I'm sorry, why is this a thing? The roads were clearly fine and it's not like the tornado was lingering about. Should companies not send delivery employees to a place that USPS was probably sending letter carriers just because there was damage? Total nonsense.
"You won't *believe* what situations Jeff Bezos is putting his employees in. Just the other day, a whole bunch of birds pooped on that street!"
"A house on that street burned down. Obviously Amazon should cancel all deliveries for the next week"
Also lol at the dumb Tik Toker (but I repeat myself) marveling at the Amazon delivery person walking in effectively the same area she's *standing in filming.*
The plaintiffs had brought various tort claims against Facebook alleging that it facilitated sex trafficking.
2/ In addition to the negligence/products liability claims, Plaintiffs also brought claims under Texas's trafficking laws, opting not to proceed under federal sex trafficking law, which is not immunized under Section 230.
3/ SCOTX spent some pages bloviating about whether Justice Thomas's interpretation of Section 230 is right, ultimately concluding that they weren't going to follow it and instead agreed that the negligence/products liability claims should be dismissed pursuant to 230. All right.
2/ As I said yesterday, this case is really about the First Amendment. Florida tried to frontload Section 230, appealing to judicial restraint. But even if the court ruled on Section 230 preemption in Florida's favor, it would then still have to address the First Amendment issue.
3/ On the other hand, if the court rules on the First Amendment issue favorably to the law's challengers, it doesn't need to decide on how expansively or restrictively to read Section 230, thus avoiding a landmine. The First Amendment *is* the issue, and should be the prime focus
Florida desperately wants to change the conversation to #Section230 instead of the First Amendment, because that's the conversation they've always wanted this to be about; it's the political hot button they want to feverishly mash.
3/ So they frontloaded the 230 discussion.
But they get off to a bad start by claiming that 230 was prompted only by the Stratton Oakmont, which held Prodigy liable for user content because it engaged in *some* content moderation.
Much agitation against "big tech" is misguided & First Amendmently problematic (on both sides), but I do share two concerns:
1) Giving a govt agency regulatory power over platofrms is a bad, bad idea
2) Govt communication with platforms re: what should be banned is problematic.
Damnit give me that edit button.
Point blank: the government should not be advising social media platforms about what content they should moderate. Platforms should not be asking government. And if asked, the government should not answer (haha like the government has ever missed an opportunity to exert its will)
The Supreme Court pretty recently expressed its unwillingness to expand the state action doctrine in Halleck.
And Paul Domer was a student who wrote a law review article; he's not an expert. Marsh is inapt, and again, SCOTUS has been clear that it has no interest in expanding it
It would surprise me if @RLpmg wasn't doing this because they're engaged in some questionable practices.
Oh @pslohmann & @rlpmg, you thought you could scrub this didn't you. Too bad the Internet is forever and it's also...as you kindly pointed out...right there on your website, which has been archived just in case you try to weasel out of it: web.archive.org/web/2021062113…