Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate

Welcome! This is a forum for involuntary celibates: people who lack a significant other. Are you lonely and wish you had someone in your life? You're not alone! Join our forum and talk to people just like you.

News Federal appeals court upholds Texas social media law: Could Reddit eventually be forced to reinstate incel subreddits?

PPEcel

PPEcel

Director of Counter-Counter-Radicalization
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 1, 2018
Posts
28,734
Online
273d 11h 33m
Yesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit released its opinion in NetChoice, L.L.C v. Paxton. I'm not exaggerating when I say that this is the probably the most dramatic First Amendment decision from any federal appellate court this century. Rushing this post so probably some typos/errors.

You can read it here:

Relevant news article:

View: https://twitter.com/markets/status/1570901842791473153

Background

Bryan Hughes by Gage Skidmore
Texas State Senator Bryan Hughes (R), sponsor of H.B. 20

In 2021, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) signed into law House Bill 20, a bill that purportedly prevents social media websites with over 50 million monthly active users from censoring them. Section 7 of this bill creates a private right of action allowing Texan users to seek declaratory and injunctive relief should they or their expression be censored on the basis of:
  • the viewpoint of the user or another person;
  • the viewpoint represented in the user’s expression or another person’s expression; or
  • a user’s geographic location in Texas or any part of Texas
This applies only to expression protected by the First Amendment; in other words, social media websites can still censor speech that they are required to censor by federal law. But as we all know, the First Amendment is far less restrictive than the content moderation rules set forth in virtually every social media website's TOS; protecting hateful viewpoints, vulgar language, pornography, and more.

As soon as House Bill 20 became law, lobbyists for the tech industry (NetChoice) immediately filed suit, and the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas preliminarily enjoined its enforcement. Texas appealed, and after oral argument, the Fifth Circuit stayed the injunction without releasing an opinion. NetChoice then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

On May 31st, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the stay in a 5-4 vote and granted NetChoice's request to block the Texan law—for now. Justice Alito, joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch, filed a short six-page dissent; whilst reiterating that he had "not formed a definitive view on the novel legal questions" posted by House Bill 20. Justice Kagan also indicated that she would have upheld the Fifth Circuit's stay, but declined to join Alito's dissent.

The Summary

The First Amendment prevents state actors from proscribing speech. Social media platforms are not state actors, so they do not infringe on the First Amendment when they censor users. But can states separately regulate social media platforms by explicitly preventing them from censoring their users?

NetChoice says no; because corporations have First Amendment rights, Twitter and Meta has a First Amendment right to editorial discretion, so they can censor content on their websites as they see fit. Texas says yes, arguing that the historical text and tradition of the First Amendment does not support a "right to censor", and that House Bill 20 regulates not the platforms' speech, but their conduct.

That the Fifth Circuit ruled in favor of Texas yesterday was no significant surprise considering that the Fifth Circuit stayed the district court's injunction after oral argument. The significance is the scope and forcefulness of Judge Oldham's opinion:
The implications of the platforms’ argument are staggering. On the platforms’ view, email providers, mobile phone companies, and banks could cancel the accounts of anyone who sends an email, makes a phone call, or spends money in support of a disfavored political party, candidate, or business. What’s worse, the platforms argue that a business can acquire a dominant market position by holding itself out as open to everyone—as Twitter did in championing itself as “the free speech wing of the free speech party.” Blue Br. at 6 & n.4. Then, having cemented itself as the monopolist of “the modern public square,” Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730, 1737 (2017), Twitter unapologetically argues that it could turn around and ban all pro-LGBT speech for no other reason than its employees want to pick on members of that community.

Today we reject the idea that corporations have a freewheeling First Amendment right to censor what people say. Because the district court held otherwise, we reverse its injunction and remand for further proceedings.

From Judge Edith Jones' concurrence:
In particular, it is ludicrous to assert, as NetChoice does, that in forbidding the covered platforms from exercising viewpoint-based “censorship,” the platforms’ “own speech” is curtailed. But for their advertising such “censorship”—or for the censored parties’ voicing their suspicions about such actions—no one would know about the goals of their algorithmic magic. It is hard to construe as “speech” what the speaker never says, or when it acts so vaguely as to be incomprehensible.

Notes

Andrew S Oldham
Oldham before the Senate Judiciary Committee

Some background on Judge Oldham: The Fifth Circuit is undeniably the most conservative of the 13 federal appeals courts in the United States. Of the 16 active judges on its bench; 12 are Republican appointees. And Judge Oldham is one of the most conservative judges on the Fifth Circuit. A graduate of Cambridge University and Harvard Law School, Oldham clerked for Justice Alito before working for the Texas Solicitor General's Office. In 2013, Oldham filed an amicus brief arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court should invalidate part of the Voting Rights Act, which the Court eventually did in Shelby County v. Holder. Later on, he also drafted arguments in favor of abortion restrictions in Whole Women's Health v. Hellerstedt (2016) (overturned by Dobbs); against environmental regulations in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA (2014); and more.

So there's no question that Oldham carries consistently conservative positions; and aged just 39 when Trump nominated him to the federal bench, Judge Oldham could very well "own the libs" for over four decades.

Whilst the idea of having conservative states force Reddit and Twitter to host misogynistic speech is deliciously tempting and mildly based, I do think Judge Oldham left more questions than answers over his analyses of both the compelled speech doctrine and the overbreadth doctrine of the First Amendment. But that's probably best left for a discussion another day.

In any case, NetChoice will probably appeal the Fifth Circuit's decision to the U.S. Supreme Court; and given that the Eleventh Circuit reached the opposite conclusion when blocking a similar Florida law, creating a circuit split, the Supremes will most likely grant certiorari. See NetChoice v. Moody (11th Cir. 2021). It's difficult to tell how the highest court will decide to untangle the many technical questions involved in this case, or even how individual justices would rule. What is sure, though, is that the instant case is likely to influence the internet more than any other since Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union (1997).
 
Last edited:
Transcended Trucel

Transcended Trucel

Dharma Maxxer
★★★★★
Joined
Feb 16, 2019
Posts
40,103
Online
395d 4h 25m
based federalist judges
 
PLA1092

PLA1092

I.N.C.E.L. Special Agent
★★★★★
Joined
Feb 3, 2022
Posts
11,493
Online
45d 11h 34m
Cool, although I still would not want to go on Reddit... :feelsaww:

I'm just fine here, without brigading bluepillers and foids who come saying they're "just asking questions", or those who will blatantly LARP as incels with no way to restrict them. :feelsclown:
 
I

imanuglysob

Captain
★★★★
Joined
Dec 17, 2021
Posts
1,814
Online
32d 23h 59m
at some point big tech is going to be regulated, very curious if it will be done in congress and/or SCOTUS. i have a feeling that ultimately most companies won't be forced to reinstate banned users/subs though.
 
subhuman

subhuman

Born to die. Forced to live.
★★★★★
Joined
Apr 9, 2022
Posts
9,304
Online
69d 4h 29m
Cool, although I still would not want to go on Reddit... :feelsaww:

I'm just fine here, without brigading bluepillers and foids who come saying they're "just asking questions", or those who will blatantly LARP as incels with no way to restrict them. :feelsclown:
yeah going back to reddit would just be inviting even more infiltrators and foids. its the dumbest thing we could ever do. i like the safe space we have rn
 
PLA1092

PLA1092

I.N.C.E.L. Special Agent
★★★★★
Joined
Feb 3, 2022
Posts
11,493
Online
45d 11h 34m
You have me on your watchlist.
I have a lot of people that I watch... :feelsjuice:

Still don't know why you're accusing me of LARPing. :smonk:
 
PLA1092

PLA1092

I.N.C.E.L. Special Agent
★★★★★
Joined
Feb 3, 2022
Posts
11,493
Online
45d 11h 34m
Big glowie in the building
JFL, the guy who has contradicted his own posts more than once and spams repetitive threads 50 times a day is calling me a glowie... :feelskek:

I wonder if your ban has dissuaded you from the spamposting, finally. :feelswhere:
 
AsiaCel

AsiaCel

BETA UPRISING
★★★★★
Joined
Nov 24, 2017
Posts
10,494
Online
29d 4h 59m
fucking based. sick of plandemic censorship
 
PLA1092

PLA1092

I.N.C.E.L. Special Agent
★★★★★
Joined
Feb 3, 2022
Posts
11,493
Online
45d 11h 34m
Show proof, faggot.
Well, you could take a look at my profile and who I follow... :feelshehe:


And infer from it that I probably watch a lot of people as well. :smonk:
 
bagofshit99

bagofshit99

BASEDCEL and SHITPILLED
-
Joined
Oct 2, 2021
Posts
2,078
Online
28d 10h 58m
at some point big tech is going to be regulated, very curious if it will be done in congress and/or SCOTUS.
maybe this is finally the end of the reign of the globohomo
once the censorship ends logic will inevitably prevail

this should shift public opinion (now that the public is again ALLOWED to have an opinion)
which will ultimately change the laws

i have a feeling that ultimately most companies won't be forced to reinstate banned users/subs though.
but all one needs to do is re-create the group or a similar group and they can't touch it
 
Last edited:
Man

Man

Manliest man
★★
Joined
Jul 11, 2022
Posts
1,692
Online
21d 20h 33m
Internet censorship made me a degenerate cuck, I had no opposing points of view readily available for almost a decade of internet use.


The only politics available were overwhelmingly liberal.

The only information available was politically driven.

Any opposing views were quickly silenced and discussion was one-sided. It's hard to be convincing when only one side can disseminate information.


And it's all censored under the guise of 'free speech'? How fucking ironic. Those assholes belong at the bottom of the ocean.

You control speech, you control people; it's that simple.
 
bagofshit99

bagofshit99

BASEDCEL and SHITPILLED
-
Joined
Oct 2, 2021
Posts
2,078
Online
28d 10h 58m
Internet censorship made me a degenerate cuck, I had no opposing points of view readily available for almost a decade of internet use.


The only politics available were overwhelmingly liberal.

The only information available was politically driven.

Any opposing views were quickly silenced and discussion was one-sided. It's hard to be convincing when only one side can disseminate information.


And it's all censored under the guise of 'free speech'? How fucking ironic. Those assholes belong at the bottom of the ocean.

You control speech, you control people; it's that simple.

facebook also admitted limiting the reach or deprioritizing 'harmful' content

the unbelievable TRANNY BULLSHIT that has gone on the last 5 years would not be possible without internet censorship

NOT ONLY IS IT GROSS and NOBODY WANTS IT

but it's also based on PSEUDOSCIENCE and NOBODY is allowed to contest it
 
LeFrenchCel

LeFrenchCel

My postcount = your oneitis' bodycount
★★★★★
Joined
Apr 29, 2020
Posts
8,620
Online
67d 10h 49m
Good, but even if incel subreddits are allowed again on that website, it's very likely they'll be raided by soys and that incels won't use them.
 
AsgardTheFatcel

AsgardTheFatcel

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
★★
Joined
Mar 25, 2022
Posts
3,691
Online
16d 13h 23m
Good, but even if incel subreddits are allowed again on that website, it's very likely they'll be raided by soys and that incels won't use them.
 
AsgardTheFatcel

AsgardTheFatcel

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
★★
Joined
Mar 25, 2022
Posts
3,691
Online
16d 13h 23m
Clown world is in flames at this very moment. Let soyciety burn in their rage.
 
Caesercel

Caesercel

Salem’s Lot Cel
★★★★★
Joined
Jun 14, 2020
Posts
19,211
Online
324d 1m
Twitter restricted pro-lgbt views?
 
