the city wouldn’t allow opposing Points of view have similar access to express themselves
I'm not aware of any case law that would require the city to sponsor a "Black Lives Don't Matter" mural (which is, after all, the opposing viewpoint). Can you cite any? Not being snarky, because when government gets involved in speech it gets complicated quickly.
As long as we're not talking about actual threats of violence, that's all fine. It's perfectly consistent with free speech to use your speech to oppose things you disagree with. It's when they start using government power to crack down on speech that it's a problem.
From the point on after the SCOTUS ruling, bills will be shot down and unappealable.
Incorrect. Even if this is ruled against by the Supreme Court, a legislature could enact a similar law, which would be challenged in court, and presumably found unconstitutional, and then the state could decide to appeal it to a higher level.
So a Supreme Court decision will make this particular law dead and buried, but it will not:
prevent any similar bills from being passed in the future
prevent court decisions involving such bills from being appealed
Is that the "Unlimited....no, no really. This time we do actually mean unlimited. Yes everything including movies, social media and everything. And no we won't just change what we mean 6 months from now" unlimited data plan?
No, it's still limited. "Customers will also get a bump from 30GB of monthly hotspot data up to 40GB"
My point is that most arguments against section 230 are based in a complete misunderstanding of either section 230, the first amendment, private property rights, or some combination thereof. So what difference would a Supreme Court decision make? People will just misunderstand that, in addition to everything else.
maybe other states will stop trying to pass such blatantly stupid and unconstitutional laws.
Since the purpose is not to enact law but to stir up the voter base, a Supreme Court decision will have little to no effect on these bills being drafted.
When the only tool that you want to have in your box looks like legislation (to take away guns), then every problem starts to look like it's caused by guns.
Do you have enough guns to shoot down that straw man?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, you know...
My guess is people who advocate that black people deserve the same rights and treatment as white people.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, you know...
Or in alt-right speak, "equally dangerous".
Re: Re: 'Screw your rights and lives, think about our feelings!'
I'm not aware of any case law that would require the city to sponsor a "Black Lives Don't Matter" mural (which is, after all, the opposing viewpoint). Can you cite any? Not being snarky, because when government gets involved in speech it gets complicated quickly.
Re: Re:
Why would that make companies liable for user stupidity?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Duh!
They can already post whatever they want to their congressional web pages.
Re: Re: Where does anyone get this silly notion...
As long as we're not talking about actual threats of violence, that's all fine. It's perfectly consistent with free speech to use your speech to oppose things you disagree with. It's when they start using government power to crack down on speech that it's a problem.
Re: Re: Re: Re: There are more pages
Yes, there are very conservative people everywhere. Seattle, NYC, San Francisco, etc.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: On to the next stop:
ManGovernor Wastes More Florida Taxpayer Money Appealing Ruling About His Unconstitutional Social Media LawYes, the appeal can be denied immediately, but it cannot be prevented (AFAIK).
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: On to the next stop:
ManGovernor Wastes More Florida Taxpayer Money Appealing Ruling About His Unconstitutional Social Media LawIncorrect. Even if this is ruled against by the Supreme Court, a legislature could enact a similar law, which would be challenged in court, and presumably found unconstitutional, and then the state could decide to appeal it to a higher level.
So a Supreme Court decision will make this particular law dead and buried, but it will not:
Re: Really?
No, it's still limited. "Customers will also get a bump from 30GB of monthly hotspot data up to 40GB"
Re: Re: Re: On to the next stop:
ManGovernor Wastes More Florida Taxpayer Money Appealing Ruling About His Unconstitutional Social Media LawMy point is that most arguments against section 230 are based in a complete misunderstanding of either section 230, the first amendment, private property rights, or some combination thereof. So what difference would a Supreme Court decision make? People will just misunderstand that, in addition to everything else.
Re: On to the next stop:
ManGovernor Wastes More Florida Taxpayer Money Appealing Ruling About His Unconstitutional Social Media LawThere is little if any meaningful pressure anyone can put on the Supreme Court to review a case, or to do or not do anything. By design.
Because the debate is so firmly rooted in fact and law? lol
Re:
ManGovernor Wastes More Florida Taxpayer Money Appealing Ruling About His Unconstitutional Social Media LawSince the purpose is not to enact law but to stir up the voter base, a Supreme Court decision will have little to no effect on these bills being drafted.
Facts
Just a side note, but what a weird comment. People aren't supposed to voice opinions at a school board meeting?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do you have enough guns to shoot down that straw man?
Re: Re: Re:
Would you consider altering the flag to be dishonoring it?
https://highlandscurrent.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/AdobeStock_268758608-1170x658.jpg
https: //foreignpolicy.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/QANON-TRUMP-ELECTION-1.jpg?w=1000
https://pbs.twimg.c om/media/ErE5rGdWMAAezXC.jpg:large
https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/2302/7931/products/71A04BRihXL. _SL1100_1024x1024.jpg?v=1546591649
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2020/06/21/us/21tulsascene-print1 /21tulsascene-1-mobileMasterAt3x.jpg
How about taking down the US flag at the capitol, and replacing it with a Trump flag?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ErE5rGdWMAAezXC.jpg:large
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No free speech
I will probably regret asking this, but what's the difference between proper moderation and censorship?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: innocuous leader
"My mistake is an innocent mistake anyone could make, that other person's mistake is because they're stupid." Classy.
Re:
Some people actually decide things based on principle rather than partisanship, believe it or not.
Re: Executive Orders
Issuing directions to parts of the executive branch is exactly what executive orders are for. It's not legislation.
More comments from nasch >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by nasch.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt