Firstly, this is a false equivalence. The kind of videos I am talking about are not ones discussing some frivolous lawsuit, they are the ones by wild-eyed zealots ranting about the Constitution that end up hatching plots to kidnap the Governor of their State [1]. The sort of videos that lead to people shooting up a pizza parlor because they believe it's the center of a Satanic organization [2].

But leaving that aside for a moment, restricting what's okay to talk about on YouTube is, by definition, YouTube's problem. They can restrict videos uploaded on the platform to be exclusively people wearing pink furry suits if they want.

Senators can ask YouTube to try and stop running videos peddling conspiracy theories on their platform, because they believe YouTube (despite the large number of complaints about them) is generally speaking, a responsible and fairminded platform; and they expect that YouTube is broadly trying to do the right thing – not be political, but also crack down on unreasonable crackpot theories being peddled on its platform.

Asking this of a less fair-minded source (say the vidoes on a Stormfront website) would be pointless, which is why the Senators don't do so. You will notice that the Senators aren't asking the creators of Gab to crack down on crackpot theories on their platform either.

-----------------------------

[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-michigan-whitmer/militia-...

[2] https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/06/22/533941689...

>Asking this of a less fair-minded source (say the vidoes on a Stormfront website) would be pointless, which is why the Senators don't do so. You will notice that the Senators aren't asking the creators of Gab to crack down on crackpot theories on their platform either.

That's an interesting theory. Someone else might argue they are targeting YouTube and Facebook because there are more swing voters on these platforms and because these platforms are far more viral than Gab or Storefront.

As a matter of great irony to folks in the tech industry, this same argument was being used in the 1990s to ban violent video games. Of course it failed, because it was a terrible idea and was based on debunked science.

No one is taking away free speech in this case, that's where I think people are talking past each other.

Isn't not allowing videos on your platform also a form of freedom of speech? The senators are simply urging YouTube to exercise their freedom of speech to run fact-checked, non-crackpot videos on their platform. Why do you want to force YouTube to carry videos of bizarre conspiracy theorists on their (private) platform?

If the Senators ordered YouTube (or indeed, Fox News) to suppress specific videos, that would indeed be taking away free speech.

This is incorrect. The other states' attorneys general, partisan elected officials that they are, filed amicus briefs. They didn't join the suit and aren't speaking for their states. The actual precedent that this case would set would be nightmarish for every state. Nobody wants this, it's a stunt.

This suit is going to be immediately rejected by the SC just like all the other frivolous lawsuits. The best way of predicting the future is to look at the past, and the past 50+ lawsuits have been dead on arrival.

I'm not saying that you're wrong. I'm saying that the media do a deplorable job of reporting accurately.

(emphasis added) An amicus brief is also known as a 'brief.'

[1] https://www.foxnews.com/politics/missouri-16-other-states-fi...

(Note that rejecting for procedural deficiencies doesn't mean that the court approves of the merits of the case, it just means that the court also doesn't want to decide the merits. Although if you piss it off hard enough, they will also go own to berate you on why your claims lack merit in addition to enumerating procedural deficiencies).

A reminder that states are sovereign and don't run their elections according to the Federal Constitution. This whole idea that states can't determine the course of their elections because it's "unconstitutional" is farcical.

> In fact, there is a case brought to the Supreme Court by Texas and 17 other states ...

How do I put this delicately?

That case is bullshit.

Texas knows it, those 17 states know it, the Supreme Court knows it, and every single lawyer in the United States knows it.

And now you know it.

The Supreme Court will probably, like it did to the Pennsylvania Republicans, issue an order consisting of a single sentence rejecting their application:

"The application for injunctive relief presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied."

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/120820zr_bq7...

Examining what facts we have it’s very clear that the Republican Party has put forth a number of specious lawsuits with no grounds - all of which have been vehemently rejected by every court in the land - and that the goal of these lawsuits is either to overturn the legitimate election results and/or undermine people’s faith in the election.

Many or most Republican politicians know the lawsuits will fail and are on board because they know they have to keep their base riled up in Georgia to win those Senate runoff elections.

And also because Trump still has a vise-grip on the Republican base, so these politicians have made the calculation that they’d rather do what Trump wants (so they can win re-election) than reaffirm what is America’s most fundamental small-d democratic process: voting for our president, having our leader be elected by the people.

Considering how fundamental voting is to a democracy, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to call an attempt to undermine the electoral process itself seditious.

It’s not very patriotic to put the success of your own political party ahead of the good of the country. Both sides do it a lot but in this specific case it’s clearly the Republicans and it’s a pretty egregious breach of faith of our social contract. In America we expect our elected officials to respect the rules of the game, and acknowledge an electoral loss.

Do you agree that these lawsuits are un-patriotic and seditious? If not, why?

I look forward to your reasoned, cogent, and rational response so we can have a nice intellectual discussion about policy.

Please don’t share evidence or whatnot which the courts have already examined and rejected - it doesn’t seem like a very good use of time to cover old ground, unless of course you wish to disagree with the decision of the courts.

Be careful what you wish for - you just might get it! ;)

———-

My point, of course, is that not all of our political conflict is blind “tribal warfare” where blame can be equally distributed between the two sides. There really are some important issues where one side is wrong, and where it’s important to fight for what’s right.

That’s not to say all partisan conflict is good and necessary. But I do think the facts show that (and I don’t deny the many flaws of the Democratic Party) the Republican Party has embraced obstruction as a technique to achieve and maintain power and continues to inch closer to “If I can’t have it, well then nobody can.”

And that they’ve embraced a figure who is very comfortable with undermining democracy itself and would love to become an authoritarian leader.

(You'll note that the examples I cite are not states that Texas is suing, and that should give you some indication of the likelihood of success.)

[Side note: that's one of the arguments. The actual brief is kind of a legally incoherent mess, so it kind of hops around from argument to argument a bit; the other main argument, which most of the amici seem to want to focus on, is that PA's Supreme Court improperly adjudicated PA law's propriety under the PA Constitution, and therefore Texas has right to settle that dispute in front of SCOTUS, despite SCOTUS dismissing an appeal alleging exactly that just yesterday.]

It’s a bad argument. The US Congress has delegated some of its power to the Executive Branch (FDA and IRS, among others), just like I’m sure some of these states have. If a state legislature passed laws allowing the governor to change election rules, then the legislature is still choosing the electors, not directly, but by having delegated that power to the executive branch of the state.

I’m not a lawyer but this argument sounds flimsy at best.

2) You should also explain more clearly why you think it could be rational to discount the decisions of state courts which rule on the laws passed by the state legislature on the basis that they aren't the state legislature... That is like saying the Supreme Court shouldn't have a say over how Federal laws are applied. It's their entire job.

And all this is ignoring the idea that the legal system ought to represent the democratic will of the people and the institutional processes they put in place, whether it's via upholding the laws of the legislature or the vote.