The Enforcer

The Enforcer

Not fit to survive
★★★★★
Joined
Jul 25, 2021
Posts
2,464
Online
47d 18h 49m
reddit sucks donky cunt anyway tbhngldedsrsngltbh but id be happy to see the subs to come back just to make people seethe about it.
 
Knull

Knull

Face > Life
★★★★★
Joined
Jun 18, 2022
Posts
7,275
Online
48d 43m
Cool, although I still would not want to go on Reddit... :feelsaww:

I'm just fine here, without brigading bluepillers and foids who come saying they're "just asking questions", or those who will blatantly LARP as incels with no way to restrict them. :feelsclown:
Or seeing shit like this:
A
 
Boredmentalcel

Boredmentalcel

Recruit
★★
Joined
Sep 12, 2022
Posts
164
Online
21h 26m
your snarky and high iq news reports made me join this forum
 
ilieknothing

ilieknothing

كاريسل
★★★★★
Joined
Nov 8, 2017
Posts
7,991
Online
167d 5h 45m
I don’t understand how one state can force these websites to be based? Wouldn’t they just put their offices in a soy state like California?
 
CoomerCommander

CoomerCommander

Recruit
★★★
Joined
Aug 4, 2021
Posts
269
Online
1d 23h 57m
Indari

Indari

fists of fury
★★★★★
Joined
Nov 7, 2017
Posts
33,496
Online
191d 9h 41m
bro someone hacked your account and made your avi a doxxing selfie of you
 
PPEcel

PPEcel

Director of Counter-Counter-Radicalization
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 1, 2018
Posts
28,734
Online
273d 11h 33m
R

rottingricecel

Officer
★★
Joined
Sep 8, 2021
Posts
601
Online
22d 22h 54m
how do you think it will go in the highest court? about time to end this bullshit the censorship is as bad as china
 
RandomBroCel

RandomBroCel

Voicecel
★★
Joined
May 8, 2021
Posts
1,185
Online
14d 22h 7m
TLDR: When can we expect results?
 
Puppeter

Puppeter

Captain at special incel service
★★★
Joined
Apr 10, 2022
Posts
3,207
Online
25d 14h 34m
at some point big tech is going to be regulated, very curious if it will be done in congress and/or SCOTUS. i have a feeling that ultimately most companies won't be forced to reinstate banned users/subs though.
 
Simulacrasimulation

Simulacrasimulation

Legend
Joined
Dec 25, 2019
Posts
3,537
Online
129d 11h 44m
Yesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit released its opinion in NetChoice, L.L.C v. Paxton. I'm not exaggerating when I say that this is the probably the most dramatic First Amendment decision from any federal appellate court this century. Rushing this post so probably some typos/errors.

You can read it here:

Relevant news article:

View: https://twitter.com/markets/status/1570901842791473153

Background

View attachment 656507
Texas State Senator Bryan Hughes (R), sponsor of H.B. 20

In 2021, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) signed into law House Bill 20, a bill that purportedly prevents social media websites with over 50 million monthly active users from censoring them. Section 7 of this bill creates a private right of action allowing Texan users to seek declaratory and injunctive relief should they or their expression be censored on the basis of:
  • the viewpoint of the user or another person;
  • the viewpoint represented in the user’s expression or another person’s expression; or
  • a user’s geographic location in Texas or any part of Texas
This applies only to expression protected by the First Amendment; in other words, social media websites can still censor speech that they are required to censor by federal law. But as we all know, the First Amendment is far less restrictive than the content moderation rules set forth in virtually every social media website's TOS; protecting hateful viewpoints, vulgar language, pornography, and more.

As soon as House Bill 20 became law, lobbyists for the tech industry (NetChoice) immediately filed suit, and the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas preliminarily enjoined its enforcement. Texas appealed, and after oral argument, the Fifth Circuit stayed the injunction without releasing an opinion. NetChoice then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

On May 31st, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the stay in a 5-4 vote and granted NetChoice's request to block the Texan law—for now. Justice Alito, joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch, filed a short six-page dissent; whilst reiterating that he had "not formed a definitive view on the novel legal questions" posted by House Bill 20. Justice Kagan also indicated that she would have upheld the Fifth Circuit's stay, but declined to join Alito's dissent.

The Summary

The First Amendment prevents state actors from proscribing speech. Social media platforms are not state actors, so they do not infringe on the First Amendment when they censor users. But can states separately regulate social media platforms by explicitly preventing them from censoring their users?

NetChoice says no; because corporations have First Amendment rights, Twitter and Meta has a First Amendment right to editorial discretion, so they can censor content on their websites as they see fit. Texas says yes, arguing that the historical text and tradition of the First Amendment does not support a "right to censor", and that House Bill 20 regulates not the platforms' speech, but their conduct.

That the Fifth Circuit ruled in favor of Texas yesterday was no significant surprise considering that the Fifth Circuit stayed the district court's injunction after oral argument. The significance is the scope and forcefulness of Judge Oldham's opinion:


From Judge Edith Jones' concurrence:


Notes

View attachment 656533
Oldham before the Senate Judiciary Committee

Some background on Judge Oldham: The Fifth Circuit is undeniably the most conservative of the 13 federal appeals courts in the United States. Of the 16 active judges on its bench; 12 are Republican appointees. And Judge Oldham is one of the most conservative judges on the Fifth Circuit. A graduate of Cambridge University and Harvard Law School, Oldham clerked for Justice Alito before working for the Texas Solicitor General's Office. In 2013, Oldham filed an amicus brief arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court should invalidate part of the Voting Rights Act, which the Court eventually did in Shelby County v. Holder. Later on, he also drafted arguments in favor of abortion restrictions in Whole Women's Health v. Hellerstedt (2016) (overturned by Dobbs); against environmental regulations in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA (2014); and more.

So there's no question that Oldham carries consistently conservative positions; and aged just 39 when Trump nominated him to the federal bench, Judge Oldham could very well "own the libs" for over four decades.

Whilst the idea of having conservative states force Reddit and Twitter to host misogynistic speech is deliciously tempting and mildly based, I do think Judge Oldham left more questions than answers over his analyses of both the compelled speech doctrine and the overbreadth doctrine of the First Amendment. But that's probably best left for a discussion another day.

In any case, NetChoice will probably appeal the Fifth Circuit's decision to the U.S. Supreme Court; and given that the Eleventh Circuit reached the opposite conclusion when blocking a similar Florida law, creating a circuit split, the Supremes will most likely grant certiorari. See NetChoice v. Moody (11th Cir. 2021). It's difficult to tell how the highest court will decide to untangle the many technical questions involved in this case, or even how individual justices would rule. What is sure, though, is that the instant case is likely to influence the internet more than any other since Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union (1997).

lol in the statute it mentions FACIALLY

JUST FUCKING LOL EVEN THE US CONSTITUTION IS BECOMING BLACKPILLED ON LOOKISM
 
decembrist_kirillov

decembrist_kirillov

coping till death
★★★★★
Joined
Dec 12, 2021
Posts
17,671
Online
46d 6h 55m
Fuck, im not gonna read that wall of text. Are they gonna reopen that subs ?
 
I

Indracel

Greycel
★★★★★
Joined
Jul 21, 2022
Posts
2,411
Online
35d 3h 19m
Yesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit released its opinion in NetChoice, L.L.C v. Paxton. I'm not exaggerating when I say that this is the probably the most dramatic First Amendment decision from any federal appellate court this century. Rushing this post so probably some typos/errors.

