Texas is doing something about social media censorship of conservatives

There is a new, unprecedented, and very toxic phenomenon in U.S. politics.

Privately-owned businesses have become blatantly partisan and willing to lose customers and profits by discriminating against and outright banning conservatives. See, for example:

Among those corporations are the information tech giants — social media and WordPress — which have been censoring conservatives, including this blog, Fellowship of the Minds (FOTM), for some time now. See:

The latest social media censorship took place four days ago on May 2, when Facebook and Instagram, with no warning, banned a number of so-called “far-right extremists,” including Alex Jones, InfoWars, Milo Yiannopoulos, Paul Joseph Watson, and Laura Loomer, ostensibly for “safety” reasons to remove individuals who promote “hate and violence.”

But as Clash Daily points out, neither Facebook nor Instagram cited how or what the “far-right extremists” had posted that violated their “community rules” or “terms of service,” which makes their banning and take-down entirely arbitrary.

As usual, President Trump did some huffing and puffing with this tweet:

I am continuing to monitor the censorship of AMERICAN CITIZENS on social media platforms. This is the United States of America — and we have what’s known as FREEDOM OF SPEECH! We are monitoring and watching, closely!!

Instead of empty threats, Texas is doing something about the social media censorship.

The Texas Tribune reports that on April 25, 2019, in an 18-12 vote, the Texas State Senate approved SB 2373, a bill that would hold social media platforms accountable for restricting users’ speech based on personal opinions.

SB 2373 was introduced by state Sen. Bryan Hughes (R-Mineola), who said the bill applies to social media platforms that advertise themselves as unbiased but still censor users. In the Senate State Affairs Committee hearing, Hughes said:

“Senate Bill 2373 tries to prevent those companies that control these new public spaces, this new public square, from picking winners and losers based on content. Basically if the company represents, ‘We’re an open forum and we don’t discriminate based on content,’ then they shouldn’t be able to discriminate based on content.”

CJ Grisham, the founder of Open Carry Texas, spoke at the hearing in support of the bill. He said Facebook has shut down 16 of the organization’s local groups and did not explain why. Grisham said Open Carry Texas is a conservative gun rights platform and is “routinely targeted” for pushing gun rights on Facebook.

Opponents to the bill maintain SB 2373 violates a federal law that protects social media platforms under a “good Samaritan” policy that allows them to moderate content on the platform however they want.

Harvard Law School lecturer Kendra Albert, who specializes in technology law, said the federal law would likely preempt SB 2373 because “The federal law contains what we would call a ‘subjective standard. It’s based on whether the provider thinks that this causes problems, whereas the Texas bill attempts to move it to an objective standard.” Albert said it would be difficult to determine what is “objectively” offensive, which is why the federal law leaves it up to social media platforms and their users to determine what is offensive. Sometimes there’s not a particular reason why content is removed; it’s flagged by an algorithm.

But Sen. Hughes, who’s an attorney, says he and several other lawyers had looked over the bill and agreed that SB 2373 wouldn’t contradict the federal law because the bill would apply the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Consumer Protection Act, which protects consumers from bad or misleading actions in the trade industry. Users on social media platforms who believe they are censored for their views would be able to file a consumer complaint with the Texas attorney general. The attorney general could then decide whether to bring a public case against that social media platform.

Texas isn’t the only state that is doing something about social media censorship. As an example, lawmakers in California filed a bill that would prohibit anyone who operates a social media site in the state from removing content from the site based on the political affiliation or viewpoint. But given the dominance of Demonrats in the California state legislature, that bill is unlikely to pass.

4.0
01
Please follow and like us:
error0
 

30
Leave a Reply

avatar
17 Comment authors
The MhorsegirlirateirishmanFreeSpeechisFreeSpeechLindy Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Goldbug
Guest
Goldbug

I suspect most social media sites (especially Facebook) were initially developed and introduced to an unthinking public by the globalist cabal intent on rendering the masses helpless and without a voice. Intentional or not, they have succeeded. And still, people cling to these evil entities as though they’re best friends.

Dave of Oregonm
Guest

My thought regarding social media that is left leaning, is simple DONT USE THEM as your platform form for discussion. Start a free speech platform of your own. The trouble with that is when a centrist or right leaning platform is started, the folks who run them are also censoring the speech or thoughts of the left. Yes there are social media platforms who will allow a right thinker on, but there is no dialog for the right thinker to bounce ideas off of, and it gets pretty dull. People need some kind of brain exercise to get their brain… Read more »

William
Member
William

They already applied an objective standard by citing “promoting hate and violence” as the reason for removing Jones, et.al. But they couldn’t demonstrate that this was objectively true which means they employed subjective standards, they simply want conservative voices silenced. And that’s censorship, a violation of first amendment rights, despite what (((Harvard Law School lecturer Kendra Albert))) says. She (?) does a lot of TG stuff, difficult to tell if she/he is a tranny, just a kind of genderless buzz-cut ragbag

greenworxx
Guest
greenworxx

I watched Infowars’ videos from Friday through Sunday. I watched Laura Loomer, who is always composed and rational, break down during her interview. She has had her bank close her account, she can’t use Uber or Air B&B. Big tech are using Nazi style tactics with the collusion of Leftist corporations to censor and refuse basic everyday services to well known conservatives. They usually don’t provide reasons why they are refusing services or terminating one’s social media accounts…… at least not providing specific proof of so-called offenses. Now, they are coming after we regular conservatives. It’s not just social media… Read more »

RoyalRaven
Guest
RoyalRaven

Texas should just shut down all social media until the cucks and tards scream “gimme back my facebook”. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

Lorenzo Horalek
Guest
Lorenzo Horalek

But wait…with the gay wedding cake case where the bakery WON at the Supreme Court — that a private business can refuse to do business with people they don’t like for any or no reason… just find ANOTHER bakery instead of whining……How can you argue for the government making a law that a private business like Facebook MUST provide a free platform for people they don’t like. When you are forced to give away something against your will…isn’t that STEALING? Isn’t the correct answer the same in both cases =- find another social media provider

Lophatt
Member
Lophatt

B.C. (Before Clinton), we had a “Fairness Doctrine” that applied to broadcast media. Basically, any licensed media would have their broadcast license revoked if they provided unequal airtime for a particular political agenda. Clinton removed this rule by EO. It would be a simple matter to reinstate it and apply it to all broadcast and public media. The whole idea of a democracy (even a democratic republic) depends on an informed public. That is why the “press” has been called the “Fourth Branch” of government. Again, the idea is that they exist as a “platform” (just as these internet service… Read more »

JustSaying
Guest
JustSaying

If anything needs to be censored/taken down… it’s FAKE/COMMUNIST NEWS ORGANISATION’S MSNBC and CNN~~~~

Maryaha
Guest
Maryaha

Gee, I am old enough to remember when the phrase “It’s a free country” was spoken every single day. If people didn’t agree with each other about something, they would simply say, “Hey man, I don’t agree with what you are saying, but it’s a free country”. I never hear that spoken anymore.

If this bill is passed in Texas, Alex Jones should have a heyday since he is in Austin.

me an myself
Guest
me an myself

Dont be on Facebook. Problem solved

Auntie Lulu
Guest
Auntie Lulu

Over the weekend I wrote to POTUS, citing this very dilemma. For Social Media to be able to gag the mouths of anyone they wish to stifle is absolutely immoral. People need to contact political leaders and complain. I don’t understand why this kind of behavior on their part is not a violation of anti-trust laws.

Jackie Puppet
Member

As usual, President Trump did some huffing and puffing with this tweet: I am continuing to monitor the censorship of AMERICAN CITIZENS on social media platforms. This is the United States of America — and we have what’s known as FREEDOM OF SPEECH! We are monitoring and watching, closely!! Yeah, Mr. President – I’m sure you got the big bad social media companies all scared of you now… ? Unless Big Tech has made threats against your family (like some very deep state actors most likely have), your inaction on this issue’s inexcusable. It already cost the GOP the mid-terms,… Read more »

Lindy
Guest
Lindy

Bill Still (Still Report – you tube) did a report on a new site called Hard Core Conservatives a new social network site. When there is no other way, people invent a way.

FreeSpeechisFreeSpeech
Guest
FreeSpeechisFreeSpeech

When are we going to take a hard look at the status we afford these tech giants as being a platform vs publisher? If they want to operate as a private company they then lose their platform status. “The dominant social media companies must choose: if they are neutral platforms, they should have immunity from litigation. If they are publishers making editorial choices, then they should relinquish this valuable exemption. They can’t claim that Section 230 immunity is necessary to protect free speech, while they shape, control, and censor the speech on their platforms. Either the courts or Congress should… Read more »

horsegirl
Guest
horsegirl

Hello, I’m a newbie here… let’s see if I can even post a test response…

The M
Guest
The M

Hey, I am unable to subscribe to your newsletter, it gives me an error message. It seems the company that handles your Newsletters bailed on you and didn’t inform you.