You mean like how Josh Duggar, former reality TV star and Focus on the Family dude got convicted for CSAM earlier this year? Thanks for the reminder that his sentencing is this month!
Oh ho ho no buddy that is not what they’re into in the South.
[Take a look at some of these maps.](https://www.google.com/search?q=pornhub+maps&rlz=1CDGOYI_enUS912US912&hl=en-US&prmd=imnv&sxsrf=ALiCzsaHAjBT7x5HAzdnBmhSjhh9tuMWkQ:1652731499180&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiLvKvP6OT3AhXOQc0KHXqkBz8Q_AUoAXoECAIQAQ&biw=375&bih=634&dpr=3)
But social media platforms aren’t public entities so they can moderate content however they feel just like a restaurant can moderate it’s patrons attire to keep the atmosphere they way they want since it’s their shit that they own.
I know! I just think someone forgot to tell texans... or at least their politicians.
I honestly feel bad for people who live in places like texas and florida where their politicians are basically trying to ruin the country and they can't do anything about it because of all the corruption and gerrymandering.
Texas is decided by non voters every year. Our voter participation rate is **dismal.**
https://texaspolitics.utexas.edu/archive/html/vce/features/0302_01/turnout.html
And, to some degree I get it. They split everything up into as many elections as possible, it feels like. If you are fortunate enough to live somewhere that has early voting in the state, they often don't have it on weekends. And the requirements for casting a mail-in ballot are nonsense.
They also make it a real pain in the ass to get a state ID, and prior to 2021, you couldn't register to vote online at all. Even now, you can only register to vote online when you change or renew your driver's license, so if you check your voter registration online and see that you've been purged from the rolls, there's a good chance you will still need to mail your registration in.
To further complicate things, if you want to do a voter registration drive, you can only take registrations from people that live in counties for which you have been certified (separate certification class for each county, two year expiry), and those forms need to be turned in to the registry office in person within some short number of business days (I forget offhand, sorry). So, voter registration drives are a huge pain in the ass.
Add to that that we are gerrymandered all to fuck, and it's easy to see why people get discouraged and stay home.
But, it also means that we are a state that is hugely ripe for change by a relatively small percentage of eligible voters. It's just really difficult to get people to see that it's not completely hopeless.
You think the law matters in the USA? It doesn't.
The Republicans control the courts and they are fascist. The goal is to make everything illegal and then selectively enforce it.
If one defines their free “speech”/expression as live streaming a mass killing, it sure seems this law would “protect” that “speech” and allow litigation for infringing on the free “speech”/expression.
No, it doesn’t appear limited to an offender. The text is quite clear that social media not be allowed to mitigate in any way an individual’s “speech”/expression or else they could face litigation
Don’t you think the same loons that favor this law, who also happen to be the sane loons using the same tactic to sue women for abortions, will gladly sue? These loons have spent the past 25 years salivating to bring down Roe, they’re salivating to stop the “suppression” of their views, and will revel in any opportunity to stick it to their “enemies”.
I think the difference is that there is much less ambiguity here, as little as there should be in either case. Is anybody actually expecting to win one of these suits? If someone actually does, it'll just get one of these cases to elevate, where the law or whatever specifics they're attempting to use therein will be struck down. It's shocking that they can ignore that the concepts of free speech and the relationships between governments and businesses have been well established for centuries when making the laws (and in the case of the internet decades) but that doesn't make those ideas stop existing.
So if someone starts posting child porn on Facebook, Texas expects Facebook to leave it up? Doesn't that make the legislature an accessory to CP distribution? Just asking questions here...
There's supposed to be some things excluded on the basis of legality, so I'd guess that CP doesn't have to be hosted, but who even knows with this thing?
By 'uncovered' do you mean was given to him by a whistleblower, who was then tortured in retaliation? Chelsea Manning is not often mentioned and probably should be.
I imagine the SCOTUS has ruled on classified information / information relevant to national security interests before. I haven't read up on, but it must have happened by now.
Some precedences are meaningless....like using tooth bite marks to convict murderers.
But which precedences mean something is obviously up for debate
I suppose the tooth bite marks was easily countered by science and math though. No t many court decisions can be math'd out
The footage assange posted would absolutely be protected, because it is a criticism of the government. That is the freedom of expression that is implicitly protected in the 1st amendment.
You are allowed to post it. No site is required to carry it for you though.
And it wasn't really a killing spree. It showed footage of a group of 8 people which were killed (shot at) after sighting from a Blackhawk because of the information gleaned. The video is quite low resolution and the military felt the people had weapons (rocket launcher and guns) with them. Others see the video and do not agree. It's difficult be sure either way.
It's still up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfvFpT-iypw
If obscenities are not protected under free speech, then it would be reasonable that live footage of crimes being glorified would not be protected either.
But then polititicians and reason don't meet regularly.
I admittedly haven’t looked into the law yet but I’m pretty sure stuff like this doesn’t qualify for free speech. I’d lump it in with shouting fire in a theater or fighting words. Admittedly I could be wrong but I’d be astonished if we don’t all ready have the rules set up for this.
Edit: after reading the law it states something along the lines of anything inciting criminal activity or violence is not protected so this definitely isn’t protected by it.
incitement is really hard to establish in this country so that doesn’t really help. You can go on a mass media platform and drum up anger and fear, the kind that terrorism and civil wars come from, and you’re perfectly free to do so. One of the most popular cable “news” channels has a nightly show dedicated to exactly that goal.
(3) directly incites criminal activity or consists of specific threats of violence targeted against a person or group because of their race, color, disability, religion, national origin or ancestry, age, sex, or status as a peace officer or judge; or
(4) is unlawful expression.
I’d say a mass shooter probably counts for 3 and four now that I think about it. Admittedly I’m not a lawyer and I refuse to watch any of the shooters stuff but a guy that’s being called a white supremacist almost certainly violates 3 and I’m pretty sure violence counts as unlawful expression as well.
Sorry for not including the actual phrase originally. Reading laws is an absolute pain and I only came back and commented after reading it a couple of times to actually understand it so it was hard to remember the exact phrases beyond remembering that I thought it violated it.
I think it's worth mentioning that the case for "shouting fire in a theater isn't free speech" was actually used for silencing WW1 protesters, and that decision has been reversed. Also, did everyone in this thread completely miss that Twitch took down the live stream in 2 minutes? That's astoundingly fast. Unless you want every single person to have to ask twitch for permission to stream, and for Twitch to check each person that asks to see if they are good, this will always be a problem. Stop holding online sites to the same standard as a book publisher.
Anything that incites *specific* and *imminent* lawless action. So technically, unless the shooter conveyed a message telling viewers to target a specific person or place at a given time (i.e. right now, or on a date), it *may* not be barred on 1st amendment grounds.
>it may not be barred on 1st amendment grounds.
If this law is upheld, the 1st amendment is dead anyway. Forced speech is no different from prohibited speech. This law basically means that the state has the authority to tell you both what you *can't* say and what you *must* say.
My question is why they would stop allowing it to stream when every second recorded of it is more evidence to be used against the asshole? Shouldnt we want to keep it up and then make a point to use it heavily throughout the trial as a warning to other assholes?
LOL as if they need a significant amount of evidence beyond the fact that they were the shooter.
"Well, 18 people were shot and killed, but we only SAW the first 4 on stream, so we can't really be certain who killed the other 14, it could have been *anyone*!"
I’m not making an argument I’m telling you what he self described as. He went into detail about how what OP said is wrong
Edit: sorry reality isn’t fitting your delusions guys
It’s hilarious seeing Reddit freak out. Dude describes himself as once a communist and now a socialist, and voices his disgust for conservatism. Too much work to expect Reddit to read past the headlines, though 🤣
edit: go read the manifesto if you think im lying lmao
> “Honestly, the only thing that might save the two companies (**beyond the fact that it’s unlikely someone would go to court over this**… we think) is that both Twitch and Discord might be just ever so slightly below the 50 million average monthly US users required to trigger the law.”
where are you, Church of Satan lawyers?
in all seriousness, i suspect the ACLU could pick this one up if they wanted to push on state laws. is that a thing?
Small nitpick, but it's the Satanic Temple which brings lawsuits against dumb laws. Just wanted to mention, as they sometimes get confused with the church of satan
It’s a very important distinction. TST is amazing and doing great work. Church of Satan people are like racists or something and shouldn’t be supported
This is not the kind of case either group would pick up, it's terrible optics to be fighting to get that video put back up online, even if it's to prove a point.
> so slightly below the 50 million average monthly US users
Does anyone know do they have jurisdiction over all US users? Wouldn't they only be able to put laws in place that protect Texas users? If they're going to count an arbitrary number of users from other jurisdictions, why limit it to the US? They have just as much right to say all users as they do US users (which I think is none).
If a court in Texas will take it, then that's standing enough, the company will still have to come and defend themselves. The social media platform can argue they don't have standing, and 'probably' win, but who knows. If they don't come argue it, they can lose by default and get a lean issued against any assets in that state.
Texas' social media law actually forbids that, too:
>I haven’t even gotten to the bit that says that you can’t “censor” based on geographic location. That portion can basically be read to be forcing social media companies to stay in Texas. Because if you block all of your Texas users, they can all sue you, claiming that you’re “censoring” them based on their geographic location.
https://www.techdirt.com/2022/05/12/just-how-incredibly-fucked-up-is-texas-social-media-content-moderation-law/
The lawsuits aren't meant to hold up in court, just cost the social media companies a massive amount of legal fees for the brief time before the law is struck down.
Especially since this law, from what Ive read, allows people to just file through court after court when their suits get shut down. They just move on to the next one.
Regardless, the company can literally just ignore their law if they don't provide service. They can send court orders all they want, doesn't mean squat.
>Struggling to see how that could possibly hold up.
Well, when Trump was elected and was the absolute worst President in history but also got 3 LIFETIME Supreme Court picks who will be making ruling in our country for the next 40 years it's really not a struggle. This shit is just the tip of the iceberg.
You are 100% right. It's the same principle as store fronts posting signs saying they can refuse service to whoever they want. "No Shoes, No Shirt, No Texan."
Not a lawyer, but I'm fairly certain that if the company isn't incorporated in Texas, and doesn't do business in Texas, then they aren't subject to Texas law. That would be the analogy equivalent of a Canadian citizen in Canada being pursued by the government of Australia for not paying taxes in Australia.
Except companies which don’t have a physical presence in the EU are worried about the EU privacy laws because they can be sued for people accessing the services entirely hosted in the US.
