The highest court today ruled for Twitter and other social media companies against plaintiffs who sued them over hosting terrorist videos. The ruling is a major victory for the companies. Or is it?
Sounds like the social media companies are getting it their way either way. We're not responsible for the content posted on our platforms but if the federal government urges us to ban somebody we will do it even though we're not responsible for the content on our platforms.
So at one moment they're claiming no responsibility and yet at another moment they'll do the bidding of the federal government in removing perfectly legal content.
Here I am trying to use logic and reason, silly me.
Yes. BUT. These cases were quite different from Berenson vs. Biden. Social media companies may not be liable when they didn't censor controversial content (like ISIS videos) but they may still be liable if they act like the arm of the federal government in censoring content. If these court cases land the social media companies on the side of NOT censoring whenever possible, that would be, imo, a very good thing.
Plus now that the govt thinks that a lot of beliefs common to Americans make them “domestic terrorists” maybe giving real terrorists free speech rights provides protection for the rest of us normies??
The legal issues involved are highly complex, but if I understand it correctly, the bottom line is that operators of social-media platforms seek immunity from these kinds of lawsuits on freedom-of-speech grounds, while at the same time claiming the right to restrict speech on those platforms?
"Sadly, the courts are almost as political as the politicians these days."
They always were. Think about the majority opinion in Roe v Wade, authored by Justice Blackmun, which was a classic example of results-oriented jurisprudence. Justice White was right on where he stated in his dissent: "The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant women and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes."
This happens at the SCOTUS level down to podunk district courts. They play to the masses and to the money.
Alex I think you are missing the bigger story from the Supreme Court today, the Gorsuch comments on lockdowns etc. Read them it sounds very much like he is talking about your case.
"Along the way, it seems federal officials may have pressured social-media companies to suppress information about pandemic policies with which they disagreed."
I just learned this week about a case where a doctor successfully sued a journalist for libel when the journalist said the doctor’s methods were killing people. The court fined the journalist the largest fine in state history!
So "arm’s length, passive, and largely indifferent" is the key here. Mr. Berenson was able to show that the little bird was anything but. I think this means we have to challenge all that is wrong on the internet in order to get our day in court. The censorship hasn't stopped it's just hiding a little better
Definitely food for thought. Promoting violence isn’t synonymous with reporting facts that are inconvenient to corporate wealth.
I have not seen the videos in question though either. I try to formulate opinions based on my experience and interpretation which is rarely an “expert” one though the “experts” often seem more like cheer leaders and/or sycophants.
Sounds like the social media companies are getting it their way either way. We're not responsible for the content posted on our platforms but if the federal government urges us to ban somebody we will do it even though we're not responsible for the content on our platforms.
So at one moment they're claiming no responsibility and yet at another moment they'll do the bidding of the federal government in removing perfectly legal content.
Here I am trying to use logic and reason, silly me.
Plausible deniability is a safe place. Just ask Fauci or the puppet in the WH or his brother
Yes. BUT. These cases were quite different from Berenson vs. Biden. Social media companies may not be liable when they didn't censor controversial content (like ISIS videos) but they may still be liable if they act like the arm of the federal government in censoring content. If these court cases land the social media companies on the side of NOT censoring whenever possible, that would be, imo, a very good thing.
Plus now that the govt thinks that a lot of beliefs common to Americans make them “domestic terrorists” maybe giving real terrorists free speech rights provides protection for the rest of us normies??
Yeah, logic and reason are characteristics infrequently employed by the gov’mint.
The legal issues involved are highly complex, but if I understand it correctly, the bottom line is that operators of social-media platforms seek immunity from these kinds of lawsuits on freedom-of-speech grounds, while at the same time claiming the right to restrict speech on those platforms?
BS suits like this could be the thing that torpedoes independent media. "That video you showed caused this disaster. Pay me a zillion dollars!"
Sadly, the courts are almost as political as the politicians these days.
"Sadly, the courts are almost as political as the politicians these days."
They always were. Think about the majority opinion in Roe v Wade, authored by Justice Blackmun, which was a classic example of results-oriented jurisprudence. Justice White was right on where he stated in his dissent: "The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant women and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes."
This happens at the SCOTUS level down to podunk district courts. They play to the masses and to the money.
Now that I think about it, this is ALSO the perfect excuse for the MSM to refuse to cover a story that might get them sued.
I think both results are satisfactory to the censors.
Does independent media like Substack or Rumble fall under 230?
Everything does.
.
I Like Yelling COVID !
In A Crowded Movie Theater.
.
"Cancel culture isn't real because the people we're totally trying to cancel won't stay dead."
🤣
God Speed Alex. I am rooting for you. Free speech needs a win.
Alex I think you are missing the bigger story from the Supreme Court today, the Gorsuch comments on lockdowns etc. Read them it sounds very much like he is talking about your case.
Where do you find them?
https://open.substack.com/pub/covidreason/p/breaking-gorsuch-rule-on-lockdowns?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android
"Along the way, it seems federal officials may have pressured social-media companies to suppress information about pandemic policies with which they disagreed."
.
Panic ! Panic ! Panic !
In The Private Jet Cabins.
The Wealthy Are Past The Point
Where They Are Scared Shitless
That The Joe’s And Josephine’s
Throughout The World
Are Going To Cut Their Heads Off.
.
..."Like Berenson v Biden." BOOM!!! [insert pic of Alex wearing the MLG sunglasses]
I just learned this week about a case where a doctor successfully sued a journalist for libel when the journalist said the doctor’s methods were killing people. The court fined the journalist the largest fine in state history!
The doctor’s court-approved remedy? Bloodletting!
More here:
https://gaty.substack.com/p/americas-mental-health-crisis-does
So I know this is cold comfort, but even if the courts eventually rule against you, at least trust that posterity won’t!
.
I Am Often Criticized
For Not Giving A Voice To Liberals.
Here Goes …
“ I Don’t Care If It’s True “
“ It Should Be True “
“ And That’s Good Enough For Me “
.
So "arm’s length, passive, and largely indifferent" is the key here. Mr. Berenson was able to show that the little bird was anything but. I think this means we have to challenge all that is wrong on the internet in order to get our day in court. The censorship hasn't stopped it's just hiding a little better
I think the Court is saying that Google, et. al. are not responsible for actions taken by a third party.
For example, if someone doesn't like my comment on Alex's Substack and comes to my house and punches me in the nose, Alex IS NOT liable.
But, if, even at the behest of the government, Alex comes to my house and punches me in the nose, Alex IS liable.
I don't think we'll know we are totally screwed until a case comes to the Court alleging damage done BY Google, et.al. and loses.
Definitely food for thought. Promoting violence isn’t synonymous with reporting facts that are inconvenient to corporate wealth.
I have not seen the videos in question though either. I try to formulate opinions based on my experience and interpretation which is rarely an “expert” one though the “experts” often seem more like cheer leaders and/or sycophants.