back to article Appeals court unleashes Texas's anti-Big-Tech content-no-moderation law

On Wednesday, the US Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decided to undo a preliminary injunction that for the past few months has been blocking Texas's law prohibiting online content moderation while that legislation is being challenged. Two judges of a three judge panel – all Republican appointees – granted Texas's motion to stay …

  1. ecofeco Silver badge

    Both are un-Constitutional

    These laws violate the interstate commerce clause in that no state has the power to regulate interstate commerce.

    https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI_S8_C3_1_2/

    1. MiguelC Silver badge

      Re: Both are un-Constitutional

      Go tell that to the judges, see if they care. They're just part of the grandstanding crowd. Justice mixed with politics is a freakshow

    2. Tom7

      Re: Both are un-Constitutional

      That's the same as saying that a state can't ban or regulate the sale of any goods, so long as the customer is from another state - plainly ridiculous. Congress has complete power to regulate interstate commerce - but that doesn't stop the states regulating it, so long as that regulation doesn't conflict with federal regulation.

  2. Eclectic Man Silver badge
    Facepalm

    The (Rocky) Horror Show

    As Riff Raff says "Madness takes its toll". (The song 'The Time Warp')

    I assume this is so that people can post whatever infamy they like with 'or so I have heard', or 'people say' after it and get away with maligning their political enemies without any moderation or warning that the statements are factually incorrect, misleading or pure fantasy.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: The (Rocky) Horror Show

      Well you can already do all those things that horrify you so -- all you need to do is preface it with "I've got it from an expert on the topic" or "it was from a reliable source"

  3. jake Silver badge

    They should just stop doing business in TX and FL.

    No great loss.

    ::shrugs::

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: They should just stop doing business in TX and FL.

      I'm obviously well qualified to comment on this as I don't use any social media, so here we go...

      First, jake, in true El Reg commentard style I'll make a correction to your title by cutting it short:

      They should just stop doing business.

      FTFY as they say 'round these parts.

      Next, 'and social media will be forced to turn into a sewer," said Adam Kovacevich'

      It is my understanding from El Reg hacks, El Reg comments and just about every other source that refers to social media in anything approaching a reasoned approach that it is already a sewer.

      I'm happy to stay away.

      1. jake Silver badge
        Pint

        Re: They should just stop doing business in TX and FL.

        I also have never used twitter, metaface, alphagoo, etc. and I quite agree with you ... but we both know it's not going to happen. So we might as well attempt to use the anti-social media twits as a big stick against the anti-American, anti-Constitution states, hoping to get them to see the errors of their ways, right?

        Not that it'll ever happen as long as they are run by anti-American, anti-Constitution fuckheads, of course. But yelling is cathartic. Beer?

        1. Cederic Silver badge

          Re: They should just stop doing business in TX and FL.

          Of course, half of America will disagree with the other half about which states are anti-American and anti-Constitution.

          Which was the point of the bill. Only one of those two groups gets a voice on social media.

          1. X5-332960073452
            Mushroom

            Re: They should just stop doing business in TX and FL.

            Let's go back to 1861, time for another civil war?

            1. jake Silver badge

              Re: They should just stop doing business in TX and FL.

              "Let's go back to 1861, time for another civil war?"

              No need for fisticuffs ... with global warming and sea level rise, Florida will cease to be a problem shortly[0]. Texas claims to be the only state that can secede from the Union. Most of the rest of us wish they'd stop babbling about it and get on with it. Then we can just build a wall, and of course we'll make Texas pay for it. Needless to say, being Texan they will not get the joke.

              As a side note to our British contingent, a "caravan" as used in this context does not refer to a temporary home used by city slickers on vacation to clog up the highways and byways of Britain. Rather it refers to a large group of travelers with a common destination.

              [0] The irony of the concept of hoards of Floridian Republican boat people trying to land in the Continental US does not escape me.

          2. jake Silver badge

            Re: They should just stop doing business in TX and FL.

            "Of course, half of America will disagree with the other half about which states are anti-American and anti-Constitution."

            Which half would that be? The less than half who elected Trump? Or the less than half that didn't re-elect him?

            "Only one of those two groups gets a voice on social media."

            Which of those groups are getting kicked off social media for advocating violence against people who refuse to march in lock-step with them?

            Discussing politics in all it's disagreeableness and disingenuousness is OK. Suggesting going out and beating people up (or worse) just for disagreeing is not. Funny how the wingnuts[0] don't see it that way.

