Quote:
Originally Posted by whell
Of course, I disagree. 
Seriously, there is a body of law that is in play here. The essential question boils down to Is (for example) Twitter a media platform or service provider, or are they a "publisher"?
Media platforms have unique protections under the law: the Communications Decency Act.
The First Amendment protects free speech, including hate speech, but Section 230 shields websites from liability for content created by their users. It permits internet companies to moderate their sites without being on the hook legally for everything they host. It does not provide blanket protection from legal responsibility for some criminal acts, like posting child pornography or violations of intellectual property.
The legal question is: Does a platform lose it's Section 230 protection if it starts editing or deleting specific types of content? Particularly content that would otherwise be protected by the user's First Amendment rights. If it does this, is it no longer a service provider? Does it become a "publisher" because it is determining what otherwise First Amendment-protected content is allowed to be displayed on its site?
Certainly, there are good and bad outcomes related to 230 protections, as the linked article describes. But whether you're for or against certain opinions, anyone with access to a platform provided for public communications should not have their 1st Amendment rights abused by that platform. |
I know all of that. The issue is that the GOP wants to use these private platforms to propagate dangerous conspiracy theories (about stolen elections, COVID, "replacement theory,", etc.) because these lies rile up their impressionable base.
The problem is that the riled up MAGA base often turns to violence (Jan. 6, mass murders, etc.) and these private platforms want no part of it (and it does not comply with their terms of service).
A similar law was blocked by a Federal appeals court in Florida and this one will likely go down too if appealed. I still think geoblocking would be a good idea. It would tell Texas that if they want to prohibit the enforcement of the terms of service within their state, they can go to Truth Social (which BTW
censored user who reported on the Jan. 6 hearings).