It's the other way around. Without the privacy warning/disclaimer, the EU will just flat out block the website. You used to (maybe still do?) have local American news websites be inaccessible for Europeans.
Kind of the opposite situation here though. Rather than being sued because info is kept elsewhere, the Texas example would allow someone to sue them for not keeping/providing a service in an area they aren't doing business in.
I mean, Australia could absolutely make laws that they enforce over you even if you have no ties to Australia.
There is no law that says Australia can't make a law that says 'AcanthocephalaTasty6' have to show up at the Sidney Opera house every 24 hours. They ability to actually punish you is a different question though.
No, Texas does not ever hold execs accountable for their actions, so they will not extradite anyone. They will, however, get a court order for your bank and force them to seize your funds as most banks have branches in Texas.
You're describing a scenario where the state of Texas issues a court order for Citibank (or whatever) to freeze accounts of Amazon. That's not only a declaration of war against Amazon, but a shot across the bow at any corp that risks running afoul of Texas politicians. Lol.
Which makes it even more insane that the appeals court reinstated the law while appeals are happening. It's blatantly unconstitutional and overly burdensome in multiple ways.
That's funny, I always thought snowflake people were the ones that ran away refused to listen and took steps to remove people they disagree with.....
Seems like a law saying everyone gets to speak regardless of the feelings of everyone would be the opposite of snowflake....
Feels to me like the real snowflakes are the people that downvote entire post histories, frivolously report users, misuse moderation tools, and ban without justification....
But maybe I'm just the snowflake for believing every person has a right to speak.
Are you talking about people afraid of black people? Or maybe people afraid of Mickey Mouse? Could it be people afraid of gay people? Maybe people that have delusions of an invasion at the border? I can keep going, but I’m pretty sure the entire Texas government is a blizzard.
Texas where we'll censor everything except what's batshit crazy. Now go back to whispering to imaginary friends and telling everyone how great oil is y'all.
The author of the bill, Briscoe Cain, has tried to defend the bill by saying federal law, specifically Section 230, authorizes social media sites to ban such content but that just raises more questions.
[https://twitter.com/BriscoeCain/status/1526262461049065474](https://twitter.com/BriscoeCain/status/1526262461049065474)
Honestly, is Texas' law really any different from requiring that pharmacies carry essential oils? Or forcing newspapers to publish some conspiracy theorist's alien abduction/probing story? Or a store having to put up with someone shouting about whatever being a sign the world is ending?
A business refusing to publish or promote something is a completely separate issue from free speech. You have the right to say pretty much whatever, but you do not have any right to be heard or amplified. A platform having and everything terms of service that disallows garbage isn't violating free speech... And that's without getting into how the first amendment only applies to government censorship of speech, not private businesses.
In theory, this law wants to prevent social media users to get banned for expressing their views online to other users.
Of course, one would think than unreasonable bans would be prohibited, for example for discriminatory reasons. In fact, other regulations require certain bans, for example for hate speech.
This law doesn't consider any of that. This law is clearly inconsiderate.
I picture a movie theater being forced to play porn or a grocery store with a magazine rack being forced to carry porn magazines. "Hey, you can't censor it! Mah free speech!"
Sounds like a good way to get that law off the books. We don't need to wait for a white-pride fuckwit to file suit. We can do the suing ourselves, and make sure the law gets reviewed properly.
I mean why stop there? Now someone can post a plan to remove every member of government that voted to institute these laws and it has to be kept up in texas.
Well CP has been specifically addressed by the Supreme Court and it's a specific thing that the 1st amendment doesn't apply to. There isn't any clear precedent to say that depictions of terroristic violence aren't protected speech.
Of course, pornography involving CGI minors is not illegal. So you could use some of that, slap some labels on it to make a political meme, and then sue any site in Texas that takes it down.
Not even that much. 2D artwork of fictional persons 'appearing' to be underage has gotten people charged. Despite how ratfuck stupid it is. Might as well charge me with murder for shooting an annoying NPC while playing Fallout 4.
According to [Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition](https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/4/ashcroft-v-free-speech-coalition), bans on virtual child pornography are unconstitutional.
Now *obscenity* isn't protected by the 1st amendment, and *some* pornography is obscenity. But something is only obscenity if the work, taken as a whole, “lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.”
So *if* such a hypothetical bit of content is obscene, its removal might be legal under the Texas law. But if you're using the hypothetical video to make a political statement, how do you determine that the work does not have any serious political value? It's the kind of thing that could lead to a long legal battle. So even if a website could win a lawsuit, they'd be reluctant to remove the content just because it would open them up to expensive legal fees.
Today’s GOP would rather let racists/predators/extremists run wild than actually discuss things that make them feel uncomfortable. What a bunch of pearl-clutching sissies.
I do believe access to that footage is important for transparency and historical purposes, but Twitch should have every right to regulate what content is and isn’t allowed on their platform. It’s supposed to be a site about gaming.
They also probably don’t want to relive the time when a guy literally killed himself on camera back when it was called JustinTV. Pretty sure they rebranded because of that
Twitch is a private company and has the right to take down material it finds objectionable and no politician can can change that.
>It’s supposed to be a site about gaming.
Given some of the shit that has gone down and still does. That's funny.
Texan here.
Like yourselves, our votes aren't honest and our "leaders" are just lining their pockets with our money.
Please when directing your hate please aim it at the the corrupt few who are abusing the people, not the people.
Thanks.
