Quite. My first reaction when I'd heard RBG had kicked the bucket was to quote Stalin when he heard Hitler had died: "Well, that's the end of that bastard." and my kavanaugh-jaded brain's second thought was "fat lot of good that's gonna do because whoever Trump puts in will just sell us out", and I have yet to be disappointed.
To be clear here, Thomas has done nothing to change 230 or repeal it.
He simply laid out a set of precedents that he thinks are key in getting ANY case concerning the silencing of free speech on a public platform to make it all the way to SCOTUS.
In other words, corporations are on notice that people now can use this template to sue them far more successfully than any time before.
Corporations are now on notice that only one good case against them will strike 230 in the heart. The armor is off.
Thomas lined them up, it is up to us to knock them down.
Only class action law suits would have the longevity to wait out the courts. Corporations will use every tactic to stall in order for individual suits to run out of money. That's why individuals rarely ever get to smell a judge, let alone see them in a court room.
Class actions need to be taken at this stage, because there would be several reasons to expedite (stop the corporation from stalling) as well as insurance that some can carry the load of the expenses.
Wonder if Crowder's case against Facebook could serve as a template for class actions for those harmed by censoring. Also wonder if Lindell's counter suit against Dominion could be expanded into a massive nationwide class-action suit around voter fraud. Something so big the courts could not dismiss it. Would class actions of individuals carry more weight with the courts than the state-level suits that Texas and others did?
Doug TenNapel got all his channels taken down. Lost over 500K followers. Not temp either - permanent ban on creating content. He could team up with Crowder and a few others who lost their platforms.
Ok. Next, do “who defines illegal speech?”
The question is, is there such a thing as illegal speech?
Only a call to action is legally considered illegal if the action called to us itself illegal.
We must always be very careful to use the right language when it comes to laws.
I very much disagree in changing 230, because as someone who runs a lot of websites, I'd have to rethink a lot of user generated content to make sure I wasn't at legal risk. It would hurt small tech/alt tech as much as big tech, including making something like Gab cost prohibitive to operate.
I think what we really need is more privacy and other reforms tbh. I think antitrust issues are very fair game against some of the large tech companies because they have used their monopoly to stifle competition.
Thomas it the greatest SJ out of all of them! He's the only one willing to do the job that he was hired to do. If we had 8 more like him, we'd have the Greatest Supreme Justice to ever represent us! Complete shame that the other 8 are not like Thomas.
It's even more of a shame that I felt extremely sorry and supported a certain couple just to have them stab us all in the back and sell us out.
OK forgive me for being the heavy here, but I read the entire text of the .pdf you provided (thank you - I always prefer to go to the source), and I don't see where the heading was actually decided. In fact, the conclusion paragraph states in full,
The Second Circuit feared that then-President Trump cutoff speech by using the features that Twitter made available to him. But if the aim is to ensure that speech is not smothered, then the more glaring concern must perforce be the dominant digital platforms themselves. As Twitter made clear, the right to cut off speech lies most powerfully in the hands of private digital platforms. The extent to which that power matters for purposes of the First Amendment and the extent to which that power could lawfully be modified raise interesting and important questions. This petition,unfortunately, affords us no opportunity to confront them.
At no time does it decide that twitter or any of these platforms are unconstitutionally being afforded Section 230 rights, nor does it find that they cannot ban 1A protected speech - quite the opposite, in fact. It states that although other utilities such as phone companies and the like are considered "Places of public accommodation" that such a designation has not been given to digital platforms, even though the section 230 benefits have been. It plainly discusses the conundrum of this but doesn't actually remedy any of it.
Please tell me if I'm reading this wrong. I'm just not seeing it.
I've just posted what Posobiec stated. Read some of my comments to get a clear idea of what this means.
Basically, Thomas just opened the door for us to sue corporations whereas there was no precedent before. He handed us a template to follow, we just need a case including all the checkboxes he just provided.
Effectively, corporations are on notice that if they silence someone, people can use Thomas' words here to go for the throat. They can't be as brazen anymore.
They've been skipping pretty, but now they have to dodge hot coals.
If they want to keep their 230 protections based on how vague the law is, they have to pick their shots now instead of bash down anyone who challenges them like before.
Thomas lined them up, but we are the only ones who can knock them down.
Well that would be good, to sue such corporations for violating free speech, but again there's the roadblock of section 230 that prevents anyone from suing them - it's like a catch 22. He even states in his opinion that nobody has sued Twitter. Nobody can! I got from his text that he was urging Congress to do something about this - unfortunately, at the end of the day, they are the only ones who can remove the section 230 protections from these tech giants. I hope you're right in that Thomas' opinion can be used in future litigation to take those jerks down a few notches. Best to you! :)
This means nothing unless we get a case before the SC and a majority of the judges rule this way. Section 230 is most definitely unconstitutional and we need a full court behind that.
