Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton believes Elon Musk appears to want to “rule free speech on the internet” and would ban him if Tesla’s CEO goes ahead with the Twitter acquisition. I hope you will welcome it.
Musk is embroiled in a legal battle with Twitter after pulling out of a deal to acquire the social media platform.The judge overseeing the case suspended the case on Thursday Mr. Musk suggested moving forward In the original agreement to buy Twitter for $44 billion.
“He seems to want free speech to reign on the internet,” Paxton told Fox News. “We welcome anyone entering a market that allows people to speak freely and that doesn’t seek to limit people based on their political or religious stance.”
“These are the sacred rights and sacred thoughts that our founders built this nation on,” Paxton added.
Media fears Elon Musk will take over Twitter because they don’t trust American intelligence, critics say
The Attorney General has fought his own legal battle against the social media giant.A federal appeals court ruled in Paxton’s favor on Sept. has been unblocked against Texas law prohibiting the posting of
Elon Musk Promotes Free Speech At Twitter’s All Hands Conference, Says Media ‘Almost Never’ Get It Right
NetChoice and the Computer and Communications Industry Association, whose members include Facebook, Twitter and Google, sued Texas after the bill passed. Plaintiffs argued that the law was unconstitutional and violated their First Amendment right to control the content displayed on their platforms.
But Paxton believes it’s against the law for tech companies to censor posts.
“We’re talking about people being able to voice their opinions,” he told Fox News. … which means that people with more liberal views have a greater advantage over those with more conservative views.”
“So the Fifth Circuit said, ‘Wait a minute. You don’t have the ability or discretion to edit comments that you don’t like or agree with as a company,'” Paxton said.
Supreme Court to Hear Lawsuit Regarding Big Tech’s Legal Immunity from Controversial Content
The case centered around themes related to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. A 1996 law protects an Internet company from lawsuits related to content posted on her website by third parties.
This means that Facebook, for example, is protected if a user publishes defamatory or defamatory content.
“It was originally set up to be like a billboard or a place where you could post information,” Paxton told Fox News. So we weren’t responsible for what people posted on those sites, so we couldn’t be sued for defamation or defamation.”
Federal Court Rules Big Tech ‘has no liberal First Amendment right to censor’
But now, social media companies are playing their role as publishers by censoring content, especially content that’s more conservative, while benefiting from legal protections, Paxton said.
“If they can basically crush free speech and opinion—conservative and Republican views—they can give Democrats a huge advantage in every constituency across the country, from local elections to presidential elections,” he said. told Fox News.
Supreme Court Begins New Term with Oral Arguments
“They claim they’re not publishers and can’t be sued, but they’re acting as publishers,” Paxton continued. Both sides argue that if we try to regulate it by
Content moderation varies by social media platform, but tech giants such as Twitter and Facebook typically censor misinformation, hateful posts, or posts that promote violence. Paxton and other Republicans argue that conservative users and perspectives are disproportionately swept away by tech law enforcement.
“Our contention is that if you use Section 230 protections to claim that you are not a publisher, you cannot act like a publisher and discriminate against opinions,” Paxton said. rice field. “We shouldn’t be allowed to defend ourselves against defamation and slander, because other publishers can’t.”
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
But as Paxton celebrates victory in Texas, conflicting rulings on similar laws in Florida point to problems can go to the Supreme Court.
The Republican Attorney General said, “These tech companies, hiding under the name NetChoice, have appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court and hope the court will agree with their position that they can have both 230 protections. ’ I guessed. Paxton told Fox News:
“I hope the Supreme Court will not accept that argument,” he said.
Ramiro Vargas contributed the accompanying video.