{"id":38557,"date":"2022-10-13T18:59:40","date_gmt":"2022-10-13T22:59:40","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/angry.net\/blog2\/?p=38557"},"modified":"2022-10-13T18:59:40","modified_gmt":"2022-10-13T22:59:40","slug":"big-tech-just-took-a-legal-2x4-to-the-back-of-the-their-head","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/angry.net\/blog2\/?p=38557","title":{"rendered":"Big Tech just took a legal 2×4 to the back of the their head"},"content":{"rendered":"

Good day all. It\u2019s well known that Big Tech, Goolag, Twitler, Faceplant, etc. have been censoring any opinions that go against their progressive \u201cCommunity Standards.\u201d The usual targets of these post removals and account restrictions\/bans have been conservatives and Republicans.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

There have been a number of attempts by individuals and organizations that have been victimized by Big Tech to seek legal redress in the courts. Almost none have succeeded for a few reasons. Finally, the State of Texas decided it was time to force Big Tech to actually allow people to speak freely, and they passed a law to curb censorship on Socialist media. It was challenged by Big Tech of course, and now a ruling has come down. Here are the details from Fox News<\/b><\/a>:<\/p>\n

A federal appeals court upheld a Texas law on Friday that seeks to curb censorship by social media platforms. The ruling, a major victory for Republicans who charge companies like Twitter and Facebook are limiting free speech, is a step in a major legal battle that could end up at the Supreme Court<\/a>. <\/b><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The lawsuit is challenging HB 20, a Texas bill signed into law by Gov. Greg Abbott that regulates social media platforms with more than 50 million monthly users, which includes Google, Facebook and Twitter<\/a>, and says they cannot censor or limit users\u2019 speech based on viewpoint expression.\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n

I recall the bill when it became law, but didn\u2019t think much about it. Big Tech has generally been successful in finding pliable, (Read Liberal Obama), judges. This time, they ran into a Trump judge who actually reads the constitution and the relevant laws.<\/p>\n

In his opinion, Federal Judge Andrew S. Oldham of the Fifth Circuit said the platforms argued for “a rather odd inversion of the First Amendment” that “buried somewhere in the person\u2019s enumerated right to free speech lies a corporation\u2019s unenumerated right to muzzle speech.” <\/b><\/p>\n

“Today we reject the idea that corporations have a freewheeling First Amendment right to censor what people say,” Judge Oldham continued.\u00a0 <\/b><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The Texas Attorney General, Ken Paxton, wasted no time in deservedly gloating at his victory.<\/p>\n

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who is arguing in defense of HB 20, stated on Twitter Friday, “I just secured a MASSIVE VICTORY for the Constitution & Free Speech in fed court: #BigTech<\/a> CANNOT censor the political voices of ANY Texan!”<\/b><\/p>\n

Needless to say, the Progressives weren\u2019t happy about this at all.<\/p>\n

NetChoice, a nonprofit group representing Meta in the challenge against the Texas law, said in a statement they are “disappointed” with the decision<\/a>. “We remain convinced that when the U.S. Supreme Court hears one of our cases, it will uphold the First Amendment rights of websites, platforms, and apps.”<\/b><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Don\u2019t hold your breath there bud. You aren\u2019t arguing about protecting free speech, you are arguing that you can actually block people\u2019s right to speak their minds. Considering the current makeup of the Supreme Court, (A bunch of radical Constitutionalists who dare think that the Constitution actually means what it says), my guess is you\u2019re going to lose.<\/p>\n

Friday\u2019s ruling created what is known as a “circuit split,” since the eleventh circuit struck down a similar social media law in Florida. A circuit split generally increases the likelihood of the Supreme Court taking up a case.\u00a0 <\/b><\/p>\n

It will be an interesting case to see argued in front of the Supreme Court. One side arguing in favor of freedom of speech and the other arguing in favor of censorship and suppression of freedom of speech. It also isn\u2019t going to help Big Tech with their claims under Section 230 of the Communications decency act.<\/p>\n

Big Tech has made a number of political enemies on both sides of the political aisle. Some are looking at using the antitrust statutes to break up some of the companies. (Frankly, I don\u2019t see how that could be done) Other are looking at putting them under the common carrier statutes like the telephone company is. Both of these possibilities are being fought tooth and nail by Big Tech. Now, they might just find themselves being sued into oblivion if the Supreme Court upholds the Texas statute. They only have themselves to blame.<\/p>\n

Thatisall<\/p>\n\"1\"2\"3\"4\"5 (3<\/strong> votes, average: 5.00<\/strong> out of 5)
<\/span><\/span>Loading...<\/span>\n

~The Angry Webmaster~<\/b><\/i><\/p>\n