Subscribe for premier reporting on free speech, privacy, Big Tech, media gatekeepers, and individual liberty online.

Mozilla Asks The Supreme Court To Rule Against Florida and Texas Social Media Free Speech Laws

If you’re tired of censorship and surveillance, subscribe to Reclaim The Net.

When in a hole – just stop digging!

Not the kind, however, of common-place, and friendly advice, the Mozilla Foundation seems like it’s ready to take in, these days.

The number of websites that, one way or another, don’t render/function correctly anymore in Mozilla’s Firefox is not exactly growing at the same pace as the browser’s loss of market share, but it’s now becoming concerning.

That’s because Google is eating Mozilla’s lunch with the Chrome browser, and faced with this stark reality of the once innovative, exciting, widely-used Firefox, a flagship for open source, now steadily losing users – what does Mozilla do?

Focus all its resources on new features, promote the browser better, forge partnerships to, as it were, “make Firefox great again”?

(Please, just fix the browser, please – that’s what so many of us early supporters of Mozilla are saying now. But the entity behind it clearly has other plans).

Bafflingly, no – there’s so many other things the Mozilla Foundation has decided to put on its plate – such as sticking its nose into a legal battle, in the hope of the Supreme Court annulling free speech laws in two US states.

Namely, those in charge over at Mozilla have managed to add the foundation to the list of those signed under an amicus brief asking the Supreme Court to obliterate legislative pro-free speech efforts in Florida and Texas.

In a blog post, Mozilla refers to its behavior as supportive of “responsible content moderation.”

Like this: Mozilla sees Texas and Florida laws as impeding on Big Tech’s ability to block, remove, or demonetize content that these social media behemoths (arbitrarily, to all intents and purposes, it bears repeating) decide to see as “legal but harmful content.”

Has there ever been, in the whole history of the US – a more Soviet definition of a rule or law, than saying something is legal, but “harmful” – and therefore needs to be censored, quick?

“The laws under consideration by the (Supreme) Court do not serve speech, but would instead destroy online communities that rely on healthy moderation. Mozilla is standing with the community and allies to call for a better future online.”

That’s what Mozilla said.

If you’re tired of censorship and surveillance, subscribe to Reclaim The Net.

Read more

Join the pushback against online censorship, cancel culture, and surveillance.

Already a member? Login.