            [0] In my mind rightwingnuts and leftwingnuts are all like turds floating in a cesspool. Each one is just as bad as any other.

    2. Jaybus

      Re: They should just stop doing business in TX and FL.

      TX and FL? A mere 50 million people. Surely there is no business to be done with so few. It would be no worse than stopping business with some EU countries....

      1. jake Silver badge

        Re: They should just stop doing business in TX and FL.

        As a Californian, I can assure you that I have absolutely nothing on this Ranch that originated in either Texas or Florida. This is not on purpose, by the way ... it's just that it would seem that neither State makes anything worth exporting (at least not to this side of the Rockies).

  4. sreynolds

    Only a sith deals in absolutes

    Why most people on that side of the pond don't realise that freedom is relative beggars belief. I blame the eople that amended the constitution for not defining exactly what they meant by freedom. Freedom to carry an AR15 into Walmart was surely not something t hey had in mind

    1. jake Silver badge

      Re: Only a sith deals in absolutes

      I can assure you that there are very, very few people who would carry an AR15 into Walmart, even if it was legal. Those people are called "loonies" by the vast majority of the population.

      Last time I checked, Walmart didn't require one to dispatch one's chow prior to purchase ...

      1. sreynolds

        Re: Only a sith deals in absolutes

        I thought that they were called Americans.

        1. jake Silver badge

          Re: Only a sith deals in absolutes

          "I thought"

          Assumes facts not in evidence. Parroting what you have heard is not thinking.

    2. Alumoi Silver badge

      Re: Only a sith deals in absolutes

      AR15 is overkill. On the other hand, a nice 1911...

      1. jake Silver badge

        Re: Only a sith deals in absolutes

        "AR15 is overkill. On the other hand, a nice 1911..."

        The AR is an over-priced toy purchased by idiots. The 1911 is way, way too heavy for EDC.

        And quite frankly, I hope I'm never so paranoid as to feel a need to have a gun with me when I'm shopping for groceries. Seriously, you dumb-asses, if things are really that bad where you live either get off your fat asses and vote in a government that'll fix the problems, or fucking move! Why are you putting yourselves through all that headache and/or heartache? Gluttons for punishment?

        1. KSM-AZ

          Easy to say . . .

          "if things are really that bad where you live either get off your fat asses and vote in a government that'll fix the problems, or fucking move!" -- Really?

          Move where exactly, into what exactly, for how much approximately? You see the politicians want to spend the money on 'light rail" and "mass transportation" products for all of us who don't live in gated communities with armed security. At least I don't live in Seattle. So they drive their Tesla's and Audi's and E-Class's back and forth from their secure compounds to their secure work buildings with more armed guards and fences. And tell me to ride the bus/rail.

          Somehow these clowns use the media to convince the sheeple of the unwashed masses they are doing them favors, taking their money, while the bus stops and rail stations are swimming in homeless people, many of whom are aggressive to say the least. There is a homeless enclave under a bridge / overpass close enough to throw a baseball from the side of the building where I work, a stones throw from the cars in the parking lot. People are literally pouring over the border, If you don't believe it just drive down near Tucson/Nogales or Yuma out in the desert. I suggest you be armed, and have a buddy or two.

          I don't have $1M to pour into a safe place, behind bars with $500+/mo dues. I carry either a SCCY CPX-9 or a Springfield XPS-45ACP. AR-15's are for enthusiasts, you can get a nice 223/556 for reasonable money, but ammo is too expensive and harder to reload. I have a TNW survival (45ACP) for if I ever need to skedaddle to the hills. Nothing over $1K, but I'm not judgemental. I'd love to move, and I'm looking, but by keeping interest rates artificially low for the last 20 years, investors are buying up all the housing and then leasing at exorbitant rates. Tell me about the job you need to rent an 800sqft apt for $2500 a month in the hood?

    3. Tom7

      Re: Only a sith deals in absolutes

      I blame the people who objected to paying taxes to fund the troops protecting them in the first place.

    4. SundogUK Silver badge

      Re: Only a sith deals in absolutes

      That is exactly what they had in mind. 'Shall not be infringed." It's pretty bloody simple, isn't it.

    5. Robert Carnegie Silver badge

      But

      What if the AR-15 that you bought at Walmart is defective?

      They did stop selling 'em in 2015. I don't know if they started again. There are reports that they also stopped selling the ammunition.

      1. jake Silver badge

        Re: But

        "What if the AR-15 that you bought at Walmart is defective?"

        It's well past it's warranty period (as you pointed out, Walmart stopped selling them in '15), so I stick it in a guncase and take it to my local gunsmith (the gunsmith himself mandates that all firearms brought into his shop are in cases, as do all sane gunsmiths).

        Who buys pre-built ammo? Handloading is fast, and easy.

        Note: I do not actually own an AR15 ... my firearms are not toys, they are functional tools.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Republicans are the perps not the victims

    Republicans are not the victims here, they are the perpetrators.

    They create their own bogeymen:

    "Be afraid the socialists/antifa/blm/mexicans/caravan/woke are coming for you and your kids. Only we can protect you from the bogeyman...".

    Then they build up those bogeyman: how many times have you heard Tucker Carlson say "antifa plans to....." or "the left plans to....". How many times has that new plan been the *first* time you've ever heard of that crap? That's because they're *his* bogeymen, and he gets to decide what fiendish plan *his* creations are plotting.

    When one bogeyman is busted, he simply moves onto the next, so we've gone from "antifa" to "woke". Antifa is busted. Fox News screamed "antifa is behind Jan 6th, its a false flag attack", and emails show that behind the scenes it's guys were telling Trump his coup would not work.

    "Busted?, oh, well move on", like the Caravan that never came.

    So here Greg is pushing the "woke" agenda..."woke people are silencing conservative viewpoints, we need to save America from woke, woke woke woke blah blah woke".

    Yeh, they woke up and realized Republicans are full of shit and their fake media and Russia troll buddies are poison.

    The big danger here is Republicans replace Trump with someone capable of actually organizing a coup, and that ultrapartisan Supreme court, more loyal to their party than their caselaw, helps them with it.

    I'd point you to Clarence Thomas involvement in the coup plot. He voted to hide the communications on the coup to team Trump, including the coup messages from his wife, clearly he knew what his wife is up to. He didn't step down for helping plot a coup. Didn't even recuse himself, didn't bat an eye, simply went ahead and voted to hide the evidence.

    Do you think for a second, that that Supreme Court, stuffed with ultra-partisans and unqualified, won't simply approve whatever crap Republicans have dreamt up for the next coup? Of course they will.

    Abbot is the perp here, he's not the victim.

    1. Missing Semicolon Silver badge

      Re: Republicans are the perps not the victims

      Thos is your opinion. There are others. That's how it works.

    2. Pascal Monett Silver badge

      Re: Republicans are the perps not the victims

      Remember the caravan ?

      When that orange-haired asshole was running for President, he repeatedly stated that there was a whole caravan of Mexicans (ie non-whites) on their way to the border and only he would build The Wall to stop them.

      Well he got elected, a very small section of wall was built (and much donated money went into private pockets), and no caravan passed.

      That is Republicans today for you.

      A bunch of lying wankers.

      1. Jaybus

        Re: Republicans are the perps not the victims

        Well that's a bit misleading, opinion of orange-hair notwithstanding. There was 435 miles of new wall built. It is only perhaps 50 miles longer than pre-Trump walls, but go have a look at the before and after. Nearly 400 miles of either wire fence or 3 ft tall vehicle barriers that one could walk through were replaced with 30 ft tall walls.

        Btw, the caravans were people mostly from various South American countries, not Mexicans. They were a huge problem for the Mexican government as well.

        1. jake Silver badge

          Re: Republicans are the perps not the victims

          "There was 435 miles of new wall built. It is only perhaps 50 miles longer than pre-Trump walls,"

          So that's about 385 miles of rebuilt wall (not new wall!), and 50 miles of new wall ... of which how much was built with money suckered out of private citizens by that shyster Bannon?

      2. KSM-AZ

        "The Wall"

        "The Wall" was being built. "The Wall" is not really the great wall of china. In fact up until about a week into the current administration sections of wall were still being put up in key areas along the border, and then the materials were simply abandoned. Arizona was trying to obtain the material to continue the project but was thwarted by President Biden's administration. Ditto in Texas. Ms Sinema knows she doesn't stand an ice cubes chance in hell of getting re-elected if she supports some of the idiotic things our current administration is doing, so while I disagree with much of her politics, I find she apparently does care about the state she grew up in for which I am grateful.

        I love it when someone who lives in another country, or behind fenced and guarded neighborhoods with security want to bash "The Wall". For the former, carry your ass down here, and live on someones property near the border for a week with them. For the latter, you are some of the biggest hypocrites, and it's a shame all you and your friends in the media who live with you have such loud lying voices, that you convince or manipulate people to your way of thinking to screw them over.

    3. jake Silver badge

      Re: Republicans are the perps not the victims

      "Republicans are not the victims here, they are the perpetrators."

      At the present moment in time, this is quite true.

      Sadly, they are perfecting their brainwashing techniques. The sheeple are buying into their machinations. (Why do you think the first place Republicans cut budgets is in Education? Can't have a well educated electorate, capable of thinking for themselves, now can we?)

  6. M.V. Lipvig Silver badge

    Companies have rights?

    What I would like to see from this, ultimately, is remove personhood rights from companies. A company should not have free speech rights, or any other rights accorded to individual people. Unfortunately it will never happen, as companies gained "person" status to make political donations. Companies simply should not have the same Constitutionally protected rights that people have.

    1. doublelayer Silver badge

      Re: Companies have rights?

      Two problems. First, the concept of corporate personhood in the law is more complicated than you state and was set up for a different reason. You have the misconception that "companies gained "person" status to make political donations". This is not true; the existing status as persons allowed that. The concept is common throughout the world, allowing a corporation to have some of the rights and responsibilities to act in a legal way, for example to sign a contract as a company instead as its owner (this is necessary so the company is still responsible for the contract after the owner at the time of signing dies or sells the company). The court case that established the concept in the U.S. wasn't about donations either; it was about the difference in tax laws between individuals and specific kinds of corporations, a problem that was solved by making different tax forms.

      Now that we've defined terms, there's a reason corporations should have rights. They need to be able to do some of the things that people do. A company needs to be able to have responsibilities and the freedom to take actions. It's an instrument for carrying out the goals of its owners, who are all people with those rights, and those people can be held accountable if it breaks the law. This argument may be a bit abstract. I'll provide an example to make it a bit more definite:

      1. If I run a website in my personal capacity, I think we can agree that I don't have to publish your comments if I don't want to.

      2. If I run it with a friend so that both of us have admin access, we still don't have to publish your comments.

      3. If I run the site with donations that come to me personally, I still don't have to publish your comments.

      4. If I set up a company so that the site's income can be divided or invested in its operations, it's still being run by the same people and still making money for those people. Why should I have to publish comments now?

      The gap between points 3 and 4 doesn't change what the service is. It just simplifies the tax forms and makes it easier to share ownership. The people still have the rights they had before. Thus, the corporation they are using should have the ability for them to exercise those rights. This doesn't prevent having different regulations for corporations than for individuals, as the act of forming a corporation can activate laws that apply only to them.

      1. Pascal Monett Silver badge

        The only reason companies have the same rights as a person is because some stupid judge way back when was bought and ruled in their favor and since, nobody has challenged that.

        In France (and, I presume, much of Europe), companies do not have a person's rights. They don't need that to do business. There is no tax issue, companies have their income tax level set by law, period. A company has a manager, the law says that said manager needs to be declared in the company statutes. Everything a company can or needs to do is allowed by commercial law.

        A company can run ads, a company does not need Free Speech.

        Free Speech is for individuals, not corporations. I doubt any Founding Father would think differently.

        1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

          Additionally, for all the talk of a "corporate persons" rights, it's rare to see a discussion of a "corporate persons" responsibilities.

          1. jake Silver badge

            "it's rare to see a discussion of a "corporate persons" responsibilities."

            The goo-kids finally noticed this, and promptly dropped their "do no evil" motto.

        2. Mike 16

          Some Stupid Judge

          IIRC*, it actually derives from a note added to the decision by a clerk. This was later turned into a precedent and expanded to the "Corporations are people".

          * Note that I do not personally Recall this, as it happened in the 19th century in a case involving a railroad (High tech at the time). Even I am not old enough to recall it in person.

          Side Note, what really seems to chap some folks hides is that a corporation is a person in regard to rights, but not in regard to responsibilities. The "owners" are shielded from the effects of law breaking. LL stands for something.

          1. HereIAmJH

            Re: Some Stupid Judge

            IIRC*, it actually derives from a note added to the decision by a clerk. This was later turned into a precedent and expanded to the "Corporations are people".

            Well then we are all good now. Current Supreme Court doesn't believe we are bound by precedent.

            Even though my understanding of our legal system is that it is built on precedent so that issues are settled and not continuously re-litigated in hope that the next judge will have a different view of the law.

            Kind of makes the Supreme Court irrelevant too.

            Personally, what I find annoying about corporate 'personhood' and it's right to free speech is that it is basically a megaphone for wealthy to drown out the opinion of others. And they can do so anonymously.

            1. KSM-AZ
              WTF?

              Precedent

              Like the one set in Plessy vs Fergusen?

  7. tip pc Silver badge

    Better for citizens to choose

    "Platforms won't be able to remove scammers, conspiracy theorists, terrorists, or white nationalists – and social media will be forced to turn into a sewer," said Adam Kovacevich, CEO of the Chamber of Progress, which describes itself as a "center-left tech industry policy coalition," in a statement.

    I’d rather citizens wilfully choose to avoid content and providers where muck like that congregates than those things being forcefully removed out of sight but still harboured by the perpetrators.

    Hiding the bad stuff by censorship stops debate and ferments those views in closed echo chambers that erupt every now and again, often in deadly violence in the US with all its guns.

    1. Pascal Monett Silver badge

      Re: Better for citizens to choose

      Freedom of speech hasn't prevented deadly violence from fermented views.

      I'd wager that said fermentation has increased since the Internet - and smartphones - have become near-ubiquitous. Before the Internet, the wacko would stay in his corner of the bar, muttering to himself. Now, he's aware that there are other people that share his views, so he might become inclined to act on them.

      How many school shootings were there in the 80's ? None.

      Information is a double-edged sword, is what I'm saying.

      1. John McCallum

        Re: Better for citizens to choose

        You are wrong in that there were no school shootings in the 1980's according to the wicky page on school shooting in the 19th/20th centuary's there were over 60.

      2. Great Bu

        Re: Better for citizens to choose

        Uuuuuummmm.... if you follow the link in the Wikipedia article you referenced to the "Pre-2000" page here:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States_(before_2000)

        you might see that there were 59 school shootings in the 1980's.....

      3. Insert sadsack pun here

        Re: Better for citizens to choose

        "How many school shootings were there in the 80's ? None.

        Information is a double-edged sword, is what I'm saying."

        And misinformation is just rubbish.

  8. Steve Davies 3 Silver badge
    Holmes

    PReventing the removal of 'misinformation'

    It is only 'misinformation' if it was not Abbot's 'misinformation'. He's as guilty as any in the GQP of spreading lie after lie after lie.

    Texans should remember how much his latest stunt at the border will cost them this year, next year and for decades after when they vote for the next governor in November.

    With Mexico moving much of their freight over to New Mexico, TX will lose big time. Abbott is flim-flamming about everything he can to divert attention from that.

  9. Mayday
    Flame

    "Two judges of a three judge panel – all Republican appointees"

    It blows my mind how the yanks appoint the judiciary, and indeed law enforcement (sheriffs) based on party membership, or by election (which can be the same depending on how the jurisdiction leans politically).

    One would think one would be made a Judge based on their experience and knowledge as a magistrate, jurist, or similar, not because of the party they're a member of. Funnily enough, the most of the world do it that way.

    My comments apply to both sides of US politics, not just Republicans in Texas or elsewhere.

    1. SundogUK Silver badge

      Re: "Two judges of a three judge panel – all Republican appointees"

      At least it's honest. The UK judiciary leans significantly left but they still claim 'impartiality.'

      1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

        Re: "Two judges of a three judge panel – all Republican appointees"

        And yet, the running complaint is that the UK judiciary is disconnected from society and consists or titled, entitled and public school old boys network incumbents. Exactly the people you'd expect to be more right leaning than left. What a dilemma!!

  10. DevOpsTimothyC

    Its a sewer already

    social media will be forced to turn into a sewer

    They act like it's not already a sewer.

  11. Tom7

    Not an easy area of law

    It's curious that most of the arguments against this law, at least as presented in this article, are not constitutional arguments, they're arguments on the lines of, "But if you do that, the internet will become a really bad place." It very much gives the impression that the legal argument really is, "We don't like the effects of this law, let's try to find a constitutional argument to sink it."

    The difficulty for the platforms is that they want it both ways. There have been various attempts to classify the social media platforms as common carriers. They don't want that, because they want to be able to exercise some sort of control over the content they carry. But the alternative is to exercise control over the content they carry - and that then makes them responsible for the content they carry, removing the "safe harbour" protections.

    It's hard to see the current situation surviving - the platforms are saying they don't exercise editorial control over content and have the safe harbour protections from liability, until the content is some type that they REALLY want to have control over.