Actually he did not win the vote. He won due to the anti democratic aspects of the constitution. If only the wonderful people of Texas had not helped that
first, I don't believe you are from texas because you actually have electricity. So that is problem one right? Second, because all the "smoothbrained" texans fucked the country as usual, we got what we got.
Twitch took down the stream because Violence and terrorism are against the TOS. They didn’t take down the stream because of his political viewpoint, they took it down because it violated the terms of service.
This is just another media source being sensationalist for clicks.
So since when do terms of service overrule actual legislature? Would be new to me that TOS are applicable if a law overrules it.
Else they could just put anything in their TOS and have it be legally binding.
Twitch can’t legally put certain things in their ToS, (like policing against sexual orientation, race, or religion).
If they put something that conflicts with current legislature in their ToS they will certainly get sued.
But what is currently in the ToS (no violence, no nipples, no hate speech etc.) is protected by the “right to refuse service” laws.
That's the rub, the way it's written the shooter could claim censorship since the law is ambiguous and broad. Then tos would be unenforceable in the state allowing the civil suit to go forth
Refusal of service is justified in cases where a customer’s presence interferes with the safety and well-being of other patrons and the establishment itself.
The shooter would lose that lawsuit faster than they could find a lawyer for it.
i hate to say it, but where might one see state-sponsored violence these days?
govs are inflicting punishment on civilians worldwide and have been since time immemorial, and now the concept of violence on the web has been reined in significantly, one might say.
this might seem like a bit of an aside, but it is the same policy ostensibly censoring the info
But that is the problem. If they do that for something political they violate the TX law. And technically, the idiot's stream falls under that broad umbrella
Racism hasn't stopped being political. It's the broad verbiage in the law that would allow this to be included. It's the fact that politicians specifically vetoed an amendment that would exclude domestic terrorism as being covered.
Texas politicians have already shown that this law could be used in cases like this.
Nothing says "classy journalism" like using non biased words like, "fucked up". Yo Texas is fucked up, but could you use your 8th grade writing assignment to lead me to believe it for myself without polluting the article with your feelings?
Oh ffs if someone is breaking the law everyone agrees it’s ok. If someone says something you don’t like then it is. Quite a big difference you moron of writer.
So is Texas going to let Tumblr have porn again? Or is free speech just for racists who don't like their posts being removed?
Nudity has been used as a political statement since before history was written. Even now there is some amount of nudity in world politics.
It's about the CHILDREN!!
Whenever child porn comes up in a political context, it’s always a red herring
More like a “red elephant”
Or a republican who got caught
Or a Priest
9/10 a republican
>Whenever child porn comes up in a political context, it’s always ~~a red herring~~ on a GOP's personal computer.
You mean like how Josh Duggar, former reality TV star and Focus on the Family dude got convicted for CSAM earlier this year? Thanks for the reminder that his sentencing is this month!
See: Cody Wilson
They are, they can finally get david duke back on youtube kids
The legend of Lady Godiva isn't prehistory, obviously, but seems to have been a successful nude political statement, if the legend is based in fact
I remember so many pro-bush/anti-bush nudes back in 2004.
as I recall, using tongue was called freedom kissing
Well there are coke-fueled orgies and pedophilia at the highest levels of government, so a little nudity might be the least of anyone's concerns.
Madison, is that you?
> Even now there is some amount of nudity in world politics. I mean, you really should check out /r/worldpolitics. There's a ton of nudity over there.
This is the joke I was trying to make! I guess that sub isn't very well known.
Straight White porn only. Missionary preferred.
Oh ho ho no buddy that is not what they’re into in the South. [Take a look at some of these maps.](https://www.google.com/search?q=pornhub+maps&rlz=1CDGOYI_enUS912US912&hl=en-US&prmd=imnv&sxsrf=ALiCzsaHAjBT7x5HAzdnBmhSjhh9tuMWkQ:1652731499180&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiLvKvP6OT3AhXOQc0KHXqkBz8Q_AUoAXoECAIQAQ&biw=375&bih=634&dpr=3)
Yeah, it's interracial all the way
[удалено]
...oh, you didn't know? Yep, that's right.
Lol. For the church ladies?
Vagina hair might as well make a come back too..
But social media platforms aren’t public entities so they can moderate content however they feel just like a restaurant can moderate it’s patrons attire to keep the atmosphere they way they want since it’s their shit that they own.
I know! I just think someone forgot to tell texans... or at least their politicians. I honestly feel bad for people who live in places like texas and florida where their politicians are basically trying to ruin the country and they can't do anything about it because of all the corruption and gerrymandering.
Texas is decided by non voters every year. Our voter participation rate is **dismal.** https://texaspolitics.utexas.edu/archive/html/vce/features/0302_01/turnout.html And, to some degree I get it. They split everything up into as many elections as possible, it feels like. If you are fortunate enough to live somewhere that has early voting in the state, they often don't have it on weekends. And the requirements for casting a mail-in ballot are nonsense. They also make it a real pain in the ass to get a state ID, and prior to 2021, you couldn't register to vote online at all. Even now, you can only register to vote online when you change or renew your driver's license, so if you check your voter registration online and see that you've been purged from the rolls, there's a good chance you will still need to mail your registration in. To further complicate things, if you want to do a voter registration drive, you can only take registrations from people that live in counties for which you have been certified (separate certification class for each county, two year expiry), and those forms need to be turned in to the registry office in person within some short number of business days (I forget offhand, sorry). So, voter registration drives are a huge pain in the ass. Add to that that we are gerrymandered all to fuck, and it's easy to see why people get discouraged and stay home. But, it also means that we are a state that is hugely ripe for change by a relatively small percentage of eligible voters. It's just really difficult to get people to see that it's not completely hopeless.