It is simply not being enforced because it is extremely vague as to what actions a publisher takes versus what actions a platform takes.
Clarification is sufficient. A complete repeal might not be necessary.
Sec 230 was made in the Clinton era, so it had no idea about all the technology we have now. Corporations simply need to be held to a clearly defined standard.
Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc. just need to be declared publishers if they decide to edit, delete, and block public-oriented content. If they want to be a public platform and get protections, then they need to act like a public platform. That's the original intent of 230 they have been clamouring to avoid in court.
Private companies can set their own policies for conducting business ... BUT ... they cannot violate the law in doing so.
Federal law --
18 USC 241: Conspiracy Against Rights
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
Clearly, they are conspiring to deprive people of (and retaliate against people for exercising) their First Amendment rights to free speech and free press.
And then you have conflicting supreme court cases, even recently, like Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.
Personally, I think companies should be shielded from government interference. IMHO, it's better to get off Twitter and Facebook in the first place. 230 helps every internet company with user generated content, whether it is alt tech, big tech, or tiny tech. Make too many changes to it, and you basically hurt the rest of us (including this web site for example).
Make it more costly to do business, well, it probably helps big tech the most since they can afford enough lawyers. I remember when the CDA was struck down in the first place, it was the first time much of the web had a blackout protest, I think you'd be surprised who joins in if 230 was in threat of a change.
Reread Alito and Thomas' statements on the Texas Election case.
They also provided a template. You have to read between the lines, but it is there. Unfortunately, there was absolutely no time to act on it -- which was by the Left's design in dragging us through the lower courts for so long.
It happens more often than not when a Judge makes a statement when they don't have to. Most people just don't see it for what it is.
For a case to be considered in any serious capacity, you have to have sustained tenable damages. Damages you can quantify.
It would take something like a bunch of public figures or owners of companies who have had Twitter accounts that were taken down that can reasonably argue their companies/public image sustained quantifiable damage or disadvantage from the exclusion of the alleged "public platform".
That's not to say you DON'T have a case. Just that your case would have such a low barrier to be heard that the court system could be flushed to death with similar innocuous cases.
You need to be able to prove you sustained damages that can also be remedied. If it can't be remedied by the court, there is no reason to waste time on it, whether or not it has merit. Which is unfortunate.
He is credible enough to not dismiss this particular nugget. No one else on Trump's team is drawing attention to it, so he gets the pin by default. I checked before I posted.
I love Clarence Thomas. Him and Alito seem to be the few truly constitutional justices we have left.
Yes, and remember the disrespect Biden had for him during his confirmation hearings? Fact check that. What a complete turd JB is.
Yes. Alito is a boss. Would love to see him suplex Roberts irl.
A fucking vertical suplex on pedo Roberts. I love the visual ?
The only 2 worth a damn.
*only
Yes pretty disappointed in the new ones.
Quite. My first reaction when I'd heard RBG had kicked the bucket was to quote Stalin when he heard Hitler had died: "Well, that's the end of that bastard." and my kavanaugh-jaded brain's second thought was "fat lot of good that's gonna do because whoever Trump puts in will just sell us out", and I have yet to be disappointed.
To be clear here, Thomas has done nothing to change 230 or repeal it.
He simply laid out a set of precedents that he thinks are key in getting ANY case concerning the silencing of free speech on a public platform to make it all the way to SCOTUS.
In other words, corporations are on notice that people now can use this template to sue them far more successfully than any time before.
Corporations are now on notice that only one good case against them will strike 230 in the heart. The armor is off.
Thomas lined them up, it is up to us to knock them down.
Only class action law suits would have the longevity to wait out the courts. Corporations will use every tactic to stall in order for individual suits to run out of money. That's why individuals rarely ever get to smell a judge, let alone see them in a court room.
Class actions need to be taken at this stage, because there would be several reasons to expedite (stop the corporation from stalling) as well as insurance that some can carry the load of the expenses.
Wonder if Crowder's case against Facebook could serve as a template for class actions for those harmed by censoring. Also wonder if Lindell's counter suit against Dominion could be expanded into a massive nationwide class-action suit around voter fraud. Something so big the courts could not dismiss it. Would class actions of individuals carry more weight with the courts than the state-level suits that Texas and others did?
Doug TenNapel got all his channels taken down. Lost over 500K followers. Not temp either - permanent ban on creating content. He could team up with Crowder and a few others who lost their platforms.
Thanks Sleepy! Another clear interpretation to help some of us see the bigger picture.?????????
Gotta find 4 more justices who agree with Justice Thomas
More than just enforced, unfortunately, it needs a clarification of the roles and powers of a publisher and platform.
If they were clearly defined, the primary point of abuse would be settled.
Ok. Next, do “who defines illegal speech?” The question is, is there such a thing as illegal speech? Only a call to action is legally considered illegal if the action called to us itself illegal. We must always be very careful to use the right language when it comes to laws.
I very much disagree in changing 230, because as someone who runs a lot of websites, I'd have to rethink a lot of user generated content to make sure I wasn't at legal risk. It would hurt small tech/alt tech as much as big tech, including making something like Gab cost prohibitive to operate.
I think what we really need is more privacy and other reforms tbh. I think antitrust issues are very fair game against some of the large tech companies because they have used their monopoly to stifle competition.
They got way to greedy. They actually could legally be a publisher and a platform in several ways. A moderated "area" and an unmoderated "area".
Like it used to be online....
Thomas it the greatest SJ out of all of them! He's the only one willing to do the job that he was hired to do. If we had 8 more like him, we'd have the Greatest Supreme Justice to ever represent us! Complete shame that the other 8 are not like Thomas. It's even more of a shame that I felt extremely sorry and supported a certain couple just to have them stab us all in the back and sell us out.
I agreeeeeeeeee with that.
Uncle Tom. (Sarcasm)
White liberals are not only saying this, black liberals are calling him Uncle Tom too. All liberals are equally bad.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/040521zor_3204.pdf
OK forgive me for being the heavy here, but I read the entire text of the .pdf you provided (thank you - I always prefer to go to the source), and I don't see where the heading was actually decided. In fact, the conclusion paragraph states in full,
At no time does it decide that twitter or any of these platforms are unconstitutionally being afforded Section 230 rights, nor does it find that they cannot ban 1A protected speech - quite the opposite, in fact. It states that although other utilities such as phone companies and the like are considered "Places of public accommodation" that such a designation has not been given to digital platforms, even though the section 230 benefits have been. It plainly discusses the conundrum of this but doesn't actually remedy any of it.
Please tell me if I'm reading this wrong. I'm just not seeing it.
You're right.
I agree.
I've just posted what Posobiec stated. Read some of my comments to get a clear idea of what this means.
Basically, Thomas just opened the door for us to sue corporations whereas there was no precedent before. He handed us a template to follow, we just need a case including all the checkboxes he just provided.
Effectively, corporations are on notice that if they silence someone, people can use Thomas' words here to go for the throat. They can't be as brazen anymore.
They've been skipping pretty, but now they have to dodge hot coals.
If they want to keep their 230 protections based on how vague the law is, they have to pick their shots now instead of bash down anyone who challenges them like before.
Thomas lined them up, but we are the only ones who can knock them down.
Well that would be good, to sue such corporations for violating free speech, but again there's the roadblock of section 230 that prevents anyone from suing them - it's like a catch 22. He even states in his opinion that nobody has sued Twitter. Nobody can! I got from his text that he was urging Congress to do something about this - unfortunately, at the end of the day, they are the only ones who can remove the section 230 protections from these tech giants. I hope you're right in that Thomas' opinion can be used in future litigation to take those jerks down a few notches. Best to you! :)
Yeah. It’s not a one-man band.
Right about now?
This means nothing unless we get a case before the SC and a majority of the judges rule this way. Section 230 is most definitely unconstitutional and we need a full court behind that.
Sec 230 isn't necessarily unconstitutional.
It is simply not being enforced because it is extremely vague as to what actions a publisher takes versus what actions a platform takes.
Clarification is sufficient. A complete repeal might not be necessary.
Sec 230 was made in the Clinton era, so it had no idea about all the technology we have now. Corporations simply need to be held to a clearly defined standard.
Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc. just need to be declared publishers if they decide to edit, delete, and block public-oriented content. If they want to be a public platform and get protections, then they need to act like a public platform. That's the original intent of 230 they have been clamouring to avoid in court.
Vague is enough to strike it down. Courts can do that, it's up to legislation to write not vague laws
If our current Legislation was tasked to write a new Sec 230, they would only further enshrine the very things we want done away with.
A new car might not be better than the old if it was designed by a sadistic psychopath.
At least when you expose a tigers teeth people start to realize it's going to eat them
If only he were Chief.
All in due time. ?
No KiDDiNG huh.
This is more important than most realize.
