Worse Legal Tweets

19/ Again, what?!? Here's why, Larry: Because this isn't 'Nam, there are rules. Namely, the laws that make it a civil rights violation for a physical place of public accommodation (which doesn't include websites, by the way) to discriminate on the basis of race. pic.twitter.com/HUfX6iIcQb

— Ari Cohn (@AriCohn) May 11, 2021

I ran into this “argument” the other day (on “Bad Legal Tweets,” which will tell you a great deal already). The argument there was, if you can require a baker to bake a cake, you can require Twitter/Facebook/Google to host what you want them to host/allow content from anyone who wants to post it.

The problem is the requirement on the baker is not a general principle of common law; it’s a specific provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which applies to bakeries, but not to internet platforms.

This is why you don’t pretend to be a lawyer on the intertoobs.

And of course I’m still wondering how you “break up” Facebook or Google.  Make the former give up Instragram, or the latter give up YouTube?

12/ More hysterics. You'd almost think Larry believes that the Facebook police is going to come take him away for a conversation he had with his neighbor on his front lawn.

And Larry, if there are at least five companies you're complaining about...it isn't a monopoly. pic.twitter.com/hetx5np5lu

— Ari Cohn (@AriCohn) May 11, 2021

That last line is my favorite, because I've come to favor simplicity in argument on a public forum.  I could spend a long time trying to explain to you exactly why the Civil Rights Act doesn’t apply in this discussion, and why there is no general legal principle applicable to internet platforms requiring them to do what some American conservatives want them to do.  Much easier to simply point out that when there are at least five companies identifiable as social media platforms, by definition there is no monopoly.  You don’t have to understand the Sherman Anti-Trust Act to understand that. Now maybe you want to show collusion between the five, a conspiracy to control the market, but Twitter dropped Trump in perpetuity; Facebook is going to revisit its decision again in six months.  Kind of hard to see how they’re working together to control the market, on this basis.

And besides, there’s still Parler, Gab, Instagram, Snapchat, and “Frank.”  And Tik-Tok.  There was quite a bit of commentary on Trump via Tik-Tok during his presidency.  There are also blogs.  Trump has a blog.  If it wasn’t for Section 230, he probably couldn’t have that (section 230 protects platforms from being responsible for the irresponsible things bloggers (among other users) say.  It’s the only reason Google still leaves me on Blogger.  Well, that and nobody notices....).

This is just running around the mulberry bush, though.  There’s nothing in this that will ever end up in court, or be a basis for a Supreme Court determination.

21/ Ye Olde Common Carrier is an argument that many latch on to and few understand. Websites aren't common carriers, and trying to force them to treat all speech equally would violate the First Amendment. See more here: https://t.co/RHZBBOTe4a & here: https://t.co/ugYxWtfzRS\...\

— Ari Cohn (@AriCohn) May 11, 2021

That's as close as the Court has gotten so far, and Thomas’ opinion shows little understanding of the law and no understanding whatsoever of the internet, so Lordelpus if we ever get close to the courts without a better case than these clowns want to bring.

I haven’t forgotten these same idiots lost 60+ cases on similar “evidence” and “legal reasoning.”  As one “brave” Republican Senator reminded us the other day, even Giuliani admitted in court that he wasn’t bringing a fraud case.  He never did, because he couldn’t prove it.  Nothing has gotten better for them since.

God save the courts.