The SCOTUS today ruled that a Texas law banning social media companies from regulating hate speech on their platforms is unconstitutional.

I have not read either the majority or dissenting opinions yet, but I thought that the breakdown of votes was very interesting.

Voting that the Texas law is unconstitutional:
John Roberts
Stephen Breyer
Sonia Sotomayor
Brett Kavanaugh
Amy Coney Barrett

Voting that the Texas law is constitutional:
Clarence Thomas
Samuel Alito
Elana Kagan
Neil Gorsuch

I really look forward to reading a breakdown of their opinions, as that's a very interesting split.

Jeff.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: Cold War Computing BBS (1:387/26)

On 31 May 2022, Jeff Thiele said the following...

The SCOTUS today ruled that a Texas law banning social media companies from regulating hate speech on their platforms is unconstitutional.

My bad, that's not what they ruled. They voted to allow social media
companies to continue to regulate hate speech while the case works its way through the courts.

However, the split was still quite interesting. Unfortunately, the majority chose not to explain their reasoning.

But here's something to think about:
If the regulation of hate speech on social media affects your ability to
speak your mind, wtf is wrong with you?
And isn't it interesting that the regulation of hate speech is seen by conservatives as censorship? Why just conservatives? Could it be because conservatives are responsible for the vast majority of hate speech? Maybe conservatives need to pay more attention to who they partner with ideologically.

Jeff.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: Cold War Computing BBS (1:387/26)

The SCOTUS today ruled that a Texas law banning social media companies from regulating hate speech on their platforms is unconstitutional.

The Texas law wasn't to ban them from regulating hate speech; it was to ban them from regulating speech.

You read the article twice, so *you knew that.*

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Linux/64)
* Origin: CompuBBS | Ashburn VA | cfbbs.scinet-ftn.org (1:275/99)

On 01 Jun 2022, Aaron Thomas said the following...

The SCOTUS today ruled that a Texas law banning social media companie from regulating hate speech on their platforms is unconstitutional.

The Texas law wasn't to ban them from regulating hate speech; it was to ban them from regulating speech.

Technically, the law refers to "policy-violating content."

You read the article twice, so *you knew that.*

You don't even know what article I read. Nice try, though.

Jeff.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: Cold War Computing BBS (1:387/26)

The SCOTUS today ruled that a Texas law banning social media companies from regulating hate speech on their platforms is unconstitutional.

I really look forward to reading a breakdown of their opinions, as that's a very interesting split.

Your choice of words is very interesting. Did the TX law literally ban
them from regulating "hate speech" (those exact words), or did it ban them
from regulating speech in general?


* SLMR 2.1a * Florida: when we say, "DUCK!", we don't mean Donald.
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

If the regulation of hate speech on social media affects your ability to speak your mind, wtf is wrong with you?

The issue here is one's definition of "hate speech." What if that
definition is fluid? What if the person defining and regulating it
decides, for example, that anything negative that someone might post about
the governor and lt. governor of Texas is "hate speech"?

Facebook, for example, has a low tolerance for anything it defines as
"white supremacist," as many would. Their tolerance for post that glorify
gang violence, violence against women, that are derogatory towards certain religions, and other things I also find hateful is a whole lot higher. So, apparently, their definition is much different from mine.

And isn't it interesting that the regulation of hate speech is seen by conservatives as censorship? Why just conservatives? Could it be because conservatives are responsible for the vast majority of hate speech? Maybe conservatives need to pay more attention to who they partner with

Or maybe it is who defines hate speech, how the definition is fluid and seems to not be evenly applied that they have problems with?


* SLMR 2.1a * No way I'm going to use an offline reader! Well, okay.
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

The Texas law wasn't to ban them from regulating hate speech; it was to ban them from regulating speech.

You read the article twice, so *you knew that.*

"The ironing is delicious." -- Bart Simpson :D


* SLMR 2.1a * Be reasonable......do it my way.
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

On 01 Jun 2022, Mike Powell said the following...

The SCOTUS today ruled that a Texas law banning social media companies f regulating hate speech on their platforms is unconstitutional.
I really look forward to reading a breakdown of their opinions, as that' very interesting split.

