Welcome to Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate Forum

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

cope and seethe
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 1, 2018
Posts
29,095
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:
based federalist judges
 
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:
 
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.
 
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
 
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:
 
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:
 
fucking based. sick of plandemic censorship
 
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:
 
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:
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
Clown world is in flames at this very moment. Let soyciety burn in their rage.
 
Twitter restricted pro-lgbt views?
 
reddit sucks donky cunt anyway tbhngldedsrsngltbh but id be happy to see the subs to come back just to make people seethe about it.
 
your snarky and high iq news reports made me join this forum
 
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?
 
bro someone hacked your account and made your avi a doxxing selfie of you
 
how do you think it will go in the highest court? about time to end this bullshit the censorship is as bad as china
 
TLDR: When can we expect results?
 
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.
 
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
 
Fuck, im not gonna read that wall of text. Are they gonna reopen that subs ?
 
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.
 
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..
 
update as this develops
 
I'm for anything that drives Reddit cunts insane. [More so than they already are.] :feelsjuice:
 
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.
 
News: Florida seeks certiorari from SCOTUS in a bid to reverse an earlier Eleventh Circuit ruling that blocked a similar social media law.

 
are things turning back again?
Maybe the feds got blackpill by browsing too much here
 
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:
 
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
 
we need teh vibrancy of brainCELS here
 
why the fuck would anyone trade this forum for cuckit? inferior design and more speech restrictions.
 
Would be unfathomably based.
 
If braincels is back up, it just might be worth tolerating reddit.
 
r/Braincels was more fun than .is.

More memes, fewer reeing homos crying about how everybody else is a fakecel. It was like an endless party mix of sewers and Inceldom Discussion.

But braincels no longer exists, and .is exists, so that's a pretty big point in .is' favour.

Who in their right mind would try to rebuild an incel sub on reddit? We know what their intentions are, we know that they would cancel us again in a heartbeat if they saw a new way to do it. Why would you go there?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape5
shape6
Back
Top