Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 394: Espionage a Trois

(+) Yeah! (+)

Hes mad because his trans child hates him so he decided to become a bigot to deny the validity of her existence

The 5th Circuit, which a week or two ago ruled that companies have a First Amendment right to not cover preventative medicine for AIDS in their employees' health insurance, ruled that companies don't have a First Amendment right to moderate user generated content:

https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1571145616029548545

Honestly I've read enough that I'm pretty convinced that prohibiting social media from censoring content, having that content directly lead to death, and getting sued to oblivion seems like the best option tbh

Also if this does happen, I hope you join me in my crusade of creating furry porner burner accounts that we can reply to all the crazy republicans with

LordoftheMorons posted...

The 5th Circuit, which a week or two ago ruled that companies have a First Amendment right to not cover preventative medicine for AIDS in their employees' health insurance, ruled that companies don't have a First Amendment right to moderate user generated content:

https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1571145616029548545

Haven't read the opinion, only skimmed the article you cited, but this paragraph from the opinion quoted in the article you cited seems to be key:

The Platforms are nothing like the newspaper in Miami Herald. Unlike newspapers, the Platforms exercise virtually no editorial control or judgment. The Platforms use algorithms to screen out certain obscene and spam-related content. And then virtually everything else is just posted to the Platform with zero editorial control or judgment.

So it's clear the opinion applies only to platforms, not any private entity. If Donald Trump wants to publish his tweets in the NYT, the NYT does not have to publish them. Moreover, the opinion is saying that screening out obscenity and spam is NOT editorial control, so the platforms CAN do that.

masterplum posted...

Honestly I've read enough that I'm pretty convinced that prohibiting social media from censoring content, having that content directly lead to death, and getting sued to oblivion seems like the best option tbh

In no circumstance would they be liable if they were purely a platform with no content moderation. The question is whether they can be held liable if they have selective content moderation and don't moderate something that results in harm.

My opinion is that either platforms should either accept being platforms, which means they get the safe harbor but cannot discriminate based on viewpoint, or they exercise their right to use editorial discretion, in which case they must not be allowed the safe harbor of being a platform and should be held accountable for every thing that is posted by anyone. Since they exercised their editorial discretion by choosing not to moderate it.

On a more general note, there has been a trend of liberal commentators writing articles proclaiming conservative legal opinions as bonkers simply because they disagree with the prevailing trend of jurisprudence since FDR was able to appoint most of the Supreme Court during his long presidency (a historical trend which reached its high water mark in the 90s and, in the past few years, has rapidly receded). Many of the ideas are perfectly rational (which is not necessarily the same as good, or right) and would have seemed perfectly normal and even obvious in 1937.

LordoftheMorons posted...

The 5th Circuit, which a week or two ago ruled that companies have a First Amendment right to not cover preventative medicine for AIDS in their employees' health insurance, ruled that companies don't have a First Amendment right to moderate user generated content:

This is, perhaps, the worst part of the increasing illegitimacy of the Supreme Court. There will be unnerving inconsistencies in the law. The politicization of the court has largely allowed this. We're left to the whims of the Supreme Court on any given date. Conservatives have long counted on Democrats not returning the favor should the winds blow their way. They believe that if the political winds blow the way of Democrats, that it will simply be a setback for their agenda, and the Democrats will not take the same advantages they did to create inconsistent laws based on the whims of their party. It's the gamble they've made, and one that is currently paying off. Democrats need to play Mutually Assured Destruction at this point.

red_sox_777 posted...

So it's clear the opinion applies only to platforms, not any private entity. If Donald Trump wants to publish his tweets in the NYT, the NYT does not have to publish them. Moreover, the opinion is saying that screening out obscenity and spam is NOT editorial control, so the platforms CAN do that.

There's no distinction in the First Amendment (or Section 230) between "platforms" and "publishers" (and in fact even if there were websites routinely act as both; under your suggestion does the NYT become a "platform" because they have a comments section?). The fact is that this law compels speech; Twitter should not have any obligation to host Trump's tweets where he urges on a mob on a quest to hang Mike Pence.

red_sox_777 posted...