Your choice of words is very interesting. Did the TX law literally ban them from regulating "hate speech" (those exact words), or did it ban
them from regulating speech in general?

It banned them from regulating "policy-violating content."

Jeff.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: Cold War Computing BBS (1:387/26)

On 01 Jun 2022, Mike Powell said the following...

If the regulation of hate speech on social media affects your ability to speak your mind, wtf is wrong with you?

The issue here is one's definition of "hate speech." What if that definition is fluid? What if the person defining and regulating it decides, for example, that anything negative that someone might post
about the governor and lt. governor of Texas is "hate speech"?

It has a specific definition: "abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation."

Facebook, for example, has a low tolerance for anything it defines as "white supremacist," as many would. Their tolerance for post that
glorify gang violence, violence against women, that are derogatory
towards certain religions, and other things I also find hateful is a
whole lot higher. So, apparently, their definition is much different
from mine.

White supremacist posts are "abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation."

Derogatory is not necessarily "abusive or threatening," even though you may interpret it as hateful. Derogatory statements about Christianity, for
example, rarely compare to anti-Semitism.

And isn't it interesting that the regulation of hate speech is seen by conservatives as censorship? Why just conservatives? Could it be because conservatives are responsible for the vast majority of hate speech? Mayb conservatives need to pay more attention to who they partner with

Or maybe it is who defines hate speech, how the definition is fluid and seems to not be evenly applied that they have problems with?

It is well-defined, and conservatives tend to partake in it a lot more often than others. Conservatives tend to pride themselves in being "anti-PC," "telling it how it is," etc. That was a big part of Trump's appeal with conservatives.

Jeff.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: Cold War Computing BBS (1:387/26)

On 01 Jun 2022, Mike Powell said the following...

The Texas law wasn't to ban them from regulating hate speech; it was to them from regulating speech.
You read the article twice, so *you knew that.*

"The ironing is delicious." -- Bart Simpson :D

Would you consider yourself a moderator of speech, Mike?

Jeff.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: Cold War Computing BBS (1:387/26)

On 01 Jun 2022, Jeff Thiele said the following...

The SCOTUS today ruled that a Texas law banning social media compan regulating hate speech on their platforms is unconstitutional.
I really look forward to reading a breakdown of their opinions, as very interesting split.

Your choice of words is very interesting. Did the TX law literally b them from regulating "hate speech" (those exact words), or did it ban them from regulating speech in general?

It banned them from regulating "policy-violating content."

Additionally, supporters of the bill, who are conservatives, say that its purpose is to prevent social media companies from banning people based on
their political ideology. So they're in fact saying that hate speech and
other violations of Facebook's community standards are integral to the conservative political ideology. But we already knew that.

Jeff.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: Cold War Computing BBS (1:387/26)

On 01 Jun 2022, Mike Powell said the following...

The SCOTUS today ruled that a Texas law banning social media companies regulating hate speech on their platforms is unconstitutional.
I really look forward to reading a breakdown of their opinions, as that
very interesting split.

Your choice of words is very interesting. Did the TX law literally ban them from regulating "hate speech" (those exact words), or did it ban them from regulating speech in general?

It banned them from regulating "policy-violating content."

Which could be anything. You spun that into "hate speech."


* SLMR 2.1a * Confidence is important; the computer can sense fear.
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

White supremacist posts are "abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation."

Derogatory is not necessarily "abusive or threatening," even though you may interpret it as hateful. Derogatory statements about Christianity, for example, rarely compare to anti-Semitism.

That does not matter, based on the definition you have shared. Basis of religion is basis of religion. However, that definition is not normally applied evenly to Christianity as it is to Judaism and, these days, it is not normally applied evenly to either of them as it is to Islam.

The same can be said about race. If you make a hateful statement about
someone else based solely on the fact that they are white, it is much more likely to get a pass than if it is based on the fact that they are not... it sometimes does not even have to be based on race in those cases.

It is well-defined, and conservatives tend to partake in it a lot more often than others.

Baloney. You see it that way because you yourself do not apply it to
things the left says about Christians.


