 14th Amendment because before the 14th Amendment the First Amendment did not apply to the States and this Texas law could have been legal.
 
2021-12-03 9:22:45 AM  
Texas GQP and it's governor basically have two threats -- litigation and armed force.  The state litigates something new every day against Biden, as it did against Obama.  Abbott is never seen on the border, or in a lot of other contexts, without being surrounded by heavily armed state employees wearing badges.  Even when the border opened wide for Christmas shopping, he was at another spot with his private army.

Litigation is how Abbott solved "Roe v Wade" making all Texans vulnerable to out-of-state professional litigators targeting friends and social workers who serve women.   This litigation threat is just one of many in the pipeline.  It's the same school yard bully that figured out how to game the principal and administration.
 
2021-12-03 9:23:59 AM  

qorkfiend: Gordon Bennett: Astorix: You can't make a private company publish your toxic stew. First Amendment rights mean the state can't censor you. But "we have the right to refuse service" enjoyed by private companies is sacrosanct.

Not entirely. You can't refuse service on the grounds of being a member of a protected class. Fortunately opinion isn't a protected class and so shiat-stirrers can't claim illegal discrimination. They'll just have to stick to their own online toilets like Parler or Gab or whatever nonsense the MyPillow guy or TFG promises to build for them.

Getting political affiliation declared a protected class is their entire objective


"A" political affiliation. Not all of them. I mean, imagine if Libs could sue Fox News for screening them? I mean, what sort of example would that set? Smartypants East Coast elites-who Fox execs and their on-air talent send their kids off to school with-might just set up gotcha questions just to make people look bad. Can't have that, can we?
 
2021-12-03 9:24:47 AM  
It will get worse. They will not make laws to outlaw what Kyle did, they will make laws to make it clear that is legal.

I'd say, "Let the killing begin" but we already have a huge head start.
 
2021-12-03 9:25:50 AM  

theteacher: WHAT IS THE FIRST FARKING WORD?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The Texas government does not know how to read?


The Texas government does not CARE.

"The Swamp goes all the way to the judicial system!  YOU know what's right!  YOU know this is unconstitutional censorship!  Keep voting for us Republicans, and we'll eventually get enough REAL judges in so that the liberals can't keep perverting the law, like they're doing here!"
 
2021-12-03 11:06:20 AM  

Astorix: But "we have the right to refuse service" enjoyed by private companies is sacrosanct.


It's ... not? It's already substantially limited. In fact, in some municipalities, signs that state this "right" are illegal for a business to post, because it isn't true or enforceable.
 
2021-12-03 11:26:11 AM  

Astorix: You can't make a private company publish your toxic stew. First Amendment rights mean the state can't censor you. But "we have the right to refuse service" enjoyed by private companies is sacrosanct.

The hypocrisy of these right wingers is that if a liberal gets banned from platforms they fall all over themselves to high-five each other and celebrate. I.E. Kathy Griffith.


Are private companies allowed to refuse service according to race, religions, or political beliefs?

Well, the latter seems to be the relevant question here. It seems that in some states, or in Washington D.C., you actually can not ban someone based on their political belief.

I am guessing that's what the Nazis would argue, that they're banned simply for being Nazis.
 
2021-12-03 12:41:57 PM  
ukexpat:
Talking of which, anyone know what happened to trump's loudly-touted alternative platform? I suspect it disappeared up its own ass like pretty much everything else he's involved with.

He is asking his investors for one billion dollars more: https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/ex​c​lusive-trumps-social-media-venture-see​ks-1-billion-raise-sources-2021-12-01/​
 
2021-12-03 1:13:41 PM  
I guess a court acknowledging reality is a kind of news. (shrug)

Maybe the U.S. Supreme Court will follow suit. Not holding my breath on that, though.
 
2021-12-03 1:22:32 PM  

talkertopc: ukexpat:
Talking of which, anyone know what happened to trump's loudly-touted alternative platform? I suspect it disappeared up its own ass like pretty much everything else he's involved with.

He is asking his investors for one billion dollars more: https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/exc​lusive-trumps-social-media-venture-see​ks-1-billion-raise-sources-2021-12-01/​


Because of course he is. I'm sure there will be plenty dumb enough to oblige.
 
2021-12-03 1:44:19 PM  
Good.  Now that we have the first amendment issues clarified (as non issues).  Let's get some clarity on the section 230 issues.
 
2021-12-03 1:47:18 PM  
So conservatives STILL don't understand the 1st Amendment. Color me shocked.
 
2021-12-03 4:02:08 PM  
obligatory xkcd..

imgs.xkcd.comView Full Size
 
2021-12-03 4:36:04 PM  

Jake Havechek: Tex-ASS.


Soooo original.
 
2021-12-03 5:20:16 PM  

Astorix: You can't make a private company publish your toxic stew. First Amendment rights mean the state can't censor you. But "we have the right to refuse service" enjoyed by private companies is sacrosanct.

The hypocrisy of these right wingers is that if a liberal gets banned from platforms they fall all over themselves to high-five each other and celebrate. I.E. Kathy Griffith.


And they actively do "raids" where they spam flag leftist content falsely to get them kicked off.

If they weren't hypocrites.... would they still be republicans?
 
2021-12-03 5:26:23 PM  

qorkfiend: Gordon Bennett: Astorix: You can't make a private company publish your toxic stew. First Amendment rights mean the state can't censor you. But "we have the right to refuse service" enjoyed by private companies is sacrosanct.

Not entirely. You can't refuse service on the grounds of being a member of a protected class. Fortunately opinion isn't a protected class and so shiat-stirrers can't claim illegal discrimination. They'll just have to stick to their own online toilets like Parler or Gab or whatever nonsense the MyPillow guy or TFG promises to build for them.

Getting political affiliation declared a protected class is their entire objective


Then they'd have to admit publicly that racism, bigotry, hatred, and violence is core to their platform.

Because these farks aren't getting kicked off platforms for standard "conservative" agenda/opinions.

It's openly hateful content.

So they'd have to make it public record in court that calling for the hanging of black people, gassing of the jews, and beating of women for having opinions is core tenets of their party platform.

I mean, I wouldn't mind that, it would be kind of nice.  That way those "centrists" who say it's just the "fringe" so it's OK to vote republican for lower taxes but are "appalled" by racism would have to finally farking own it.
 
2021-12-03 5:27:36 PM  

tfresh: Meh this will only get more interesting when the same lawsuit comes up after 230 is repealed.


Nobodies repealing 230.
 
2021-12-04 8:12:08 AM  

dkulprit: tfresh: Meh this will only get more interesting when the same lawsuit comes up after 230 is repealed.

Nobodies repealing 230.


Why not? Too much easy tech $$$ for politicians to soak?
 
Displayed 36 of 36 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.