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.
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.
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....