* SLMR 2.1a * Sheesh! You start havin' fun, and they send the lawyers!
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

The SCOTUS today ruled that a Texas law banning social media compa
regulating hate speech on their platforms is unconstitutional.
I really look forward to reading a breakdown of their opinions, as
very interesting split.

Your choice of words is very interesting. Did the TX law literally them from regulating "hate speech" (those exact words), or did it ba
them from regulating speech in general?

It banned them from regulating "policy-violating content."

Additionally, supporters of the bill, who are conservatives, say that its purpose is to prevent social media companies from banning people based on their political ideology. So they're in fact saying that hate speech and other violations of Facebook's community standards are integral to the conservative political ideology. But we already knew that.

No, you spun hate speech into it here, too. Political ideology does not
equate directly to hate speech. Using Facebook in your example is slippery
as they do not apply their own standards evenly.


* SLMR 2.1a * Suicidal dyslexic jumps behind train - film at 11
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

On 02 Jun 2022, Mike Powell said the following...

It banned them from regulating "policy-violating content."

Which could be anything. You spun that into "hate speech."

Such policies generally regulate hate speech, among other things.

Jeff.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: Cold War Computing BBS (1:387/26)

On 02 Jun 2022, Mike Powell said the following...

White supremacist posts are "abusive or threatening speech or writing th expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis race, religion, or sexual orientation."
Derogatory is not necessarily "abusive or threatening," even though you interpret it as hateful. Derogatory statements about Christianity, for example, rarely compare to anti-Semitism.

That does not matter, based on the definition you have shared. Basis of religion is basis of religion. However, that definition is not normally applied evenly to Christianity as it is to Judaism and, these days, it
is not normally applied evenly to either of them as it is to Islam.

Religion is religion, and abusive or threatening is abusive or threatening. There are two parts to it. Questioning someone's religion is neither abusive nor threatening. Challenging someone's religion is neither abusive nor threatening. Questioning why someone does not uphold the tenets of their religion is neither abusive nor threatening.

Directing foul language or slurs at someone because of their religion (or
lack thereof) is abusive. Threatening someone because of their religion (or lack thereof) is, well, threatening.

Christians in the US are not subjected to anywhere even remotely close to the abuse and threats that Jews and Muslims in the US have been, and continue to be.

The same can be said about race. If you make a hateful statement about someone else based solely on the fact that they are white, it is much
more likely to get a pass than if it is based on the fact that they are not... it sometimes does not even have to be based on race in those
cases.

I don't think so. A lot of hateful, racist things get said by white people
that we don't necessarily hear about. Why? Because it gets a pass.

It is well-defined, and conservatives tend to partake in it a lot more o than others.

Baloney. You see it that way because you yourself do not apply it to things the left says about Christians.

What "abusive or threatening" things does the left say about Christians?

Jeff.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: Cold War Computing BBS (1:387/26)

On 02 Jun 2022, Mike Powell said the following...

Additionally, supporters of the bill, who are conservatives, say that it purpose is to prevent social media companies from banning people based o their political ideology. So they're in fact saying that hate speech and other violations of Facebook's community standards are integral to the conservative political ideology. But we already knew that.

No, you spun hate speech into it here, too. Political ideology does not equate directly to hate speech. Using Facebook in your example is slippery as they do not apply their own standards evenly.

No, political ideology does not equate directly to hate speech. However, when there is overlap, there is an attempt to label hate speech as political ideology so that one can claim that one's political ideology is being
censored. Facebook's standards don't moderate political ideology at all, but they do moderate hate speech. That should be clue #1.

Jeff.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: Cold War Computing BBS (1:387/26)

Hello Jeff,

The SCOTUS today ruled that a Texas law banning social media

compan

regulating hate speech on their platforms is unconstitutional.
I really look forward to reading a breakdown of their

opinions, as

very interesting split.

Your choice of words is very interesting. Did the TX law

literally b

them from regulating "hate speech" (those exact words), or did

it ban

them from regulating speech in general?

It banned them from regulating "policy-violating content."

Additionally, supporters of the bill, who are conservatives, say that its purpose is to prevent social media companies from banning people based on their political ideology.

So you are in favor of white racists (such as David Duke) being
allowed to spout his racist creeds on Twitter and other social media.
Yes, he is currently banned on Twitter. Just like Donald Trump.