In no circumstance would they be liable if they were purely a platform with no content moderation. The question is whether they can be held liable if they have selective content moderation and don't moderate something that results in harm.

My opinion is that either platforms should either accept being platforms, which means they get the safe harbor but cannot discriminate based on viewpoint, or they exercise their right to use editorial discretion, in which case they must not be allowed the safe harbor of being a platform and should be held accountable for every thing that is posted by anyone. Since they exercised their editorial discretion by choosing not to moderate it.

This is the whole reason Section 230 was put into place. What you've just described is an extremely powerful incentive not to moderate at all (because moderating perfectly at scale is impossible and what constitutes "viewpoint discrimination" is subjective) which would cause websites with user generated content to become complete cesspits.

LordoftheMorons posted...

There's no distinction in the First Amendment (or Section 230) between "platforms" and "publishers" (and in fact even if there were websites routinely act as both; under your suggestion does the NYT become a "platform" because they have a comments section?). The fact is that this law compels speech; Twitter should not have any obligation to host Trump's tweets where he urges on a mob on a quest to hang Mike Pence.

This is the whole reason Section 230 was put into place. What you've just described is an extremely powerful incentive not to moderate at all (because moderating perfectly at scale is impossible and what constitutes "viewpoint discrimination" is subjective) which would cause websites with user generated content to become complete cesspits.

It can be as applied. NYT letters to the editor would be part of its publisher role - since those are curated. The comments section would be a platform.

I'm also fine with giving a safe harbor as long as they are making good faith efforts to have no viewpoint discrimination. Have a meaningful appeal process at the platform level, and make it clear in the TOS that the company is entering into a binding contract with all users to allow all speech that would be protected by 1st Amendment if it was a government entity involved, including a consent to be sued in a court regarding whether a post is protected speech.

If your standard is speech that would have First Amendment protection against the government then you end up forcing them to carry some really reprehensible speech (hate speech, for example, is protected). If you try to have some reasonableness standard then it becomes toothless as well; tons of people believe, for example, the lie that the election was stolen or vaccine conspiracy theories, etc. Saying that Facebook or Twitter have to allow that stuff on their site strikes me as pretty ridiculous.

LordoftheMorons posted...

If your standard is speech that would have First Amendment protection against the government then you end up forcing them to carry some really reprehensible speech (hate speech, for example, is protected). If you try to have some reasonableness standard then it becomes toothless as well; tons of people believe, for example, the lie that the election was stolen or vaccine conspiracy theories, etc. Saying that Facebook or Twitter have to allow that stuff on their site strikes me as pretty ridiculous.

The First Amendment as applicable with the government should be the standard. There is a large body of existing caselaw that establishes what that standard means very clearly.

A platform is (or should be) a public forum. The company operating it is no more a speaker than the company that manufactures a podium that gets placed in a public park. As a country, we need more public forums, and fewer echo chambers. The existing First Amendment jurisprudence is easily robust enough to prevent the hypothetical nightmare scenarios.

red_sox_777 posted...

A platform is (or should be) a public forum. The company operating it is no more a speaker than the company that manufactures a podium that gets placed in a public park.

But instead of a public park these companies are putting the podium in the lobby of their own privately owned building.

The Special Master that Trump managed to get seems to be pretty firmly siding AGAINST Trump on all claims.

Probably not what they were hoping for!

red_sox_777 posted...

A platform is (or should be) a public forum. The company operating it is no more a speaker than the company that manufactures a podium that gets placed in a public park. As a country, we need more public forums, and fewer echo chambers.

so you're against gamefaqs having a terms of use?

Mr_Lasastryke posted...

so you're against gamefaqs having a terms of use?

I am for the Terms of Use specifying that in exchange for the users using the platform, the First Amendment will be applied to the platform.

And any company that does not wish to have the First Amendment applied to them would be free to not include that in their TOU, at the cost of not being given a safe harbor from liability for user-generated content on their site.

And it is not difficult to allow censorship of obscenity, illegal activity, spamming, flooding, etc. without viewpoint discrimination. The First Amendment permits even the government to censor those things.

I think if youre going to mandate that social media has to allow everything without moderation, then I think that standard should be similarly applied to bakeries that refuse to bake cakes for gay weddings.

Espeon posted...

I think if youre going to mandate that social media has to allow everything without moderation, then I think that standard should be similarly applied to bakeries that refuse to bake cakes for gay weddings.

Bakeries already lack a safe harbor. If a bakery writes a defamatory statement on the cake they can be sued for that.

If you want a safe harbor from liability for bakeries who want to abdicate their free speech rights to become a public forum with a safe harbor, I guess I'm fine with that for bakeries who want to opt in.

Just found out that Kiwi Farms is based out of the town I live in, which is blowing my mind.

Kiwi Farms completely shut down didn't they? The guy who runs it had a meltdown about how even the Russian and Chinese server hosts wouldn't take them anymore.

Espeon posted...

I think if youre going to mandate that social media has to allow everything without moderation, then I think that standard should be similarly applied to bakeries that refuse to bake cakes for gay weddings.

Should also apply to the houses of politicians who support it

UshiromiyaEva posted...

Kiwi Farms completely shut down didn't they? The guy who runs it had a meltdown about how even the Russian and Chinese server hosts wouldn't take them anymore.

last I heard 8ch was gonna buy them or something

what is there even left to buy

its a mostly non-functional website with a name that is a liability at this point m

8Ch is gone too! And so is their replacement site, as far as I know, which was in basically the same situation as Kiwi.

UshiromiyaEva posted...

8Ch is gone too! And so is their replacement site, as far as I know, which was in basically the same situation as Kiwi.

Nope, their replacement site is still up

Extremely quiet outside of the Q board though

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/09/20/texas-gun-ban-indictment-unconstitutional/

Trump-appointed federal judge ruled it's unconstitutional to ban gun sales to people under felony indictment. He cites Bruen (the recent NY gun case SCOTUS had) and invokes the language in Dobbs about how because it does not "align with this Nation's historical tradition" it is thus unconstitutional.

DOJ plans to appeal (would be to the 5th Circuit next), but if this works its way up to SCOTUS I have no faith.

Felons shouldnt be denied rights that non-felons have, so I think this is a good thing

Jakyl25 posted...

Felons shouldnt be denied rights that non-felons have, so I think this is a good thing

Yep. If you are saying gun ownership is a protected right then you can't deny it to people that have served their sentence.

UshiromiyaEva posted...

The Special Master that Trump managed to get seems to be pretty firmly siding AGAINST Trump on all claims.

Probably not what they were hoping for!

Cant the judge ultimately go I dont give a fuck what the Special Master said?

Isnt the game here just to delay the process as long as possible?

Jakyl25 posted...

Felons shouldnt be denied rights that non-felons have, so I think this is a good thing

Don't really agree here since you would expect a felon to be much more likely to use a gun for crimes than the average person (though of course, you could say that that's a reason it shouldn't be a right in the first place)

LordoftheMorons posted...

Don't really agree here since you would expect a felon to be much more likely to use a gun for crimes than the average person (though of course, you could say that that's a reason it shouldn't be a right in the first place)

There are so many assumptions here that its ludicrous

Firstly, youre assuming the legal system works without bias and error, and that the conviction wasnt bullshit

Secondly, youre categorizing all felons with the same prejudiced brush when thats absolutely not the case

Thirdly, there is no Constitutional basis to deny basic enumerated rights to people who have served their time.

Do you want criminals who have served their time to be welcomed back into society, or should they always be burdened as second class citizens

I think the simplest way to put it is that if you're allowed to take rights away from felons, you give power incentive to criminalize people - this is why taking voting rights away from felons is such a huge vulnerability in our democracy imo, it incentivizes people to criminalize political opponents, which is something we have done for a long time

I agree that theres a difference between someone going to jail for smoking pot and someone committing murder. And for the latter, I do in fact think its fine if they can never own a gun (and I dont agree that that restriction alone would make them a second class citizen). Of course, I dont think gun ownership should be a constitutionally guaranteed right in the first place.

Because nobody has ever trumped up a charge into murder before

Paratroopa1 posted...

I think the simplest way to put it is that if you're allowed to take rights away from felons, you give power incentive to criminalize people - this is why taking voting rights away from felons is such a huge vulnerability in our democracy imo, it incentivizes people to criminalize political opponents, which is something we have done for a long time

Your implication is there, but Im just gonna come out and say it: Not only is the incentive there, but the intent is too!

LotM doesnt understand (or care?) that the good intention of allowing limitations on rights because guns has caused a measurable increase in the amount of felons.

Paratroopa1 posted...

Because nobody has ever trumped up a charge into murder before

Wouldnt even need to go that far, a felony charge of resisting arrest or assault/battery on a law enforcement officer would probably be enough to convince LotM.

See, I'm going to take the opposite tack here and say if we're going to live in a society that can take the right to vote from felons then you better fucking miss me that the right to guns is held on some sacred pedestal above that.

And we do live in that society.

I just imagine if Donald Trump could decide to remove the right to bear arms from certain groups of people how I would feel.

The answer is bad

Couldnt they just make it so felons who specifically committed crimes with guns couldnt buy them? That would be a middle ground of sorts at least

Paratroopa1 posted...

Because nobody has ever trumped up a charge into murder before

What fraction of homicide convictions would you guess were false? And how many "false positive" gun restrictions is unreasonable per life saved?

If you want to say it's unreasonable for any positive rate then fair enough, but I would find it hard to square with support for any other gun restrictions.

Jakyl25 posted...

Thirdly, there is no Constitutional basis to deny basic enumerated rights to people who have served their time.

Do you want criminals who have served their time to be welcomed back into society, or should they always be burdened as second class citizens

Sidebar - this case wasn't about a felon who had served his time. He was under indictment for burglary and missing court dates and lied about being indicted when buying the gun.

I actually think the scenario you're describing about someone who has served their time is a bit more complicated ethically and philosophically but that's not what this judge ruled.

Thorn posted...

See, I'm going to take the opposite tack here and say if we're going to live in a society that can take the right to vote from felons then you better fucking miss me that the right to guns is held on some sacred pedestal above that.

And we do live in that society.

Im taking the stance that you shouldnt lose any right after your debt to society is paid.

Sometime after I moved to Florida, we voted to give felons their right to vote back, and Florida Repugs passed a bill requiring all fees be paid in full to qualify, which meant that like a million felons still cant vote.

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Im taking the stance that you shouldnt lose any right after your debt to society is paid.

Sometime after I moved to Florida, we voted to give felons their right to vote back, and Florida Repugs passed a bill requiring all fees be paid in full to qualify, which meant that like a million felons still cant vote.

Yeah, and I'm saying that this is some mutually assured destruction shit like blue states taking the model of Texas's bounty bill and using it against their pet issues instead of just laying down and letting only them get what they want out of it.

LOTM, these things are not part of the sentence. Why take the power of judgment away from the judge hearing the case in favor of a blanket approach? This is how we get to absurd results like a life sentence for stealing one slice of pizza.

red_sox_777 posted...

LOTM, these things are not part of the sentence. Why take the power of judgment away from the judge hearing the case in favor of a blanket approach? This is how we get to absurd results like a life sentence for stealing one slice of pizza.

A judge making that call seems reasonable; my point isn't about the details of the implementation. I'm just pushing back against the assertion that a person's criminal history should not, in any case, cause them to face additional restrictions on their right to bear arms.

Thorn posted...

Sidebar - this case wasn't about a felon who had served his time. He was under indictment for burglary and missing court dates and lied about being indicted when buying the gun.

I actually think the scenario you're describing about someone who has served their time is a bit more complicated ethically and philosophically but that's not what this judge ruled.

Lying on your application to own a gun should prohibit you from purchasing that gun, I can agree there.

Whether or not indicted people should be able to buy guns (taking the 2nd Amendment as a given for now) is a trickier scenario. They havent been convicted, but it could take forever to go to trial because our legal system is all sorts of busted.

My gut says they should be able to but Im willing to listen to other takes

https://twitter.com/USATODAY/status/1572648461777911810?t=IfoFIDtLgTY4_jleTjCltA&s=19

NYAG also sent the results of her investigation to the IRS Criminal Division and SDNY for possible criminal investigation.

https://twitter.com/byrdinator/status/1572692268368232454?s=21

What does that one do?