Interesting. Ramifications for many entities. Private, Public or not.
May impact censorship on this platform?
Interesting. Ramifications for many entities. Private, Public or not.
May impact censorship on this platform?
I wish the story covered the use of the argument of an “Unconscionable Contract” in legal disputes. I wonder how this argument plays in a court.
Here’s the complaint the judge made the ruling on. Use “FIND” (Ctrl-F" to find terms you want.
Johnson-Twitter-LAWSUIT-2.pdf (260.7 KB) Term is first used at bottom of page 19
law cited: https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/civil-code/civ-sect-1770.html
Here’s an example, probably other sections what you are looking for under California law. If searching the web you might also use the the term “Adhesion Contract”
https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/civil-code/civ-sect-1670-5.html
Should find out since this guy is suing Twitter. There already is legal precedent for private business to not discriminate. What’s more important than free speech discrimination? Tables are definitely turning.
Sueing is not winning a case, Folks sue for a lot of crazy things
Twitter isn’t s government entity, they are well within their rights to remove whatever they want. Freedom of speech is protection from government censorship or the government supporting a specific religion. It’s not carte blanche to say whatever you want and not be held accountable for your actions
Nice theory you got there… … but there are tons of cases where that is not true. Many businesses, may be unconstitutional, have laws In acted so they can’t disciminate against people. What’s more important than our 1st Amendment right to free speech?
Unfortunately, many sociopaths want freedom of speech for only their POV, but that is not the precedent in the law. It takes a lawsuit or 2 and the times are a changing sir. The double standard is being destroyed slowly. After a 100 years or so of freedom snatching progressiveness, it is on its last legs…Hallelujah!!
Progressive agendae with regressive results.
Look up state action requirement for the first amendment. The only thing this case would cause a “precedent” for is false advertising however that is probably already covered in twitters user agreement. Not sure what you think the first amendment covers but a company, unless it can be proved that the government was involved, cannot infringe on those rights.
Not when you advertise yourself as a free speech platform like Twitter and then don’t provide free speech. Unfortunately, when the state can mandate a baker to bake a cake for someone, then the state can dictate free speech on any social platform. Discrimination against many things are already present in our private businesses. Why not free speech that is part of the government to ensure its citizens in all aspects of our culture. That includes businesses.
I doubt if the residents would be willing to live under China’s current laws, unless they were politicians who can manage to find a lucrative position in the ruling party. You’d just end up with less land mass for the rest of the US.
P.S. Here’s a video that popped up re life in China. The things to take note of is the fluency in English & the manner of dress.
It’s all about physics! China, Russia, you name the dark ages communist countries all the people want Freedom and the West, Europe, Canada, some crazy nutso US states want communism … it’s an ill effect from some deep ill hatred inside due to (?) of some kind … man it’s all physics!
I remember that reading about that law inexplicably going onto the books in CA despite patent encumbrance and serious issues with operating lifespan of said microstamp.
Now it looks like they want dual stamps, which means firearms specific to the CA market. Small surprise that manufacturers are opting to vacate the market. Guessing that law enforcement conveniently got exempted from the requirement…
“Serve and protect”?? - this ain’t the 1960s. “Peace officers” no longer, the focus is on Enforcing the Law. In particular, the laws that can generate revenue, either for the PD, in terms of fines, or for the local jail contractor. Empty cells are not profitable.
Yes, yes, I’m just a weird dude with a tin foil hat. Then somebody please 'splain me why Richardson only cares about speeding on a couple of stretches of road - ones that carry a lot of “just passing through town” traffic. Meanwhile the tree-lined streets in my neighborhood might as well have Speed Limit 50 signs.
Too bad more manufacturers aren’t following Barrett’s model of telling government and police departments of restrictive states to get stuffed.
I think in time they will follow this model. It does not pay to restrict yourself into a corner.
Oh I don’t doubt that many an individual police officer believes that phrase and would undertake great risks to protect the citizenry.
However …
… case law has largely established that duty to rescue doesn’t much apply to the government. 9-1-1 will most probably come to your rescue. But they’re not obligated to.
A traffic stop - or anything else that goes through the local municipal court - is easy and generates revenue. Investigating high-profile crimes is hard, but maybe you get to be on TV - and possibly justify more budget. Drug busts are kind of hard, but glamorous, potentially justify more budget, and can come with asset forfeiture that benefits the department and often the arresting officers. The low- to mid-level stuff - property crime, non-murder violence that officers don’t arrive in time to address/avert, vandalism - is hard and not particularly rewarding … but it’s also represents the bulk of crime that effects people.
There are also aspects of principal-agent dilemma at work as well, with the larger public as the principal and any given agency as the agent. TL;DR version of this dilemma is that the agent, allegedly acting with a degree of autonomy in the interest of the principal may be motivated to act in ways that benefit themselves at the expense of the principal. While this problem is not specific to law enforcement, as an arm of government with the authority to use force and act unilaterally under the guise of maintaining the law in ways that can quickly ruin one’s life, it can be a particularly troubling thing to see.
Many web sites/ISPs/Internet Backbone providers/Search Engines also claim to have “common carrier” status for User-Generated Content (UGC): like the phone company or a package delivery service, they are just delivering the message but can’t be held liable for the contents. Once a company starts censoring the contents of the UGC, that common-carrier defense becomes harder to defend in court.
ISPs provide the transit to the larger internet without adjusting the net payload. In theory* they neither interfere with the net payload nor are they aware of its contents (* the reality of this is that with the advent of DPI they can inspect payloads as well as upper-layer protocol headers, supposedly in the name of performance management).
Twitter, YouTube, Medium, this website are platforms with an interest in and some control over the content. I believe that the defense there are Safe Harbor provisions which essentially mandates that they be responsive to violations of the law brought to their attention.
Essentially if you’re doing something illegal - such making bomb threats over the internet - your ISP has no practical liability whatsoever while whatsoever (being theoretically ignorant of what’s going on in the payloads they’re transporting) while platforms you’re doing it via - Twitter, the comments section on a local TV station’s website, whatnot - has certain responsibilities should they become aware of your activity.
Of course, TOSs, AUPs, user agreements, and countless other indecipherable legal boilerplate apply to carriers (ISPs) and platforms (basically websites) alike. Your ISP might not be monitoring content they’ve transported to websites to the extent websites do, but dollars to donuts there are prohibitions against violating the law, engaging in defamation, promoting hate, etc; it’s probably not as involved as, say, Twitter’s policy, but there are likely strong parallels and similarities.
From reading twitters TOS they have the least liability possible on anything someone posts, or so they say in all caps at one point. They state that what you post and view is up to you however, there are rules in place on what is not allowed to be posted and you are not protected from consequence if your post breaks those rules. Also in the TOS Twitter states that they can remove content, ban a user and remove an account at any time for no reason at all as well as if certain rules are broken.