Nah, I do not believe that was the intent of your statement.
The bans are not based on one's political ideology, but rather
on hate speech. There is a difference.

So they're in fact saying that hate speech and other violations of Facebook's community standards are integral to the conservative political ideology. But we already knew that.

Facebook and Twitter both have the same basic policy insofar as
not allowing hate speech on their platforms.

--Lee

--
My body, my choice! / Her body, her choice!

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
* Origin: news://eljaco.se:4119 (2:203/2)

[..]

them from regulating speech in general?

It banned them from regulating "policy-violating content."

Additionally, supporters of the bill, who are conservatives, say that its
purpose is to prevent social media companies from banning people based on
their political ideology. So they're in fact saying that hate speech and
other violations of Facebook's community standards are integral to the
conservative political ideology. But we already knew that.

No, you spun hate speech into it here, too. Political ideology MP>does

not equate directly to hate speech. Using Facebook in your MP>example is slippery as they do not apply their own standards MP>evenly.

Christian Nationalism is a political ideology based on pure hatred.

Just a nicer sounding term than White Nationalism or Ku Klux Klanners.

--Lee

--
Black lives matter!

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
* Origin: news://eljaco.se:4119 (2:203/2)

It happens that Jeff Thiele -> Mike Powell formulated :

On 02 Jun 2022, Mike Powell said the following...

White supremacist posts are "abusive or threatening speech or

writing th

expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the

basis

race, religion, or sexual orientation."
Derogatory is not necessarily "abusive or threatening," even though

you

interpret it as hateful. Derogatory statements about Christianity,

for

example, rarely compare to anti-Semitism.

That does not matter, based on the definition you have shared. Basis

of

religion is basis of religion. However, that definition is not

normally

applied evenly to Christianity as it is to Judaism and, these days,

it

is not normally applied evenly to either of them as it is to Islam.

Religion is religion, and abusive or threatening is abusive or threatening.
There are two parts to it. Questioning someone's religion is neither abusive
nor threatening. Challenging someone's religion is neither abusive nor threatening. Questioning why someone does not uphold the tenets of their religion is neither abusive nor threatening.

In Europe, the 30-years-war was all about religion. Different factions
fought each other, for much longer than 30 years, about religion. This
went on from the early 17th century to the 19th century, resulting in
tons of poor people from various European countries emigrating to the
US (mostly as civil servants).

This is noted in the US Constitution, as "no religious test" is
required for citizenship, or to hold office. The Framers of the
Constitution could not agree on a "state religion" for the US,
and chose not to have any. Yes, they were aware of what was going
on in Europe.

Directing foul language or slurs at someone because of their religion (or lack thereof) is abusive. Threatening someone because of their religion (or
lack thereof) is, well, threatening.

Donald Trump did it so well, and his MAGA crowd roared its approval.
What does that tell you about us, as a society?

Christians in the US are not subjected to anywhere even remotely close to the
abuse and threats that Jews and Muslims in the US have been, and continue to
be.

Many Christians around the world have been subjected to abuse and
threats far worse than Jews and Muslims in the US have been. That is
not to say subjecting anyone to abuse and threats is okay for any
reason (religious or non-religious).

The same can be said about race. If you make a hateful statement about
someone else based solely on the fact that they are white, it is much
more likely to get a pass than if it is based on the fact that they are
not... it sometimes does not even have to be based on race in those
cases.

I don't think so. A lot of hateful, racist things get said by white people that we don't necessarily hear about. Why? Because it gets a pass.

February is Black History Month. What would be the reaction if
we had a White History Month? Riots in Chicago. Riots in Detroit.
Riots in New Orleans. Riots in Milwaukee. Riots in every city
that has a large black population.

"Black is Beautiful" makes for a great bumper sticker. Try putting
a bumper sticker on your car that says "White is Beautiful." Then go
and park it in a black neighborhood.

Why do we give people like David Duke a pass and not Louis Farrakhan?
Could it be because Louis Farrakhan is a minister who dons a black robe?
You do realize the boys wearing the white hoods are of the same
Christian faith, and would never believe any of that Muslim crap.

