Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Texas declares open season on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube with anti-censorship law

  1. #1

    Cool Texas declares open season on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube with anti-censorship law

    CNN: Texas has declared open season on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube with censorship law -- "Texas residents can now sue Facebook, Twitter and YouTube for allegedly censoring their content after a federal appeals court sided Wednesday with the state's law restricting how social media sites can moderate their platforms. The 15-word ruling allowing the law, which had been blocked last year, to take effect has significant potential consequences. Most immediately, it creates new legal risks for the tech giants, and opens them up to a possible wave of litigation that legal experts say would be costly and difficult to defend."



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    If the left is going to declare open season on us, then we have every obligation to declare open season on them.
    "Perhaps one of the most important accomplishments of my administration is minding my own business."

    Calvin Coolidge

  4. #3

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by ClaytonB View Post
    CNN: Texas has declared open season on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube with censorship law -- "Texas residents can now sue Facebook, Twitter and YouTube for allegedly censoring their content after a federal appeals court sided Wednesday with the state's law restricting how social media sites can moderate their platforms. The 15-word ruling allowing the law, which had been blocked last year, to take effect has significant potential consequences. Most immediately, it creates new legal risks for the tech giants, and opens them up to a possible wave of litigation that legal experts say would be costly and difficult to defend."
    That is good. The question is will anyone actually follow through and sue them? As I've discussed with @Anti Federalist, there are already grounds for suing Twitter, Google and Facebook under antitrust law and Facebook under the post civil war federal civil rights statutes.

    I'll expound further. There is a famous (infamous) case called Bell Atlantic v Twombly were the plaintiff alleged phone companies were conspiring to fix rates. In the old days just the complaint itself would have costs the corporations a lot of money just on discovery. But the Twombly case raised the bar requiring plaintiff's to actually have credible evidence that a conspiracy exists rather than deducing that a conspiracy probably exists because of "parallel action."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_A...0Sherman%20Act.

    But in 2020 there was the whistleblower complaint showing that Facebook, Twitter and Google were sharing data on who to censor. Yet two years later nobody has acted on this.

    https://www.foxbusiness.com/technolo...twitter-google

    Similarly, one can be convicted under 42 USC 1983 and 42 USC 1985 for violating civil rights.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983

    Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1985
    rights
    U.S. Code
    Notes
    prev | next
    (1)Preventing officer from performing duties
    If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof; or to induce by like means any officer of the United States to leave any State, district, or place, where his duties as an officer are required to be performed, or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties;

    (2)Obstructing justice; intimidating party, witness, or juror
    If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to deter, by force, intimidation, or threat, any party or witness in any court of the United States from attending such court, or from testifying to any matter pending therein, freely, fully, and truthfully, or to injure such party or witness in his person or property on account of his having so attended or testified, or to influence the verdict, presentment, or indictment of any grand or petit juror in any such court, or to injure such juror in his person or property on account of any verdict, presentment, or indictment lawfully assented to by him, or of his being or having been such juror; or if two or more persons conspire for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating, in any manner, the due course of justice in any State or Territory, with intent to deny to any citizen the equal protection of the laws, or to injure him or his property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to enforce, the right of any person, or class of persons, to the equal protection of the laws;

    (3)Depriving persons of rights or privileges
    If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of the laws; or if two or more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for President or Vice President, or as a Member of Congress of the United States; or to injure any citizen in person or property on account of such support or advocacy; in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.

    There was a case Adikes v Kress where Mr. Adikes was a black man who was refused service by Mr. Kress who owned the diner. What gave rise to the 1985 claims is that Mr. Kress signaled to a cop in the diner that he wanted Mr. Adikes arrested. That made Mr. Adikes a "state actor" even though he was a private citizen.

    See: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supre...t/398/144.html

    So....what about Dr. Fauci conspiring with Mark Zuckerberg about censoring COVID information? Wouldn't that make Mark Zuckerberg a state actor and Mark and Fauci co-conspirators?

    https://www.redvoicemedia.com/2021/1...nd-covid-jabs/

    You've got 6 years for the RICO but only 1 year for the 42 USC 1983/1985 claim.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  6. #5



Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 88
    Last Post: 07-09-2019, 01:16 PM
  2. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 06-29-2019, 02:23 PM
  3. Replies: 75
    Last Post: 01-03-2019, 12:13 PM
  4. Google Removes Open Source Anti-Censorship Tool From Chrome Store
    By DamianTV in forum Science & Technology
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-10-2018, 06:27 PM
  5. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 02-28-2018, 11:27 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •