"Section 230 is unconstitutional and we hate it, but threatening to repeal it constitutes government coercion sufficient to make Facebook a state actor"
Wow. Just wow.
So many pages devoted to the hearings and legislative threats against social media platforms without the slightest whiff of awareness that Republicans have been doing the exact same thing with the intent of curtailing platforms' expression. You're not going to like how this ends.
If you're arguing Facebook is a state actor because it's conspiring with the federal government to censor disfavored speech, you might want to *not* include the story of how Facebook allegedly suspended someone for posting...a link to a federal agency site.
That is literally evidence against your thesis.
FWIW, most of the lawyers on the pleading are...personal injury attorneys. One of whom (Coale) calls *himself* an ambulance chaser.
"This is a First Amendment lawsuit. Please enjoin defendants from engaging in constitutionally protect speech. Thanks."
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
When the bedrock, lead-off of your case is that college students not wanting to date Trump supporters reveals a predilection for infringing on people's rights, you've lost the argument in a way that veers way too close to incel-ville.
The court analyzes preemption under 230(c)(2)(A), but doesn't touch (c)(1). Normally this would bother me, because that's not how #Section230 works. But if you read it, Hinkle doesn't really decide between the 230 interpretations; this reads more like an "even if FL is right"
Hinkle was obviously not swayed by Florida's attempt to brush off platforms' curation as meaningless and expressionless. He seems to understand that those functions are vital for their products to be usable.
1/ We are locked and loaded. Welcome to the livetweet of the preliminary injunction hearing in NetChoice v. Moody, where the court will hear arguments about whether Florida should be enjoined from enforcing its unconstitutional social media law #SB7072.
2/ We (@techfreedom) filed an amicus brief urging the court to do just that, and expect the arguments we anticipated in our brief to play a large role in today's hearings: techfreedom.org/wp-content/upl…
The hearing will start in just a few minutes, so hold on to your hats, folks.
Is @HEIHotels' CEO stoned? The shortage isn't because of wage competition. It's because the jobs don't pay enough *overall*. Why would tips be different? If you paid more & competitors matched, there'd be plenty of workers. Pay your fucking employees. JFC. businessinsider.com/labor-shortage…
It's not *my* job to make sure *you* don't suffer labor shortages because you don't pay employees enough, @HEIHotels.
In other news, I am suffering a labor shortage because I can't find someone to be my administrative assistant for $5,000 a year. Maybe Ted Darnall and @HEIHotels should commit to tipping someone $50k every year so this unjust lack of secretarial assistance can be remedied.
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.
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.