> "Today we reject the idea that corporations have a freewheeling First Amendment right to censor what people say," Judge Andrew Oldham, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, wrote in the ruling.
I don't really understand this; from my perspective, it sounds like this judge doesn't really understand the first amendment (hopefully this is not the case, and the quote is taken out of context). Corporations are not bound by the restrictions laid out in the first amendment; only the government is. And it seems like this Texas law is an infringement upon the corporation's free speech rights.
> The Texas law forbids social media companies with at least 50 million monthly active users from acting to "censor" users based on "viewpoint"
What does "viewpoint" mean? I assume it's written that way to be vague and enforceable whenever the state feels like it. Is it a "viewpoint" to spread false information? Is it a "viewpoint" to spam?
I do agree that social media companies need some sort of regulation, as they have (unfortunately) become the only place where some groups of people communicate and get their news and information. But this does not seem like the right call, or the right law.
Also, this is a Texas law; if Facebook closed down all of their offices in Texas, presumably they could just ignore it, as then Texas wouldn't have jurisdiction over them?
A trending example might be the viewpoint that British colonisation was an act of "settlement" vs "invasion". On one hand it can be argued that life improved for indigenous populations with the arrival of technology. On the other hand it can be argued those populations suffered and are owed compensation.
Choosing one or the other core viewpoint can lead to polarizing branches, such as celebrating the Queen's death with hateful tweets vs acknowledging the Queen's death with respectful mourning.
Both viewpoints can draw on valid arguments and data. Banning one of those viewpoints is not a good plan. It would be unhealthy for any society to ban a viewpoint because it conflicts with political agendas or the views of the owners of the platform.
>Also, this is a Texas law; if Facebook closed down all of their offices in Texas, presumably they could just ignore it, as then Texas wouldn't have jurisdiction over them?
AFAIK the law specifically forbids that kind of move, somehow ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Presumably Texas can represent themselves as long as anyone within TX was using a service by a company violating the law. Now, if FB banned anyone with a geoip resolving to Texas, that'd be quite the firepower to claim that TX has no jurisdiction.
However, congress' ability to regulate interstate commerce might change this to something TX can rule on but can't enforce.
It is most certainly the judicial consensus. You might argue that it's not a social consensus, but that doesn't magically override existing constitutional protections. Much the same as social consensus on guns doesn't override the Second Amendment.
I don't really understand this; from my perspective, it sounds like this judge doesn't really understand the first amendment (hopefully this is not the case, and the quote is taken out of context). Corporations are not bound by the restrictions laid out in the first amendment; only the government is. And it seems like this Texas law is an infringement upon the corporation's free speech rights.
> The Texas law forbids social media companies with at least 50 million monthly active users from acting to "censor" users based on "viewpoint"
What does "viewpoint" mean? I assume it's written that way to be vague and enforceable whenever the state feels like it. Is it a "viewpoint" to spread false information? Is it a "viewpoint" to spam?
I do agree that social media companies need some sort of regulation, as they have (unfortunately) become the only place where some groups of people communicate and get their news and information. But this does not seem like the right call, or the right law.
Also, this is a Texas law; if Facebook closed down all of their offices in Texas, presumably they could just ignore it, as then Texas wouldn't have jurisdiction over them?