You can read it here:

Relevant news article:

View: https://twitter.com/markets/status/1570901842791473153

Background

View attachment 656507
Texas State Senator Bryan Hughes (R), sponsor of H.B. 20

In 2021, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) signed into law House Bill 20, a bill that purportedly prevents social media websites with over 50 million monthly active users from censoring them. Section 7 of this bill creates a private right of action allowing Texan users to seek declaratory and injunctive relief should they or their expression be censored on the basis of:
  • the viewpoint of the user or another person;
  • the viewpoint represented in the user’s expression or another person’s expression; or
  • a user’s geographic location in Texas or any part of Texas
This applies only to expression protected by the First Amendment; in other words, social media websites can still censor speech that they are required to censor by federal law. But as we all know, the First Amendment is far less restrictive than the content moderation rules set forth in virtually every social media website's TOS; protecting hateful viewpoints, vulgar language, pornography, and more.

As soon as House Bill 20 became law, lobbyists for the tech industry (NetChoice) immediately filed suit, and the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas preliminarily enjoined its enforcement. Texas appealed, and after oral argument, the Fifth Circuit stayed the injunction without releasing an opinion. NetChoice then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

On May 31st, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the stay in a 5-4 vote and granted NetChoice's request to block the Texan law—for now. Justice Alito, joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch, filed a short six-page dissent; whilst reiterating that he had "not formed a definitive view on the novel legal questions" posted by House Bill 20. Justice Kagan also indicated that she would have upheld the Fifth Circuit's stay, but declined to join Alito's dissent.

The Summary

The First Amendment prevents state actors from proscribing speech. Social media platforms are not state actors, so they do not infringe on the First Amendment when they censor users. But can states separately regulate social media platforms by explicitly preventing them from censoring their users?

NetChoice says no; because corporations have First Amendment rights, Twitter and Meta has a First Amendment right to editorial discretion, so they can censor content on their websites as they see fit. Texas says yes, arguing that the historical text and tradition of the First Amendment does not support a "right to censor", and that House Bill 20 regulates not the platforms' speech, but their conduct.

That the Fifth Circuit ruled in favor of Texas yesterday was no significant surprise considering that the Fifth Circuit stayed the district court's injunction after oral argument. The significance is the scope and forcefulness of Judge Oldham's opinion:


From Judge Edith Jones' concurrence:


Notes

View attachment 656533
Oldham before the Senate Judiciary Committee

Some background on Judge Oldham: The Fifth Circuit is undeniably the most conservative of the 13 federal appeals courts in the United States. Of the 16 active judges on its bench; 12 are Republican appointees. And Judge Oldham is one of the most conservative judges on the Fifth Circuit. A graduate of Cambridge University and Harvard Law School, Oldham clerked for Justice Alito before working for the Texas Solicitor General's Office. In 2013, Oldham filed an amicus brief arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court should invalidate part of the Voting Rights Act, which the Court eventually did in Shelby County v. Holder. Later on, he also drafted arguments in favor of abortion restrictions in Whole Women's Health v. Hellerstedt (2016) (overturned by Dobbs); against environmental regulations in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA (2014); and more.

So there's no question that Oldham carries consistently conservative positions; and aged just 39 when Trump nominated him to the federal bench, Judge Oldham could very well "own the libs" for over four decades.

Whilst the idea of having conservative states force Reddit and Twitter to host misogynistic speech is deliciously tempting and mildly based, I do think Judge Oldham left more questions than answers over his analyses of both the compelled speech doctrine and the overbreadth doctrine of the First Amendment. But that's probably best left for a discussion another day.

In any case, NetChoice will probably appeal the Fifth Circuit's decision to the U.S. Supreme Court; and given that the Eleventh Circuit reached the opposite conclusion when blocking a similar Florida law, creating a circuit split, the Supremes will most likely grant certiorari. See NetChoice v. Moody (11th Cir. 2021). It's difficult to tell how the highest court will decide to untangle the many technical questions involved in this case, or even how individual justices would rule. What is sure, though, is that the instant case is likely to influence the internet more than any other since Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union (1997).


I find this highly sus.

