5th Circuit Appeals court upholds Texas social media law that bans outlets from censoring users.

 

Politico/AFP/Getty. 

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a Texas social media law that bans big tech outlets from banning users for political speech. Politico. The big tech companies, including Facebook, Google and Twitter argued that the law, which allows Texas users to sue if their posts or accounts are removed for political speech, is a violation of their first amendment rights. In a 2-1 ruling the court disagreed saying that censorship is not speech and the idea that it was is "ludicrous". The case will likely go to the Supreme Court due to the fact that the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a similar law in Florida. The law would not go into effect until a final ruling is put into place. 

My Comment:

As someone who has had political opinions censored on both Twitter and Facebook this ruling is a welcome one. None of my posts that were moderated were in anyway offensive or bad. I called Kyle Rittenhouse a hero on Twitter and I caught a suspension for it, even though he was acquitted of all charges and it was obvious he was not a murderer. Even more idiotic was the time I caught a minor ban on Facebook because I made a joke about Joe Biden's knowledge of guns by claiming I could shoot down a helicopter with a 9mm, an obvious reference to the classic Simpsons episode where Homer gets a gun. 

I have never bought the argument that social media and big tech are like newspapers where they have editorial control over users posts. Instead they are like a common carrier that works with the public. The classic example would be your phone. Imagine if you said on the phone you were voting for President Trump and then you not only got banned from your phone service, but from all other phone services. That would be unthinkable but for some reason we are supposed to accept that from social media? 

The censorship of big tech has been an absolute disaster for free speech. The days of the freewheeling internet where interesting ideas outside of the mainstream were common are dead. There are a few websites like that but good luck finding them and God help you if you try and link to one of them. Hell, the attack on Kiwi Farms for documenting a disgusting person that grooms children and sends them sex hormones is an example of this. They were one of the last websites on the internet where you could say what you want and they were almost completely taken down because big tech colluded to silence them. 

This censorship is one of the main reasons why I don't consider the 2020 election to be legitimate. The Hunter Biden laptop from hell story was legitimate and in any normal year would have destroyed any chance of Joe Biden becoming President. But big tech and more traditional media colluded to silence the story to the point where unless you were already keyed into conservative news you didn't see it. That kind of thing cannot happen again if we are to have a country will anything resembling real elections. 

If this law goes into effect, will social media be less friendly? Who cares? That is what the block button is for. I see things I disagree with on social media all the time and I just ignore it. And if a user is bothering me I block them. That's the user's role on the website, not the administrators. People should only be banned if they break the law and even then they should get their accounts back when they serve their time. 

The role out would be complicated. How would big tech deal with laws in other countries that mandate censorship? If I move to Texas and post something about Justin Trudeau being a cuck and Canada mandates my post be removed, (in a silly example) what would Facebook or Twitter do? Do they piss off Canada or Texas? It's a tough situation for them and one they richly deserve. 

How will the Supreme Court rule? I have no idea. This kind of law is not my area of expertise and with the current makeup of the court I am not sure. It seems like the kind of thing the Conservative justices might have an issue with as they may put the interest of private businesses over the greater good of America and especially the conservative movement. My hope would be that the Supreme Court would choose to defend the free speech rights of actual human beings but who knows?

I am sure some liberal readers may bring up the case of the gay wedding cake court cases. I don't really think that is the same thing at all. After all, compelling someone to make speech they disagree with is totally different than not allowing any speech in the first place. And essentially the people in that case, Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission, were commissioning art. Again, it would be more like the phone company banning you from calling anyone to order a cake because you are gay, not like being forced to bake a cake you disagree with. 

I do hope that this ruling happens though. The internet used to be a wonderful place until about 2016 or so. The election of President Trump really broke the powers that be and they had to go and ruin the internet to make sure that nobody ever spoke up against them again. I don't know how well it has worked but I know for a fact that I'd prefer to live in a world where I can say what I want online without worrying about losing my accounts.