Florida governor signs bill barring social media companies from blocking political candidates

[SimplyMe]

So I would say that would be a blatant moving of the goalposts.

1) Saying "it was a supreme court ruling in the sense that the supreme court saw no reason to hear the case" is not the definition of a ruling.

Nope, not moving the goal posts. I admit I was mistaken/didn't read close enough but it still points to the fact that the Supreme Court has shown no interest in changing how the law is interpreted. Sure, it could happen, but as of just a couple of years ago they saw no need to intervene.

I can't speak for republicans, but I've often criticized their misuse of the word socialism...much like I'll criticize your misuse of the word here. Mandating certain levels of neutrality on a non-rivalrous good/service (that has become a primary vehicle for speech, and has been enlisted by government entities to serve various purposes - normally overseen by public entities) has nothing to do with a centrally planned economy nor does it have anything to do with the means of production.

Again, what "government entities?" Senators are just that, they represent a particular state in the US Senate. They do not speak for the US Government, they don't make law by fiat -- but it requires at least 49 other Senators to vote with them (and more likely 59). And with Congress critters, they have even less of a voice.

For example, is forcing people to wear masks and follow other Covid rules the same as the Holocaust? From what you are saying, since Marjorie Taylor Greene is saying it, that must be the official government position.

When is the Government going to arrest Democrats for Treason? I mean, you can make an argument that the President actually does speak for the United States (unlike Senators and Congresspeople), and Pres. Trump called Democrats traitors, or accused them of traitorous activity, numerous times?

The fact is, various people in high office in the government make numerous statements, but they are almost always opinion -- short of things like announcing decisions of the Supreme Court, announcing a bill has been signed into law, announcing indictments or verdicts, etc.

Senators saying what a social media company "should" do is not speaking for the US government -- particularly since there would be no way for Democrats to force a law through the Senate to enforce it.

It should be noted, that both republicans and democrats have been hypocritical about these issues depending on what sides the alleged parties are on.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/16/sup...cide-fb-twitter-power-to-regulate-speech.html

In the above cited case, the outcome was that it was the conservative justices holding the opinion they're a private entity, therefore are under no obligation uphold free speech fairly and shouldn't be constrained by the rules of a state actor, and it was the liberal justices dissenting from that opinion suggesting that they should be.

I'll agree that both parties are hypocrites.

2) Did you not see the issue in your statement here?
"And, please, exactly when did the government "coerce, influence, or encourage" Facebook to do anything?"
In your very next sentence:
"Yes, some politicians, such as Congresspeople or Senators, encouraged Facebook to do some things"

...saying "congresspeople and senators don't speak for the government" is an absurd statement. They're members of one of the three branches of federal government, and have literally urged them to make certain changes in the context of a senate hearing.

If a senator making statements and urging changes, while acting in their official capacity as a senator, in some instances - in an official senate hearing doesn't constitute "speaking for the government", I don't know what does.


https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/22/fac...-to-crack-down-on-vaccine-misinformation.html

U.S. senators urge Facebook, Twitter for tighter checks before Georgia runoff election

As I mentioned above, Senators say lots of things in Senate hearings -- they do a lot of grandstanding. Despite this, they do not speak for the government. After all, if things Democratic Senators and Congressmen said, in their positions in hearings, were official US policy then Pres Trump would not just have been impeached, he would have been removed from office.

That isn't to say that they don't wield influence, but they don't speak for the US. If Facebook and Twitter had not changed their rules, nothing would have happened to them -- at least beyond a possible Democrat led boycott. The Senate would not have passed a law to remove "Russian Propaganda," particular since that propaganda was seen to benefit Republicans.

 

[SimplyMe]

That would be a question for Amy Klobuchar, Elizabeth Warren, Blumenthal, and all of the other senators who've written letters to Facebook, Twitter, Google, and YouTube asking them to crack down on misinformation on their platforms, and asking them for transparency in their systems for flagging and fact-checking.

If I had to speculate, it's because the aforementioned senators recognize that there are a few key distinctions between the television entities you mention, and the social media giants.

1) TV networks are already under the regulatory oversight of an independent government agency (the FCC)
2) TV networks don't present themselves as open platforms, but rather publishers (as they control their own content)...thereby, there are legal outlets available when misinformation is disseminated. For instance, Dominion had the legal recourse of suing Newmax when they were pushing the misinformation about rigged voting machines. They can't sue twitter when "MagaWarrior4079" posts it in a tweet and it ends up getting on Twitter's platform.

Actually, when I wrote that bit about Fox, I was thinking explicitly about the comments section on their website. If you've spent any time there, you'll see numerous "stolen election" claims, complete with claims about Dominion, and other conspiracy theories.

You are also wrong about Fox News always being a "publisher." Yes, they are the "publisher" of their news content, but they don't take responsibility for what their commentators say; instead, they'll say that the "opinions expressed are not necessarily the opinion of the network." Take, for instance, a case where Tucker Carlson was sued for defamation. Fox lawyers literally stated that Carlson is "entertainment" and that "The "'general tenor' of the show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not 'stating actual facts' about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in 'exaggeration' and 'non-literal commentary.' " Fox News and Tucker Carlson also can't be (successfully) sued for things he says in front of his 4 million viewers.

 

[Pommer]

That wasn't a supreme court ruling...

Quigley v. Yelp, Inc, 2018 WL 7204066 | Casetext Search + Citator

Looks like that was just a district court ruling, and was in 2017, which was prior to the government heavily leveraging facebook for things like dissemination about voter information, requesting that they crack down more on election misinformation, and prior to the pandemic when Facebook wasn't entering into joint-partnerships with public health departments.

Per a 1982 ruling
If the government merely acquiesces in the performance of an act by a private individual or organization it is not state action, but if the government coerces, influences, or encourages the performance of the act, it is state action (Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830 (1982))

Not granting certiorari is often how the Court affirms the lower court’s decision.
A controversy that doesn’t get into SCOTUS = the Court would likely uphold whatever was in question. Yes, by the District Court.

Still, I agree it’s not a “ruling”, though it is a decision.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Not granting certiorari is often how the Court affirms the lower court’s decision.
A controversy that doesn’t get into SCOTUS = the Court would likely uphold whatever was in question. Yes, by the District Court.

Still, I agree it’s not a “ruling”, though it is a decision.

It was a decision, but one that was made prior to certain circumstances existing.

For instance, if the "XYZ Corp" wasn't a monopoly in 2014 (and a district court decided accordingly), but things changed, they bought up all of their competitors, and they became one in 2017, and someone voiced concerns, it wouldn't be a valid rebuttal to say "A court already decided on this back in 2014, XYZ Corp isn't a monopoly"

Likewise with the decision the other poster cited... it's perfectly feasible to expect that a court would've determined that Facebook/Twitter was clearly not a state actor in 2017.

If memory serves, senators didn't start calling those guys up to start urging/influencing certain operating procedures until 2018 (and really ramping it up in the months leading up to the election), and obviously they weren't enlisted into public agency partnerships (due to Covid) in 2017, because it wasn't a thing yet.

 

[Pommer]

For instance, if the "XYZ Corp" wasn't a monopoly in 2014 (and a district court decided accordingly), but things changed, they bought up all of their competitors, and they became one in 2017, and someone voiced concerns, it wouldn't be a valid rebuttal to say "A court already decided on this back in 2014, XYZ Corp isn't a monopoly"

Right, but a new case has to bubble up through the system for SCOTUS to act.

 

[Arcangl86]

As expected, a preliminary injunction has been issued against the law.

 

[NotreDame]

Not granting certiorari is often how the Court affirms the lower court’s decision.
A controversy that doesn’t get into SCOTUS = the Court would likely uphold whatever was in question. Yes, by the District Court.

Really? What’s your source? Through my years of law and the practice of law I have never heard any professor, lawyer, or judge express what you’ve just said. Neither can I find your comment in any law review article, books, or materials dealing with appellate practice.

I’ve read lay people make your comments, and the reaction in the legal field has been that’s not correct or accurate. Rule 10 of SCOTUS makes it clear whether to grant or deny cert, is discretionary and lists a few considerations. “A petition for a writ of certiorari will be granted only for compelling reasons. The following, although neither controlling nor fully measuring the Court's discretion, indicate the character of the reasons the Court considers:”

I cannot find anywhere at the SCOTUS website any language supporting what you said above.