Court ruling could thwart Google censorship

 Breitbart:

A court in Ohio has ruled that a lawsuit from state Attorney General Dave Yost, which labels Google a common carrier subject to special regulations and litigation, can proceed, a significant development for Republicans seeking to hold tech companies accountable for bias and censorship.

Under U.S. law, common carriers are subject to strict regulations about who they can and cannot deny service to. Along with businesses categorized as public accommodations, they are expected to provide service to all paying customers on a non-discriminatory basis. Examples of common carriers in the U.S. include utilities and telecommunications companies.

In his ruling, Judge James P. Schuck picked apart a common argument used by tech companies and their defenders: that requiring them to carry certain types of speech violates the First Amendment rights of companies.

“Courts have held that infringing on a private actor’s speech by requiring that actor to host another person’s speech does not always violate the First Amendment,” wrote Schuck in his ruling. “There are several examples in which private companies involved in mass communications were prohibited from censorship.”

Yost’s lawsuit argues that Google should not prioritize its own products and services in search results, claiming that consumers in Ohio are harmed by the tech giant’s anti-competitive behavior, which denies them the information needed to make informed choices.
...

Other GOP states are also considering litigation against tech companies that discriminate against conservatives. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Should Republicans go ahead and add Supreme Court Justices to head off Democrats

Washington Post: Some Democrats eye adding more justices to the Supreme Court to change its ideological bent The once-remote idea has gained the attention of liberals angered by the GOP push to remake the federal courts. Probably the easy way to defeat this court-packing scheme is for Trump to propose doing the same thing now.  It would lead to Democrat denunciations and claims that it would be wrong, thereby blowing up any attempt by them in the unfortunate event of Democrats winning a presidential election.
Read more

29 % of companies say they are unlikely to keep insurance after Obamacare

Conn Carroll: A new survey of 368 midsize to large companies found that 29% of them are considering terminating their active employee health care plans when Obamacare is full implemented in 2014. Only 71% of employers surveyed said they did not expect to drop their health coverage, while 20% said they did not know and 9% said they were planning to exit. The latest survey, conducted by Towers Watson, echoes an ealier survey by McKinsey & Co. finding that 30% of private-sector employers were planning to drop their employee health insurance coverage by 2014. When the Congressional Budget Office crunched Obamacare's spending numbers, they estimated that only 7% of employees currently covered by employer-sponsored plans would lose their plans. ... This means the cost of the health care fiasco will be hundreds of billions more than estimated by the CBO and Congressional Democrat. It is also clear that Obama's pledge that you could keep your health care plan if you wanted t...
Read more

Is the F-35 obsolete?

Headline USA: Pentagon Fires Back after Musk Calls Its Most Expensive Project ‘Obsolete’ 'Yeah, as I'm sure you can appreciate, Mr. Musk is, currently, a private citizen, I'm not going to make any comments about what a private citizen may have to say about the F-35....'   ... ... Drones appear to be replacing jets for many operations.  The Russia-Ukraine war is an example of that.  Drones are often hard to detect and can be used for intelligence operations as well as for attacking enemy targets.  It would not surprise me to see drones engaging other drones in combat.  They also cost much less than manned fighters.  
Read more