Private companies can set their own policies for conducting business ... BUT ... they cannot violate the law in doing so.
Federal law --
18 USC 241: Conspiracy Against Rights
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/241
Clearly, they are conspiring to deprive people of (and retaliate against people for exercising) their First Amendment rights to free speech and free press.
And then you have conflicting supreme court cases, even recently, like Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.
Personally, I think companies should be shielded from government interference. IMHO, it's better to get off Twitter and Facebook in the first place. 230 helps every internet company with user generated content, whether it is alt tech, big tech, or tiny tech. Make too many changes to it, and you basically hurt the rest of us (including this web site for example).
Make it more costly to do business, well, it probably helps big tech the most since they can afford enough lawyers. I remember when the CDA was struck down in the first place, it was the first time much of the web had a blackout protest, I think you'd be surprised who joins in if 230 was in threat of a change.
It is broad daylight the big tech cabal are censoring conservatives and alike. Where is DJT's twitter account? Give me my fucking President back!!!
Ive got 2 accounts on 30 day bans.
about time, God bless Clarence Thomas, American!
That's not the conclusion I get from reading the decision.
Love Brother Clarence Thomas. He is a truly great jurist and American!
I like that Posobiec used "sauce" instead of "source" when linking the .pdf on the supreme court site. :)
One of us!
One of us!
One of us!
kek
About time... now lets break them
this does nothing for the cause..
So what's he gonna fuckin do about it?
Nothing.
Basically he just called out that if a case matched these terms, he would use his statement here as a precedent to help it get into the court room.
All he did here is give us a template for a case to follow for the best chances to make it all the way through.
That's the most he can do.
This is more than most could do. It's rare to see SCOTUS line up a template to bring suits to them like this. He really helped here.
Reread Alito and Thomas' statements on the Texas Election case.
They also provided a template. You have to read between the lines, but it is there. Unfortunately, there was absolutely no time to act on it -- which was by the Left's design in dragging us through the lower courts for so long.
It happens more often than not when a Judge makes a statement when they don't have to. Most people just don't see it for what it is.
Praise to God let this be true!
I just hope they know to modify it properly and not REPEAL it, as that would make smaller websites like this one impossible to run.
It can be used as precedent in another more applicable case.
He is handing us the golden goose in the form of a template of precedents he knows the other judges just consider.
It is up to use to find a case that matches his template closely enough and take it all the way for a full review of sec 230.
Yes, but no.
For a case to be considered in any serious capacity, you have to have sustained tenable damages. Damages you can quantify.
It would take something like a bunch of public figures or owners of companies who have had Twitter accounts that were taken down that can reasonably argue their companies/public image sustained quantifiable damage or disadvantage from the exclusion of the alleged "public platform".
That's not to say you DON'T have a case. Just that your case would have such a low barrier to be heard that the court system could be flushed to death with similar innocuous cases.
You need to be able to prove you sustained damages that can also be remedied. If it can't be remedied by the court, there is no reason to waste time on it, whether or not it has merit. Which is unfortunate.
In the mean time, corporations now have to watch out. They are vulnerable now.
Nothing changed, but he basically spotted us wandering around the building and knocked on the window to show us the weak spot.
It is up to us to present him a case following his road map.
Talk is cheap. And this talk is also after the horse has left the barn.
Uh but doesn't the whole court have to vote? He's just giving his opinion I guess right? I mean it's good to hear but not binding?
Not binding, but it shines a spotlight on how to proceed with appropriate merits.
It also provides some precedent in the cases he cited so others can use them to push through courts more quickly.
He basically gave us the test to use as a study guide, even though we can't necessarily use the study guide during the test.
Two will step down. Roberts and ?
I'm hedging my bets that Alito and Thomas will step down while publicly stating the entire system is corrupt top to bottom.
Then go on a public tirade to call for formal investigations into the entire Judicial branch.
I can dream, can't I?
If Lin Wood is right, Steven Breyer.
I can't access this twitter...can you post screenshot?
Posodick is anti-Q. Not sure anything he says should be pinned here. Are we pro-Q or anti-Q?
Info is info.
He is credible enough to not dismiss this particular nugget. No one else on Trump's team is drawing attention to it, so he gets the pin by default. I checked before I posted.
Fair enough. Just leaves a bad taste.
Agreed. I don't like him much either.
Yeah, he’s an opportunistic weasel
Clarence Thomas - Future Chief Justice
Boom indeed! class action time!!!! Sue, sue, sue, sue susan too!
Turn the Chief Justice position over to Clarence Thomas!
[The left] If he keeps this up call the wet works
? Do we believe Posobiec now?