The 6 Freedoms of the First Amendment and 8 Values of Free Expression put into Action

Now that we have generated some vocabulary to talk about the two topics, lets apply them to current events

Texas Senate gives initial approval to bill to stop social media companies from banning Texans for political views

You don't need to read it, I'll briefly explain it

"The Texas Senate on Tuesday gave initial approval to a measure that would prohibit social media companies with at least 100 million monthly users from blocking, banning, demonetizing or discriminating against a user based on their viewpoint or their location within Texas."

Now I shouldn't need to say this but that portion of the bill with at least 100 million monthly users is the key part. The first amendment says "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press" but it's not congress that's been taking these people's posts down, it's been the private social media organizations who have the right to manage what is essentially their property, the site, as they seem fit... is what I would say if I didn't mention Public Accommodation

Public Accommodation is private property that has been opened to the public and is therefore treated as if it is government owned

The reason that "at least 100 million monthly users" is because anything less than that you could say isn't really "open to the population"

A really lowkey example I can think of would be something close to a yard sale
It's open to the public, and by that I mean the neighborhood, and by that I mean around 100ish people, but no one would consider it government property, for that reason in particular

Sooooo, now that popular social media sites have not only been opened to the public but are essentially run by the public, it is treated as government property and therefore cannot "abridging the freedom of speech or of the press"

To quote more from the post

"Experts have raised doubts about the legality of the measure. Hughes acknowledged that, if signed into law, SB 12 would almost certainly be challenged in court. He repeatedly referred to social media platforms as common carriers, though they have never been classified as such by law or in the court system. Common carriers, such as phone companies and cable providers, are private or public companies that transport goods or people and are barred by government regulators from discriminating against customers."
“Even though they’re private actors, because they are common carriers, because they chose to enter this business and offer their services, then they are bound by certain rules,” Hughes said."

You may be thinking "well the posts that get taken down are the bad posts, it's better that they're gone"

----------------------Not Really----------------------

Not only is it still illegal to take down someone's post against the first amendment freedom of speech clause, it conflicts with the 8 Values of Free Expression, mainly

the "Marketplace of Ideas Theory" by John Milton and

the "Stable Change Theory" by Benedict Spinoza

John Milton

Benedict Spinoza

 

which basically say,

"Put it all on the table, we want to good and bad so the best truth comes forth"

But I should also mention before

everyone goes out and says whatever they want, the first amendment is not an be all end all shield for you to say whatever you want. This is because of Speech Action Dichotomy and the use of Expressive Action, in a way.

The Speech Action Dichotomy basically explains that

Speech = protected by the Govt
                you can say things and spread your opinion and they can't stop you
Action ≠ protected by the Govt
                once you do* something physically, you aren't protected

For Example:
You can PEACEFULLY protest for BLM but the second you burn the American flag or steal a police car, you're done

Expressive Action is an action intended to convey a message to an audience and the idea of an action kinda turning into protected speech

For Example:
African Americans peacefully sitting on the lobby floor of an anti black library aka
Brown v Louisiana (1966)

What I am talking about is Expressive Action, but in reverse

For Example:
Threatening the President

That's a federal crime. It's speech, so you think it's protected but no, that is a speech with a clearly not peaceful action associated to it 

While there were a lot of people disagreeing with the measure, quote again
"Hughes in 2019 filed a similar measure that won Senate approval, but it ultimately died in committee in the Texas House."

Let me know what you think