If the state passes a law requiring us to allow foids and bluepillers on .is that's constitutional? :feelshehe:
 
PPEcel

PPEcel

Director of Counter-Counter-Radicalization
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 1, 2018
Posts
28,734
Online
273d 11h 33m
lol in the statute it mentions FACIALLY

JUST FUCKING LOL EVEN THE US CONSTITUTION IS BECOMING BLACKPILLED ON LOOKISM

It's not. In American constitutional law, a facial challenge is an argument that a statute is unconstitutional on its face (i.e. in its entirety) and should be invalidated. When a law is declared facially unconstitutional, it means said law is incompatible with the Constitution and must be struck down.

On the other hand, an as-applied challenge is a claim that a particular application of a statute is unconstitutional.

I find this highly sus.

If the state passes a law requiring us to allow foids and bluepillers on .is that's constitutional? :feelshehe:
Exactly one of these compelled speech issues I was talking out. Although I think we could simply declare the blackpill a religion and argue that the state law violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment by not permitting us to discriminate against foid applicants to this forum, because the new SCOTUS is likely to continue to expand religious freedom.
 
BPJ

BPJ

Captain
★★
Joined
Jan 30, 2021
Posts
1,604
Online
22d 22h 31m
i love this forum, but i also miss braincels. it had the best memes...i miss it everyday..them banning us everywhere is pure undestilled evil. and they shall pay for it and eventually justice will prevail..
 
bagofshit99

bagofshit99

BASEDCEL and SHITPILLED
-
Joined
Oct 2, 2021
Posts
2,078
Online
28d 10h 58m
update as this develops
 
MarquisDeSade

MarquisDeSade

Mephistopheles
★★★★★
Joined
Feb 11, 2021
Posts
11,946
Online
127d 22h 45m
I'm for anything that drives Reddit cunts insane. [More so than they already are.] :feelsjuice:
 
Pixycel

Pixycel

gomenasorry
★★★★★
Joined
Sep 21, 2020
Posts
12,753
Online
291d 22h 50m
if this goes through at a federal level I'm going to spend the rest of my days spamming "Europa: the last battle" on every major social media site to accelerate the return of the quirky Austrian painter.
 
PPEcel

PPEcel

Director of Counter-Counter-Radicalization
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 1, 2018
Posts
28,734
Online
273d 11h 33m
News: Florida seeks certiorari from SCOTUS in a bid to reverse an earlier Eleventh Circuit ruling that blocked a similar social media law.

 
CurryLMAO

CurryLMAO

kill me
★★
Joined
Aug 11, 2022
Posts
2,657
Online
18d 7h 14m
are things turning back again?
Maybe the feds got blackpill by browsing too much here
 
PPEcel

PPEcel

Director of Counter-Counter-Radicalization
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 1, 2018
Posts
28,734
Online
273d 11h 33m
bigantennaemay1

bigantennaemay1

Aspie social drifter without purpose or home
★★★★★
Joined
Nov 8, 2017
Posts
13,526
Online
73d 10h 2m
a bill that purportedly prevents social media websites with over 50 million monthly active users from censoring them.
Sounds like a good step forward, assuming our forum doesn't hit 50 million monthly active users. This could be used against us in censoring blue pilled, soy, cucked speech. Always beware the double-edged sword.

This is otherwise an incredibly based move by the Supreme Court, giving the First Amendment much needed support in this day and age of eroding freedom of speech, thought, and expression. :feelsjuice:
 
Cypher

Cypher

Recruit
★★★★
Joined
Oct 30, 2019
Posts
344
Online
1d 10h 59m
The incel sub was just a carbon copy of /r9k/. I like being on .is more as it actually feels like a corner of the internet your average normie doesn't want to bother with. Whereas with reddit, everything is on full display
 
totalcel

totalcel

Veteran
★★
Joined
Nov 20, 2021
Posts
1,136
Online
31d 20h 50m
we need teh vibrancy of brainCELS here
 
kretschmer

kretschmer

Mythic
Joined
Sep 29, 2020
Posts
4,518
Online
72d 6h 51m
why the fuck would anyone trade this forum for cuckit? inferior design and more speech restrictions.
 
shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape7
shape8
Top