• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Texas social media censorship bill signed into law

Well it’s too bad they let Ajit Pai run wild, destroying net neutrality, for four straight years. Now we can just slow down internet access for Texans in rural areas. Problem solved.
 
Mycroft said:
That's not what the law says.
Click to expand...
its blatantly unconstitutional...for at least 3 Constitutional violations that I see right off the bat...surely you also see them, but you will pretend you don't...because it is a fascist. right wing nutcase at the helm in Texas.
 
phoenix2020 said:
Well it’s too bad they let Ajit Pai run wild, destroying net neutrality, for four straight years. Now we can just slow down internet access for Texans in rural areas. Problem solved.
Click to expand...
Well, one things that no longer can be done is people getting banned for posting pro-choice items on all of Abbot's social media , including explicit pictures explaining how biology works.
 
ClaraD said:
its blatantly unconstitutional...for at least 3 Constitutional violations that I see right off the bat...surely you also see them, but you will pretend you don't...because it is a fascist. right wing nutcase at the helm in Texas.
Click to expand...
I don't know that it is or not. I'll let a court decide...assuming anyone files suit.

But hey...you are welcome to present all these Constitutional violation that you see.
 
Mycroft said:
I don't know that it is or not. I'll let a court decide...assuming anyone files suit.

But hey...you are welcome to present all these Constitutional violation that you see.
Click to expand...
these are private companies...they aren't subject to abide by free speech...free speech strictly restricts the government from restricting said speech...and that would include the government from restricting a private company from deciding what speech they want on their platform...also, the states cannot regulate interstate commerce*the internet is interstate commerce* that is the right of the federal government....and Texas isn't the federal government.
Also, last but not least...it violates the Freedom of Press part of the Constitution...https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3261378222094247847&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
 
ClaraD said:
these are private companies...they aren't subject to abide by free speech...free speech strictly restricts the government from restricting said speech...and that would include the government from restricting a private company from deciding what speech they want on their platform...also, the states cannot regulate interstate commerce*the internet is interstate commerce* that is the right of the federal government....and Texas isn't the federal government.
Click to expand...
Regarding the "interstate commerce" thing, the Texas law makes it clear that it only applies to users who reside in Texas. I see that as much like the ability of states to require online sellers to collect state sales taxes, even though those online sellers operate on the internet.

Regarding the rest...again, I'll let the courts decide.
 
Mycroft said:
Regarding the "interstate commerce" thing, the Texas law makes it clear that it only applies to users who reside in Texas. I see that as much like the ability of states to require online sellers to collect state sales taxes, even though those online sellers operate on the internet.

Regarding the rest...again, I'll let the courts decide.
Click to expand...
yeah, that isn't going to fly...the internet in general is interstate commerce...there is no way to consider, for instance, Debate Politics, to be based in Texas...and if they are requiring newspapers that publish on the net to allow uncensored content...they are absolutely violating Freedom of the press....the press cannot be obligated to publish or endorse content they do not want. A fairly similar law, in Florida, was already blocked by the courts.
 
Plasmaball said:
www.kvue.com

Texas social media censorship bill signed into law

Gov. Greg Abbott signed the bill, HB20, on Thursday.
www.kvue.com www.kvue.com

So let's see.
It's harder to vote in Texas.
Abortion is basically illegal
And now they think they can stop social media from banning people

Small government my ass
Click to expand...
I believe the Supremacy Clause takes this out of Texas’ hands, specifically the Federal Communications Act of 1996.
 
Mycroft said:
Regarding the "interstate commerce" thing, the Texas law makes it clear that it only applies to users who reside in Texas. I see that as much like the ability of states to require online sellers to collect state sales taxes, even though those online sellers operate on the internet.

Regarding the rest...again, I'll let the courts decide.
Click to expand...
The SCOTUS ruled sales taxes can be collected but this is a First Amendment case.
 
ClaraD said:
yeah, that isn't going to fly...the internet in general is interstate commerce...there is no way to consider, for instance, Debate Politics, to be based in Texas...and if they are requiring newspapers that publish on the net to allow uncensored content...they are absolutely violating Freedom of the press....the press cannot be obligated to publish or endorse content they do not want. A fairly similar law, in Florida, was already blocked by the courts.
Click to expand...
From what I can see, where the website is based is not a factor. Again...it's about the user.

And this law has nothing to do with content newspapers publish.

A "fairly similar" law in Florida...and whatever its outcome in the courts might end up being...is irrelevant to any consideration of the Texas law. Unless, of course, the laws are identical. Are they?
 
MTAtech said:
The SCOTUS ruled sales taxes can be collected but this is a First Amendment case.
Click to expand...
Maybe. Like I said, I'll let the courts decide...assuming anyone files suit.
 
Apparently Abbott's silly ass has never read the commerce clause.

Either that, or his state has so much money that they're trying to burn some off in lawsuits.
 
This "socialist" does wonder what happened to those 'conservative' minds that once were such major advocates for the free-market philosophy of Hayek and Friedman and are now supporting laws that are blatant violations of the free-market they once supported.
 
Somerville said:
This "socialist" does wonder what happened to those 'conservative' minds that once were such major advocates for the free-market philosophy of Hayek and Friedman and are now supporting laws that are blatant violations of the free-market they once supported.
Click to expand...
They were only for free enterprise when enterprises were kowtowing to their culture.
 
LOL at a GOP bill that classifies social media sites as common carriers.
 
ClaraD said:
yeah, that isn't going to fly...the internet in general is interstate commerce...there is no way to consider, for instance, Debate Politics, to be based in Texas...and if they are requiring newspapers that publish on the net to allow uncensored content...they are absolutely violating Freedom of the press....the press cannot be obligated to publish or endorse content they do not want. A fairly similar law, in Florida, was already blocked by the courts.
Click to expand...
A couple of things. First, there is no commerce between Facebook, Twitter, etc and their users. It’s a free service and no money is changing hands between them. Second, the law requires two things per the OP article: removal of illegal content within 48 hours of posting and consumer protection disclosure. Third, these companies only have section 230 protections because they say they aren’t press, i.e. content creators so which is it?
 
Mycroft said:
From what I can see, where the website is based is not a factor. Again...it's about the user.

And this law has nothing to do with content newspapers publish.

A "fairly similar" law in Florida...and whatever its outcome in the courts might end up being...is irrelevant to any consideration of the Texas law. Unless, of course, the laws are identical. Are they?
Click to expand...
How is that Florida law holding up in court?😜😜
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom