Down The Twitter Hole

In today’s essay I will explain how the Violence Against Women Act deputizes girls to reject nice guys and how that makes girls state actors. As my colleague Prof. Eastman and I will establish, 1/237 https://t.co/rdJIMQ1ZMO

— DemonicEntitiesHat (@Popehat) September 6, 2021

I started there. The quoted tweet lead me to that twitter feed. Where I find this:

I ask that any self-professed Section 230 scholars read the text of 230(c)(2) and not conflate it with (c)(1).

Then, read and understand the article I co-wrote with a top constitutional scholar this year.

After that, all comments are welcome.https://t.co/fhkX5Uza4d

— Vivek Ramaswamy (@VivekGRamaswamy) September 5, 2021

With this pathetically idiotic analogy:

Suppose the US government pays tech companies $10k apiece to remove “hate speech” and “misinformation” that the government can’t censor directly.

That’s a clear constitutional violation.

It’s no different when they immunize those companies from state tort law for doing the same

— Vivek Ramaswamy (@VivekGRamaswamy) September 6, 2021

You can suppose that all you want, but the Texas law allows private actors to sue other private actors for a minimum of $10,000 in damages. The State of Texas is not paying individual plaintiffs $10,000 to rat out abortion providers or seekers in violation of the new law. That would be a direct violation of Roe and its progeny, or, as he puts it, "That's a clear constituitonal violation." If federal law allowed me to sue Twitter for removing your tweets, and recover a minimum of $10,000 in damages, that would be analagous to Texas law.  It would also be a bizarre legal situation, allowing me to recover damages for something that has nothing whatsoever to do with me, except I get to milct Twitter.  That's the law in Texas; and that's the problem with the law.*

As for his analysis of Section 230:

Also, Section 230(c)(2) doesn't immunize companies from removing speech FOR REMOVING SPEECH. It clarifies that having SOME content moderation doesn't mean that a platform is signing up to stand by everything else on the platform, which is obviously untenable.

— Brielle Claremont (@BrielleClaremo1) September 6, 2021

I've seen enough "legal analysis" on Twitter, or even op-ed pages, to know the analysis is worth what you pay for it. Even Laurence Tribe pulls boners on Twitter. If you want to write a cogent and respected analysis of any statute, you publish it in a law journal; or you publish it as a judicial opinion. Everything below that is as useless as tits on a boar hog. Including my legal analytical thoughts on this blog.

*And it's the problem with the Texas law that has nothing to do with "blue state" residents being able to sue "red state" residents for buying guns, or some such possibility.  What is the connection between me and your abortion that I get to take money from you (and/or the doctor) for your engaging in a perfectly legal procedure?  Where is the damage to me that must be recompensed?  This statute just turns the entire torts system on its head.