Submitted by NoneScan65 t3_125um24 in wallstreetbets
NRA-4-EVER t1_je7vqil wrote
Reply to comment by DefendSection230 in Is Meta back? by NoneScan65
I never gave my opinion on the validity of the cases, merely pointing out that an unfavorable decision will be extremely unfortunate for all social media companies.
If a bookstore banned some books claiming they were "dangerous" but then sold a book that could be ruled as inciting violence then they could be held liable. Once you start editing you become a publisher. The courts have already ruled there is a limit to free speech. Also, the courts have allowed producers of products that are legal but harmful can be sued, and by amplification of a dangerous product, that publisher could be liable.
If you assume the justices will only rule on the amplification of one post over another as it relates to 230 is myopic at best. All you have to do is look back to last year and the Dobbs case. Instead of simply ruling that 15 weeks was the new bar set, they threw out 50 years of roe. Dobbs didn't require that to exist, but the justices decided roe itself was wrong and struck it down. In this case one of the justices said in questioning that the court could even overlook the standing challenge, which this court has repeatedly shown a deference for just to make a ruling on 230. It sounded like they're interested in the whole matter.
I don't know how it will go, but I'm not going to pretend that it may not be very detrimental to meta.
DefendSection230 t1_jebom5s wrote
>If a bookstore banned some books claiming they were "dangerous" but then sold a book that could be ruled as inciting violence then they could be held liable.
No they can't.. Why would you think that? That would be punishing them for using their First Amendment right to no carry the books they don't want to carry.
​
>Smith v. California (1959)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._California
The court held that the free publication and distribution of books are protected under the constitution's guarantee of freedom of the press, and that a bookseller, such as Eleazar Smith, plays a key role in this publication and distribution. The court also cited that legal doctrines and devices are not capable of application under the constitution if they would have the effect of inhibiting freedom of expression by making citizens afraid or reluctant to exercise that freedom.
Section 230 protects Publishers, specifically.
>"Id. at 803 AOL falls squarely within this traditional definition of a publisher and, therefore, is clearly protected by §230's immunity."
>
>https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-4th-circuit/1075207.html#:~:text=Id.%20at%20803
AutoModerator t1_jebom7e wrote
Our AI tracks our most intelligent users. After parsing your posts, we have concluded that you are within the 5th percentile of all WSB users.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
NRA-4-EVER t1_jec7yac wrote
You bring one case on bookstores. Here's a ton that relate to free speech/press, which is what gives bookstores their rights. You can go to the link, not typing out ALL of the cases, way too many! You need to realize the current court as already started throwing down some serious decisions that buck the pervious assumptions about many issues. Don't live in bubble, listen to what the judges have said and done. What I think or you think is irrelevant, it's what those six in the majority think that matters. Just like it was a few years ago when all that mattered was what justice Kenedy thought since he was the swing vote most of the time.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments