Abbott Announces Bill Prohibiting Social Media Censorship

Let's see the fun when they try to violate the First Amendment by using the First Amendment to do it 🤣🎃

originally posted by: Klassified
Good possibility AM (I hate it when you're right.), but at the same time this is a debate that could run on for years.

I don't think it will, just apply the opposite argument, 'Abbot passes law what social media companies must post'.

a reply to: Klassified

This^^^ You said what I was thinking, and said it better. BTW, quit reading my mind.

Well darn! I thought I could sneak in and out of your brain and borrow just a smidgeon of your vast knowledge and wisdom without you noticing...

Silly me!!!

a reply to: DBCowboy

Personally, government should stick with delivering mail, providing roads and fighting wars.

Everything else? They should # off.

Valid point.
"Any government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have."

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Klassified

This^^^ You said what I was thinking, and said it better. BTW, quit reading my mind.

Well darn! I thought I could sneak in and out of your brain and borrow just a smidgeon of your vast knowledge and wisdom without you noticing...

Silly me!!!

More like an arid wasteland, but thanks for helping me keep up the charade.

a reply to: Snarl

Texas Governor Greg Abbott (R) announced on Friday that he plans to sign a bill into law that would prohibit social media companies from censoring Texans’ viewpoints online, adding that censorship is “not going to be tolerated in Texas.

If Abbott signs this into law, poor Don't Tread on Me, is going to have to find out if a poster lives in Texas, or not, before they can remove a post for "Political Trolling and Baiting". Where can I get a Texas email address?

a reply to: MiddleInsite

I am sure China will open their doors to them as they seem to endorse communism now, soo this companies do not embrace the America constitutional rights anymore, soo they should be banned from the US,

a reply to: Snarl

That's a very slippery slope. Does it mean that if someone shares a violence inciting post they cannot delete it? What about people posting about "different" views of Nazism? Or will that law forbid only those companies from "censoring" what the governor thinks is "good"?

a reply to: Sookiechacha
Already handled
The issue of "Freedom of Speech" on ATS

This is a privately owned and managed website. We are within our rights to establish standards by which we expect members to behave. These standards are clearly expressed in the Terms & Conditions which all have indicated they agree upon registration.

what needs to happen is the supreme court needs to overturn corporate personhood so they can be regulated properly and peoples rights can be protected. why should corporations have free reign to violate our rights, it allows the elite to bypass the Constitution and creates an undemocratic environment where oppression is excused and accepted through propaganda.

a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

there's a difference between a private individual or group of private individuals and a corporation that has influence over tens and hundreds of millions of people and holds a monopoly over pubic discourse.

a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

Twitter also has terms and conditions. Doesn't this bill try to usurp, for example, ATS's and Twitter's right to enforce its T&Cs, that its members agree to?

a reply to: MiddleInsite

you comparing apples to oranges but good try

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

Twitter also has terms and conditions. Doesn't this bill try to usurp, for example, ATS's and Twitter's right to enforce it's T&Cs, that its members agree to?

Does ATS have special protections?
that oughta answer your question

a reply to: MiddleInsite
Telling someone you won't make them a cake and removing a person's entire online fingerprint are two different things.

But what can I expect from someone who isn't even an American.

You're right though, maybe they should just be banned from the US. Like the aussies have done.

Oh, crickets from you? Just another hater.

Everyone needs to have a system so they can mark everyone they want to cancel both sides, then nobody has to # with anyone they dont want to

then we can get epic echo chambers

then we can have a fun time on the world stage.

You know it is a clown world when the left, traditionally the wing of the working class and generally downtrodden, scream and holler for the rights of global, oligarchical corporations to oppress the working class on a worldwide scale.

Go Governor Abbott i say.

originally posted by: Lysergic

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

Twitter also has terms and conditions. Doesn't this bill try to usurp, for example, ATS's and Twitter's right to enforce it's T&Cs, that its members agree to?

Does ATS have special protections?
that oughta answer your question

I think that if this bill passes, it will be struck down by the courts.

a reply to: ArMaP

There are laws against inciting violence, so this new TX law would not supersede that. However there are not laws against discussing Nazism, it's protected 1st amendment speech. Same as there are no laws against believing and discussing the earth being flat, anti-vaccination, and other controversial yet stupid topics. This is to protect those who want (for whatever reason) to discuss on social media platforms things like election rigging, endorsement of political parties or persons, what constitutes a valid marriage, abortion stances, etc.

Most of these topics to me are asinine to discuss, but I would never tell someone not to discuss them. That's the point TX is trying to make. Personally I believe that all speech, regardless of how uncomfortable it makes someone feel, should be allowed. I also believe that inciting speech should be protected, however there are those that disagree with me.

originally posted by: Hypntick
There are laws against inciting violence, so this new TX law would not supersede that.

I know that, (In fact, the proposed law allows for the censoring of "unlawful expression" or what is allowed to be censored by federal law) but I'm thinking it will make things less clear about what is and what is not allowed, so I wouldn't be surprised if some companies would prefer to let violence inciting posts to remain published because of fear of prosecution from the users.

Or maybe I'm being too pessimistic.

However there are not laws against discussing Nazism, it's protected 1st amendment speech. Same as there are no laws against believing and discussing the earth being flat, anti-vaccination, and other controversial yet stupid topics. This is to protect those who want (for whatever reason) to discuss on social media platforms things like election rigging, endorsement of political parties or persons, what constitutes a valid marriage, abortion stances, etc.

I know what is meant for, but I also know that laws, if not really well written, are easy to apply to cases that were not related to the initial intentions.

I agree that all speech should be allowed by the state, but when talking about private companies, I also think the state shouldn't dictate what they can and cannot do just because they have many members (this law applies only to platforms with more than 100 million active users in a calendar month).

I suppose this will result in some changes in the Terms and Conditions of Use on those sites. If some act like the lazy US sites that just block European users instead of allowing them to change their cookie options, then we will see sites stating that anyone can join them unless they are from Texas.

Edited to add a link to the law.