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! :)
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! :)