It is well-defined, and conservatives tend to partake in it a lot

more o

than others.

Baloney. You see it that way because you yourself do not apply it to
things the left says about Christians.

What "abusive or threatening" things does the left say about Christians?

David Duke is a former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, a religious
Christian organization for white men. He made the runoff for governor
of Louisiana some years ago against Edwin Edwards.

In the first primary Duke came in ahead of the incumbent governor,
Buddy Roemer, almost in a tie with Edwards.

We had bumper stickers on our cars saying "Vote for the crook. It's
important."

It was fun handing out bumper stickers to Roemer supporters during
that runoff. Their faces were memorable, grudgingly giving their
support to their arch-enemy, and voting for him.

Both Edwards and Duke wound up going to prison. So everybody who
voted can say with all honesty they voted for the crook.

--Lee

--
It takes a tough man to make a tender chicken

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
* Origin: news://eljaco.se:4119 (2:203/2)

On 03 Jun 2022, Lee Lofaso said the following...

Additionally, supporters of the bill, who are conservatives, say that purpose is to prevent social media companies from banning people base their political ideology.

So you are in favor of white racists (such as David Duke) being
allowed to spout his racist creeds on Twitter and other social media.
Yes, he is currently banned on Twitter. Just like Donald Trump.

Nope.

Nah, I do not believe that was the intent of your statement.
The bans are not based on one's political ideology, but rather
on hate speech. There is a difference.

Correct, and there is a difference. But conservatives seek to minimize that difference so that they can claim that they're being censored because of
their political ideology.

So they're in fact saying that hate speech and other violations of Facebook's community standards are integral to the conservative polit ideology. But we already knew that.

Facebook and Twitter both have the same basic policy insofar as
not allowing hate speech on their platforms.

True.

Jeff.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: Cold War Computing BBS (1:387/26)

On 03 Jun 2022, Lee Lofaso said the following...

In Europe, the 30-years-war was all about religion. Different factions fought each other, for much longer than 30 years, about religion. This went on from the early 17th century to the 19th century, resulting in
tons of poor people from various European countries emigrating to the
US (mostly as civil servants).

True, but was there abusive and threatening language involved? Almost certainly.

Jeff.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: Cold War Computing BBS (1:387/26)

Religion is religion, and abusive or threatening is abusive or threatening. There are two parts to it. Questioning someone's religion is neither abusive nor threatening. Challenging someone's religion is neither abusive nor threatening. Questioning why someone does not uphold the tenets of their religion is neither abusive nor threatening.

Directing foul language or slurs at someone because of their religion (or lack thereof) is abusive. Threatening someone because of their religion (or lack thereof) is, well, threatening.

Christians in the US are not subjected to anywhere even remotely close to the abuse and threats that Jews and Muslims in the US have been, and continue to be.

But I have seen examples on social media where they are and, guess what,
those policies that you say are against hate speech don't seem to kick in.

They also don't seem to kick in evenly when the speech in question is targeted at women. I guess that only counts when they don't identify as women?

The same can be said about race. If you make a hateful statement about someone else based solely on the fact that they are white, it is much more likely to get a pass than if it is based on the fact that they are not... it sometimes does not even have to be based on race in those cases.

I don't think so. A lot of hateful, racist things get said by white people that we don't necessarily hear about. Why? Because it gets a pass.

Not on social media. We were discussing how your state wanted to regulate social media's ability to moderate speech. I said that social media doesn't
do it evenly.


* SLMR 2.1a * Gender: ___ Male ___ Female _X_ Wraeththu
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

No, you spun hate speech into it here, too. Political ideology does not equate directly to hate speech. Using Facebook in your example is slippery as they do not apply their own standards evenly.

No, political ideology does not equate directly to hate speech. However, when there is overlap, there is an attempt to label hate speech as political ideology so that one can claim that one's political ideology is being censored. Facebook's standards don't moderate political ideology at all, but they do moderate hate speech. That should be clue #1.

False on more that one count.

They only moderate hate speech when it is against (or said by) certain
groups, and the bar for what is hate speech is set lower when the posters appear to be of a political ideology that goes against their own.

So there is no clue.


* SLMR 2.1a * Think of it as evolution in action.
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)