Section 230 is a red herring.
Hate speech is protected by the First Amendment precisely because it is impossible to objectively define. This lawsuit asks the courts to define it, which they will not do. Creative pleading won't get them around the First Amendment's application.
Hate speech is protected by the First Amendment precisely because it is impossible to objectively define. This lawsuit asks the courts to define it, which they will not do. Creative pleading won't get them around the First Amendment's application.
https://twitter.com/viaCristiano/status/1467858769505886208
2/ There is no way to resolve this lawsuit without a court assessing the subjective meaning of Facebook's terms of service, and subjectively determining whether or not Facebook has lived up to them.
3/ Like Republican attempts to regulate social media, this runs headfirst into the reality that those judgements are protected by the First Amendment.
Trying to frame it as a "consumer protection" issue is transparent. The courts aren't going to fall for it.
Trying to frame it as a "consumer protection" issue is transparent. The courts aren't going to fall for it.
4/ Not for nothing, this is why it's vital for Section 230 to *not* have carveouts allowing grandstanding state AGs like @AGKarlRacine who are more interested in politics than law to exert pressure on platforms. That ability would invariably be used to violate the First Amendment
5/ You can call it whatever you want, but filing lawsuits because someone posted/published protected speech is an affront to the First Amendment, and anyone who files such a lawsuit should be ashamed of themselves.
6/ This tells you all you need to know. The complaint would require, without question, for the court to decide whether certain content violates Facebook's terms of service, which would require it to determine for Facebook, subjectively, what is "hateful." This a court may not do. 
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