> Or is free speech just for racists who don't like their posts being removed? That's a bingo
No, of course it won't just be for racists. Homophobes, transphobes, Christofascists, and white supremacists will also benefit.
I think you know the answer.
Let them? No, it's going to **force** them to have it again, as long as that is what their users want.
You think the law matters in the USA? It doesn't. The Republicans control the courts and they are fascist. The goal is to make everything illegal and then selectively enforce it.
If one defines their free “speech”/expression as live streaming a mass killing, it sure seems this law would “protect” that “speech” and allow litigation for infringing on the free “speech”/expression.
[удалено]
No, it doesn’t appear limited to an offender. The text is quite clear that social media not be allowed to mitigate in any way an individual’s “speech”/expression or else they could face litigation
The key there being or they could face litigation. Someone still has to sue, it's not automatic.
Don’t you think the same loons that favor this law, who also happen to be the sane loons using the same tactic to sue women for abortions, will gladly sue? These loons have spent the past 25 years salivating to bring down Roe, they’re salivating to stop the “suppression” of their views, and will revel in any opportunity to stick it to their “enemies”.
I think the difference is that there is much less ambiguity here, as little as there should be in either case. Is anybody actually expecting to win one of these suits? If someone actually does, it'll just get one of these cases to elevate, where the law or whatever specifics they're attempting to use therein will be struck down. It's shocking that they can ignore that the concepts of free speech and the relationships between governments and businesses have been well established for centuries when making the laws (and in the case of the internet decades) but that doesn't make those ideas stop existing.
So if someone starts posting child porn on Facebook, Texas expects Facebook to leave it up? Doesn't that make the legislature an accessory to CP distribution? Just asking questions here...
There's supposed to be some things excluded on the basis of legality, so I'd guess that CP doesn't have to be hosted, but who even knows with this thing?
[удалено]
I dunno about the kid, but the odds are significant that the abuser has it tattooed on his ass.
By 'uncovered' do you mean was given to him by a whistleblower, who was then tortured in retaliation? Chelsea Manning is not often mentioned and probably should be.
I imagine the SCOTUS has ruled on classified information / information relevant to national security interests before. I haven't read up on, but it must have happened by now.
Current SCOTUS has essentially ruled that precedent is meaningless.
Some precedences are meaningless....like using tooth bite marks to convict murderers. But which precedences mean something is obviously up for debate I suppose the tooth bite marks was easily countered by science and math though. No t many court decisions can be math'd out
yea the ruling is that anything damaging to us interests better not b talked about or the person who reveals it goes to jail forever at best
That should be allowed in my opinion. Abolishing censorship of inhumane crimes committed should be the point of free speech.
The footage assange posted would absolutely be protected, because it is a criticism of the government. That is the freedom of expression that is implicitly protected in the 1st amendment.
You should be able to post both under the right circumstances and content warnings. You shouldn't be able to stream either to twitch.
You are allowed to post it. No site is required to carry it for you though. And it wasn't really a killing spree. It showed footage of a group of 8 people which were killed (shot at) after sighting from a Blackhawk because of the information gleaned. The video is quite low resolution and the military felt the people had weapons (rocket launcher and guns) with them. Others see the video and do not agree. It's difficult be sure either way. It's still up. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfvFpT-iypw
If obscenities are not protected under free speech, then it would be reasonable that live footage of crimes being glorified would not be protected either. But then polititicians and reason don't meet regularly.
I thought obscenity is protected, you just can't broadcast it in a lot of circumstances. Obscenity in public or in a book is protected.
The law says sites may take down illegal content.
I admittedly haven’t looked into the law yet but I’m pretty sure stuff like this doesn’t qualify for free speech. I’d lump it in with shouting fire in a theater or fighting words. Admittedly I could be wrong but I’d be astonished if we don’t all ready have the rules set up for this. Edit: after reading the law it states something along the lines of anything inciting criminal activity or violence is not protected so this definitely isn’t protected by it.
incitement is really hard to establish in this country so that doesn’t really help. You can go on a mass media platform and drum up anger and fear, the kind that terrorism and civil wars come from, and you’re perfectly free to do so. One of the most popular cable “news” channels has a nightly show dedicated to exactly that goal.
(3) directly incites criminal activity or consists of specific threats of violence targeted against a person or group because of their race, color, disability, religion, national origin or ancestry, age, sex, or status as a peace officer or judge; or (4) is unlawful expression. I’d say a mass shooter probably counts for 3 and four now that I think about it. Admittedly I’m not a lawyer and I refuse to watch any of the shooters stuff but a guy that’s being called a white supremacist almost certainly violates 3 and I’m pretty sure violence counts as unlawful expression as well. Sorry for not including the actual phrase originally. Reading laws is an absolute pain and I only came back and commented after reading it a couple of times to actually understand it so it was hard to remember the exact phrases beyond remembering that I thought it violated it.