    The law needs to change here. Platforms need to be able to exercise some control over content without losing the safe harbour protections. I'm not thinking about control over political content here. But StackOverflow should be able to restrict the content people post to content about software development - exercising editorial control - without becoming liable for everything that every user posts on the site. Currently, it's not obvious that they can do this - either they exercise no editorial control and have safe harbour protections, or they exercise editorial control and are liable for content. The court have worked around this by basically ignoring the issue, but it can't last.

    1. fragmites

      Re: Not an easy area of law

      It’s your lucky day, a law allowing just this is already on the books (in the US). Just look up Section 230.

    2. doublelayer Silver badge

      Re: Not an easy area of law

      No, the constitutional argument is clear. I have the freedom to decide whether you can say things when you're using my property to do so, as in I can tell you to leave if you're doing something I don't like. That freedom applies to the people who own the company, thus the company can exercise it if those people choose to let it. This is not a new argument and has been used successfully. It also happens that, if that law continued to exist, there would be negative consequences, but even if there wouldn't be, it would still be invalid in the U.S.

    3. HereIAmJH

      Re: Not an easy area of law

      The difficulty for the platforms is that they want it both ways. There have been various attempts to classify the social media platforms as common carriers. They don't want that, because they want to be able to exercise some sort of control over the content they carry. But the alternative is to exercise control over the content they carry - and that then makes them responsible for the content they carry, removing the "safe harbour" protections.

      You have this backwards. They wanted common carrier status and they lobbied for it because they didn't want to be responsible for the content posted on their systems. When the Communications Decency Act was being lobbied the ISPs and various 'content' systems were very concerned with the RIAA and getting sued because people posted copyrighted material.

      The point of Section 230 was that if they were completely hands off, no editorial control, they would be considered a common carrier and not responsible for how their systems were used. Ex. AT&T doesn't get prosecuted because someone uses a phone to make a drug deal.

      But here is the rub, people saw all the 'nasty' stuff that can be posted in forums and social media and berated their politicians to 'DO SOMETHING'. So politicians started hearings and lawsuits and said 'you must remove objectionable content'. Craigslist relented, and BackPage disappeared. Thus putting the platforms in the situation they didn't want, because it costs them money. They have to hire people to 'edit' the content on their systems based on a set of vague, ever changing requirements for acceptable use.

      Now they are in a lose/lose situation where they need to remove the 'objectionable' content, but not the stuff that each jurisdiction determines meets their vague determination of a 'viewpoint', and all of it could change next week.

      1. hayzoos

        Re: Not an easy area of law

        Similar is happening with common carriers from the other side of the situation. Scam/SPAM calls got to such a pain point (they became known as robocalls) that customers demanded that something (effective) be done.

        Sure they offered number block, but that don't work. Only the carriers are in the position to block calls of suspect origin, but they are loath to do so both for cost (minimal) and for loss of revenue in the form of fees generated by those calls.

  12. osxtra
    FAIL

    Two Words

    "Streisand Effect"

    "I think <ELECTED OFFICIAL X> is a rat-infested <#$%0!> who likes <@&!^0#*> little boys."

    Moderate that, will you? ;)

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Brilliant!

    So now I can publicly defame Abbott and other Republican fascists online, and then sue any platform that removes my comments? This is going to be fun!

    I heard when Abbott was questioned about his sexual relations with farm animals, his response was, "Only the female ones! I ain't gay!"

    1. hayzoos

      Re: Brilliant!

      Ah, yes, brilliant! But, if what is posted is true, then it is not legally defamation.

      Remember, not all fame is good. I'm thinking of Charles Manson or Jeffery Dahmer for example.

      Why am I tempted to throw Donald Trump, Greg Abbott, and/or Ron DeSantis into that list?

      1. KSM-AZ

        Re: Brilliant!

        Defamation is indeed incumbent on presenting untruthful information. It gets a bit grey when politicized. A politician here was accused in a hit piece of having come out against contraception, and having written a paper (when he was 19) that was pro-nazi. This was picked up by a few national media outlets and published as 'facts'.

        To the credit of some in the local media here, we find apparently the paper (which the gentleman stood by) used the Nazi party as an example of riling up the people with a cause to creating a drastic political shift. There was no record or incidence of him ever speaking against contraception, in fact he was on the record as just the opposite.

        But the damage was done. Any corrections are on page 9 or an honorable 2-second mention at the end of a broadcast. He's suing for defamation. I agree with the sentiment of the suit, but on one hand the hit piece folks could claim it as opinion, and the National media outlets will just say "oops" and print a retraction on page 9. Just try and stay informed. The minute someone uses the term "Orange" or "O-buma" it's high index talk designed to inflame, you should skip the comment.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like