From a judge appointed by Trump a ruling rejects the decision to ban users because of "views" From a judge appointed by Trump a ruling rejects the decision to ban users because of "views"

From a judge appointed by Trump a ruling rejects the decision to ban users because of "views"

From a judge appointed by Trump a ruling rejects the decision to ban users because of "views"  A US appeals court on Friday upheld a law in Texas that bars major social media companies from banning or censoring users based on a "view," a setback for tech industry groups that say the measure will turn platforms into bastions of dangerous content, according to a report. to Reuters.  The ruling by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, based in New Orleans, puts the ball in the court of the US Supreme Court as the last party to rule on the law, which conservatives and right-wing commentators have said is necessary to prevent the suppression of their views by tech giants.  "Today, we reject the idea that companies are free to censor what people say," Justice Andrew Oldham, appointed by former President Donald Trump, wrote in the ruling.  The Texas law was passed by the Republican-led state legislature and signed by the Republican governor.  The tech groups that challenged the law - which were the losing party in Friday's ruling - include NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association, of which Meta is a member. (Meta) - the owner of the Facebook platform, Twitter, and Alphabet, the owner of Google and YouTube.  By introducing the law, these platforms have sought rights to regulate user content when they see it as potentially violent, citing concerns that unregulated platforms would enable extremists such as Nazi supporters, terrorists and hostile foreign governments to post harmful content.  In response to the court's decision, the association said - yesterday, Friday - that it does not agree with forcing private companies to treat all viewpoints equally.  And she added - in a statement - that the content of both accounts such as “God bless America” and “Death to America” cannot be considered views, and it is unwise and unconstitutional for the state of Texas to force a private company to deal With the content of these accounts as freedom of opinion.  For their part, some conservatives have described the practices of social media companies as abusive, pointing to Twitter's suspension of Trump's permanent account on the platform shortly after the January 6, 2021 attack on the US Capitol by a crowd of his supporters. Twitter noted the "risk of posting more violent content."  It is noteworthy that Texas law prohibits social media companies - which have at least 50 million active monthly users - from "censoring" users based on a "view", and allows users or the Texas attorney general to file a lawsuit to enforce the law.  For his part, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton - via his Twitter account - praised the ruling, describing it as a "tremendous victory for the Constitution and freedom of expression."  Because the Fifth Circuit ruling conflicts with part of a ruling by the Eleventh Circuit, the aggrieved parties have a stronger case to petition the Supreme Court for consideration.  Last May, the Eleventh Circuit (based in Atlanta) found that most of Florida's similar law infringes upon companies' rights to free speech and cannot be enforced.

A US appeals court on Friday upheld a law in Texas that bars major social media companies from banning or censoring users based on a "view," a setback for tech industry groups that say the measure will turn platforms into bastions of dangerous content, according to a report. to Reuters.

The ruling by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, based in New Orleans, puts the ball in the court of the US Supreme Court as the last party to rule on the law, which conservatives and right-wing commentators have said is necessary to prevent the suppression of their views by tech giants.

"Today, we reject the idea that companies are free to censor what people say," Justice Andrew Oldham, appointed by former President Donald Trump, wrote in the ruling.

The Texas law was passed by the Republican-led state legislature and signed by the Republican governor.

The tech groups that challenged the law - which were the losing party in Friday's ruling - include NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association, of which Meta is a member. (Meta) - the owner of the Facebook platform, Twitter, and Alphabet, the owner of Google and YouTube.

By introducing the law, these platforms have sought rights to regulate user content when they see it as potentially violent, citing concerns that unregulated platforms would enable extremists such as Nazi supporters, terrorists and hostile foreign governments to post harmful content.

In response to the court's decision, the association said - yesterday, Friday - that it does not agree with forcing private companies to treat all viewpoints equally.

And she added - in a statement - that the content of both accounts such as “God bless America” and “Death to America” cannot be considered views, and it is unwise and unconstitutional for the state of Texas to force a private company to deal With the content of these accounts as freedom of opinion.

For their part, some conservatives have described the practices of social media companies as abusive, pointing to Twitter's suspension of Trump's permanent account on the platform shortly after the January 6, 2021 attack on the US Capitol by a crowd of his supporters. Twitter noted the "risk of posting more violent content."

It is noteworthy that Texas law prohibits social media companies - which have at least 50 million active monthly users - from "censoring" users based on a "view", and allows users or the Texas attorney general to file a lawsuit to enforce the law.

For his part, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton - via his Twitter account - praised the ruling, describing it as a "tremendous victory for the Constitution and freedom of expression."

Because the Fifth Circuit ruling conflicts with part of a ruling by the Eleventh Circuit, the aggrieved parties have a stronger case to petition the Supreme Court for consideration.

Last May, the Eleventh Circuit (based in Atlanta) found that most of Florida's similar law infringes upon companies' rights to free speech and cannot be enforced.

Post a Comment

Previous Post Next Post