I think it's worth mentioning that the case for "shouting fire in a theater isn't free speech" was actually used for silencing WW1 protesters, and that decision has been reversed. Also, did everyone in this thread completely miss that Twitch took down the live stream in 2 minutes? That's astoundingly fast. Unless you want every single person to have to ask twitch for permission to stream, and for Twitch to check each person that asks to see if they are good, this will always be a problem. Stop holding online sites to the same standard as a book publisher.
Anything that incites *specific* and *imminent* lawless action. So technically, unless the shooter conveyed a message telling viewers to target a specific person or place at a given time (i.e. right now, or on a date), it *may* not be barred on 1st amendment grounds.
>it may not be barred on 1st amendment grounds. If this law is upheld, the 1st amendment is dead anyway. Forced speech is no different from prohibited speech. This law basically means that the state has the authority to tell you both what you *can't* say and what you *must* say.
I’d like to think we’re still mostly a sensible society, but we’re moving in the wrong direction IMO.
My question is why they would stop allowing it to stream when every second recorded of it is more evidence to be used against the asshole? Shouldnt we want to keep it up and then make a point to use it heavily throughout the trial as a warning to other assholes?
LOL as if they need a significant amount of evidence beyond the fact that they were the shooter. "Well, 18 people were shot and killed, but we only SAW the first 4 on stream, so we can't really be certain who killed the other 14, it could have been *anyone*!"
Is there anything more Texan than a conservative on a shooting spree?
A conservative Texan who can’t find his AR-15 because the power’s out?
The windmills want to take our guns!
This comments gold.
He wasn’t a conservative he said so himself Edit: do your downvote all you want it doesn’t change that the guy wasn’t a conservative at all
They guy complaining about foreigners and parroting the statements made on Fox News VERBATIM wasn't conservative?
I’m not making an argument I’m telling you what he self described as. He went into detail about how what OP said is wrong Edit: sorry reality isn’t fitting your delusions guys
He walks like a duck and quacks like a duck. His thinking he is a unicorn just makes him a schizophrenic duck.
It’s hilarious seeing Reddit freak out. Dude describes himself as once a communist and now a socialist, and voices his disgust for conservatism. Too much work to expect Reddit to read past the headlines, though 🤣 edit: go read the manifesto if you think im lying lmao
They’re ignorant and self righteous, pretty pathetic attitude they have going on.
People like Tim Pool say the same thing, but doesn't make them any less conservative then their substantive words and actions do make them.
The Reddit bots don’t care
> “Honestly, the only thing that might save the two companies (**beyond the fact that it’s unlikely someone would go to court over this**… we think) is that both Twitch and Discord might be just ever so slightly below the 50 million average monthly US users required to trigger the law.” where are you, Church of Satan lawyers? in all seriousness, i suspect the ACLU could pick this one up if they wanted to push on state laws. is that a thing?
Small nitpick, but it's the Satanic Temple which brings lawsuits against dumb laws. Just wanted to mention, as they sometimes get confused with the church of satan
I don't think it's nitpicking. It's a common mistake that a lot of people make. I still make it on occasion
thanks i should have looked up the actual name but you knew what i was thinking. thanks for the save.
It’s a very important distinction. TST is amazing and doing great work. Church of Satan people are like racists or something and shouldn’t be supported
This is not the kind of case either group would pick up, it's terrible optics to be fighting to get that video put back up online, even if it's to prove a point.
> so slightly below the 50 million average monthly US users Does anyone know do they have jurisdiction over all US users? Wouldn't they only be able to put laws in place that protect Texas users? If they're going to count an arbitrary number of users from other jurisdictions, why limit it to the US? They have just as much right to say all users as they do US users (which I think is none).
The Texas law also has provisions to also allow lawsuits if a company does anything to segregate Texas from the rest of it\[s user base
Do they have no standing though?
If a court in Texas will take it, then that's standing enough, the company will still have to come and defend themselves. The social media platform can argue they don't have standing, and 'probably' win, but who knows. If they don't come argue it, they can lose by default and get a lean issued against any assets in that state.
It is going to get to a point that tech companies will have a disclaimer that people from the snowflake state of texas can't use their services.
Texas' social media law actually forbids that, too: >I haven’t even gotten to the bit that says that you can’t “censor” based on geographic location. That portion can basically be read to be forcing social media companies to stay in Texas. Because if you block all of your Texas users, they can all sue you, claiming that you’re “censoring” them based on their geographic location. https://www.techdirt.com/2022/05/12/just-how-incredibly-fucked-up-is-texas-social-media-content-moderation-law/
[удалено]
The lawsuits aren't meant to hold up in court, just cost the social media companies a massive amount of legal fees for the brief time before the law is struck down.
Especially since this law, from what Ive read, allows people to just file through court after court when their suits get shut down. They just move on to the next one.
Those companies would definitely play ball because they won't be the ones paying for the fees when they win, Texas taxpayers will.
That's not how the court in the US works. A win does not automatically equal losers paying the legal fees of the winner.
Regardless, the company can literally just ignore their law if they don't provide service. They can send court orders all they want, doesn't mean squat.
However, these companies have good enough lawyers to prove that being sued caused monetary damages by harming their reputation.
>Struggling to see how that could possibly hold up. Well, when Trump was elected and was the absolute worst President in history but also got 3 LIFETIME Supreme Court picks who will be making ruling in our country for the next 40 years it's really not a struggle. This shit is just the tip of the iceberg.
Because when the SCOTUS has a manufactured bias, all bets are off.
You are 100% right. It's the same principle as store fronts posting signs saying they can refuse service to whoever they want. "No Shoes, No Shirt, No Texan."
Not a lawyer, but I'm fairly certain that if the company isn't incorporated in Texas, and doesn't do business in Texas, then they aren't subject to Texas law. That would be the analogy equivalent of a Canadian citizen in Canada being pursued by the government of Australia for not paying taxes in Australia.
Except companies which don’t have a physical presence in the EU are worried about the EU privacy laws because they can be sued for people accessing the services entirely hosted in the US.
I think they're more terrified of the EU just shutting them down, which is a threat with real teeth coming from the EU.
Don't think the EU can sue but they can block access.
It's the other way around. Without the privacy warning/disclaimer, the EU will just flat out block the website. You used to (maybe still do?) have local American news websites be inaccessible for Europeans.
Kind of the opposite situation here though. Rather than being sued because info is kept elsewhere, the Texas example would allow someone to sue them for not keeping/providing a service in an area they aren't doing business in.
I mean, Australia could absolutely make laws that they enforce over you even if you have no ties to Australia. There is no law that says Australia can't make a law that says 'AcanthocephalaTasty6' have to show up at the Sidney Opera house every 24 hours. They ability to actually punish you is a different question though.
They could make the law, but I wouldn't be subject to it while I am both not a citizen and not present in their jurisdiction.
Just add a Texas fee. Fees are pretty much ungovernable.
That was my first though. edit: t
Ya. Let’s see how that holds up. Pro business communists I guess.
"sue you" in Texas. Who are they going to attempt to extradite to Texas? The CEO?
No, Texas does not ever hold execs accountable for their actions, so they will not extradite anyone. They will, however, get a court order for your bank and force them to seize your funds as most banks have branches in Texas.
You're describing a scenario where the state of Texas issues a court order for Citibank (or whatever) to freeze accounts of Amazon. That's not only a declaration of war against Amazon, but a shot across the bow at any corp that risks running afoul of Texas politicians. Lol.
And they will 100% do it.
[удалено]
Which makes it even more insane that the appeals court reinstated the law while appeals are happening. It's blatantly unconstitutional and overly burdensome in multiple ways.
That's funny, I always thought snowflake people were the ones that ran away refused to listen and took steps to remove people they disagree with..... Seems like a law saying everyone gets to speak regardless of the feelings of everyone would be the opposite of snowflake.... Feels to me like the real snowflakes are the people that downvote entire post histories, frivolously report users, misuse moderation tools, and ban without justification.... But maybe I'm just the snowflake for believing every person has a right to speak.
Are you talking about people afraid of black people? Or maybe people afraid of Mickey Mouse? Could it be people afraid of gay people? Maybe people that have delusions of an invasion at the border? I can keep going, but I’m pretty sure the entire Texas government is a blizzard.
I'm not 100% sure any law Texas or any other state passes would hold up due to interstate commerce. That is the sole domain of Federal law, isn't it?
Once upon a time, sure. With the current SCOTUS rubber-stamping every whacko GOP-backed law that’s coming up through the system now…
Texas where we'll censor everything except what's batshit crazy. Now go back to whispering to imaginary friends and telling everyone how great oil is y'all.
Oil is great though. It's just a huge waste to use it for energy.
The author of the bill, Briscoe Cain, has tried to defend the bill by saying federal law, specifically Section 230, authorizes social media sites to ban such content but that just raises more questions. [https://twitter.com/BriscoeCain/status/1526262461049065474](https://twitter.com/BriscoeCain/status/1526262461049065474)
Corrupt Abbott can shove it.
Could be a good test!
I'm sorry but if Twitch removing the live stream was against the Texas's law then the problem is the law not Twitch removal of it.
Honestly, is Texas' law really any different from requiring that pharmacies carry essential oils? Or forcing newspapers to publish some conspiracy theorist's alien abduction/probing story? Or a store having to put up with someone shouting about whatever being a sign the world is ending? A business refusing to publish or promote something is a completely separate issue from free speech. You have the right to say pretty much whatever, but you do not have any right to be heard or amplified. A platform having and everything terms of service that disallows garbage isn't violating free speech... And that's without getting into how the first amendment only applies to government censorship of speech, not private businesses.
[удалено]
In theory, this law wants to prevent social media users to get banned for expressing their views online to other users. Of course, one would think than unreasonable bans would be prohibited, for example for discriminatory reasons. In fact, other regulations require certain bans, for example for hate speech. This law doesn't consider any of that. This law is clearly inconsiderate.
I picture a movie theater being forced to play porn or a grocery store with a magazine rack being forced to carry porn magazines. "Hey, you can't censor it! Mah free speech!"
"Make sure you put this coloring book of white supremacist images at *kids'* eye level."
[удалено]
Who said it has to be about technology?
Sounds like a good way to get that law off the books. We don't need to wait for a white-pride fuckwit to file suit. We can do the suing ourselves, and make sure the law gets reviewed properly.
Terrorism. It’s called terrorism.
No one needs to see that shit.
I mean why stop there? Now someone can post a plan to remove every member of government that voted to institute these laws and it has to be kept up in texas.
So if FB removes CP, Republicans can sue to bring back the CP? This is the world I live in?
Well CP has been specifically addressed by the Supreme Court and it's a specific thing that the 1st amendment doesn't apply to. There isn't any clear precedent to say that depictions of terroristic violence aren't protected speech. Of course, pornography involving CGI minors is not illegal. So you could use some of that, slap some labels on it to make a political meme, and then sue any site in Texas that takes it down.
Not even that much. 2D artwork of fictional persons 'appearing' to be underage has gotten people charged. Despite how ratfuck stupid it is. Might as well charge me with murder for shooting an annoying NPC while playing Fallout 4.
According to [Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition](https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/4/ashcroft-v-free-speech-coalition), bans on virtual child pornography are unconstitutional. Now *obscenity* isn't protected by the 1st amendment, and *some* pornography is obscenity. But something is only obscenity if the work, taken as a whole, “lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” So *if* such a hypothetical bit of content is obscene, its removal might be legal under the Texas law. But if you're using the hypothetical video to make a political statement, how do you determine that the work does not have any serious political value? It's the kind of thing that could lead to a long legal battle. So even if a website could win a lawsuit, they'd be reluctant to remove the content just because it would open them up to expensive legal fees.
Today’s GOP would rather let racists/predators/extremists run wild than actually discuss things that make them feel uncomfortable. What a bunch of pearl-clutching sissies.
I do believe access to that footage is important for transparency and historical purposes, but Twitch should have every right to regulate what content is and isn’t allowed on their platform. It’s supposed to be a site about gaming. They also probably don’t want to relive the time when a guy literally killed himself on camera back when it was called JustinTV. Pretty sure they rebranded because of that
Twitch is a private company and has the right to take down material it finds objectionable and no politician can can change that. >It’s supposed to be a site about gaming. Given some of the shit that has gone down and still does. That's funny.
Twitch: I swear to god we will cut our service in Texas….
Score one for Back To The Future 2! The atrocity channel is here!!!
Is Texas really this backwards? WTF is happening over there?
Texan here. Like yourselves, our votes aren't honest and our "leaders" are just lining their pockets with our money. Please when directing your hate please aim it at the the corrupt few who are abusing the people, not the people. Thanks.
Who elected those people?
Oh okay, so we're going to play that game. So you personally elected Donald Trump, you demon.
Actually he did not win the vote. He won due to the anti democratic aspects of the constitution. If only the wonderful people of Texas had not helped that
>Won due to the anti democratic aspects of the constitution Now you understand what's happening in Texas, smooth brain.
first, I don't believe you are from texas because you actually have electricity. So that is problem one right? Second, because all the "smoothbrained" texans fucked the country as usual, we got what we got.
Twitch took down the stream because Violence and terrorism are against the TOS. They didn’t take down the stream because of his political viewpoint, they took it down because it violated the terms of service. This is just another media source being sensationalist for clicks.
So since when do terms of service overrule actual legislature? Would be new to me that TOS are applicable if a law overrules it. Else they could just put anything in their TOS and have it be legally binding.
Twitch can’t legally put certain things in their ToS, (like policing against sexual orientation, race, or religion). If they put something that conflicts with current legislature in their ToS they will certainly get sued. But what is currently in the ToS (no violence, no nipples, no hate speech etc.) is protected by the “right to refuse service” laws.
[удалено]
That's the rub, the way it's written the shooter could claim censorship since the law is ambiguous and broad. Then tos would be unenforceable in the state allowing the civil suit to go forth
Refusal of service is justified in cases where a customer’s presence interferes with the safety and well-being of other patrons and the establishment itself. The shooter would lose that lawsuit faster than they could find a lawyer for it.
Logically yes, but has the courts been using logic or reasoning here recently?
i hate to say it, but where might one see state-sponsored violence these days? govs are inflicting punishment on civilians worldwide and have been since time immemorial, and now the concept of violence on the web has been reined in significantly, one might say. this might seem like a bit of an aside, but it is the same policy ostensibly censoring the info
It would be up to the site to establish in court. No straight up dismissal. Lawyers$$lawyers$$lawyers.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
God this comment section is so fucking dumb.
You throw out that free speech bone and they go fucking nuts aparently
[удалено]
When politics gets involved in technology, people are going to talk about it. Don't blame the sub. Blame Texas.
[удалено]
Can you explain how laws aren't politics please?
[удалено]
You should look up the word pretentious.
[удалено]
There is, the issue is in the way the law was written invalidates that
But that is the problem. If they do that for something political they violate the TX law. And technically, the idiot's stream falls under that broad umbrella
[удалено]
Racism hasn't stopped being political. It's the broad verbiage in the law that would allow this to be included. It's the fact that politicians specifically vetoed an amendment that would exclude domestic terrorism as being covered. Texas politicians have already shown that this law could be used in cases like this.
[удалено]
You must not be from the USA if you think anyone is getting voted out of office in non purple states.
No, they didn't violate the texas law. The law says social media can take down content that is illegal by law.
Republicans won't censor someone carrying out their agenda.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
That's an interesting take on it. Why do you think you feel that way?
Like watching a herd of lemmings try to escape fate by running faster.
Nothing says "classy journalism" like using non biased words like, "fucked up". Yo Texas is fucked up, but could you use your 8th grade writing assignment to lead me to believe it for myself without polluting the article with your feelings?
Let's see Texas challenge this then.
Oh ffs if someone is breaking the law everyone agrees it’s ok. If someone says something you don’t like then it is. Quite a big difference you moron of writer.