web analytics

TRUMP SWINGS AT LEFT-LIB PUBLISHERS

By Pete Moore On May 28th, 2020

The President has signed an Executive Order aimed at curtailing the censorious activities of far-left, oligopolistic publishers like Twitter and Facebook. It’s a start. It won’t fully persuade them to allow conservatives, patriots and other moderates to communicate without fear of being censored, but it signals that he’s on the case and will act against them.

Freedom of speech in the public square must be defended.

 

98 Responses to “TRUMP SWINGS AT LEFT-LIB PUBLISHERS”

  1. Pete loves it when government meddles in private business concerns.

  2. The tyrant-bum interferes with private business.

    Let’s wish him complete failure.

    Long live the First Amendment.

  3. Post shot down in 2 comments. Back of the net 😊

  4. The tyrant-bum interferes with private business.

    Phantom’s new standard is suddenly libertarian.

    This is too easy.

  5. oligopolistic

    Best and most sensible word in Pete’s post.

  6. The First Amendment applies to government censorship, not private companies which Twitter Facebook etc. Are.

  7. I agree with Trump… Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, You Tube, NYT, Wash post, CNN , BBC, MSNBC , they should all be shut down and their owners thrown in jail…. its the only way to protect FREE SPEECH… as Pete would agree 🙂

  8. mahons

    Trump is a government official who seeks to repress speech by means of governmental action to control what speech platforms do and by imposing English law type grossly unfair Libel laws.

    All of this is a First Amendment issue.

    I expect that he will have a very tough time in the courts.

  9. ahhh look at the drones above……

    Excuse me, but may I bring your attention to a very important FACT……

    For how long…. years ? I have been attacked here by some of the very people above for saying that Twitter, FaceBook, and YouTube have had a Special Exemption for Liability due to the fact that they were a “Platform” and NOT a Publisher, but by editing, deleting and altering peoples comments they are acting as a PUBLISHER…….

    Well that exemption that loophole that I’ve been attacked over and over on…..

    Just got closed….. how could that happen if it didn’t exist?

    Once again…… I’m right, you’re wrong.

    🙂

  10. See the bum-president in court.

    You sure love the tyrant.

  11. And I take it that Pete supports efforts to restrict business here.

  12. “For how long…. years ? I have been attacked here by some of the very people above for saying that Twitter, FaceBook, and YouTube have had a Special Exemption for Liability due to the fact that they were a “Platform” and NOT a Publisher, but by editing, deleting and altering peoples comments they are acting as a PUBLISHER…….”

    Actually you have spent the time saying they have special liability for being “free speech” platforms, rather than just platforms. And that is where we have pointed out your flaws.

  13. I have been attacked here by some of the very people above for saying that Twitter, FaceBook, and YouTube have had a Special Exemption for Liability due to the fact that they were a “Platform” and NOT a Publisher, but by editing, deleting and altering peoples comments they are acting as a PUBLISHER…….

    Well I don’t know about anyone else but the only think I asked you to do was to show me these ‘special exemptions’ which applied to social media but didn’t apply to blogs like ATW.

  14. add the “Free Speech” into my comment ahead of the word platform…. it was only left out here because I was laughing so hard.

  15. You are not right Patrick. Trump’s ‘executive order’ is just a meaningless powerless petty tantrum that will have no effect on the legal status of Twitter and other organisations. it’s a political gimmick. These platforms do not have special legal status although they can of course argue the case that the open access way the operate does not make them publishers. However to stretch that into the absurd idea that they must allow without restriction anybody to post anything which they cannot remove or check is ridiculous.

  16. Mahons, on May 28th, 2020 at 10:40 PM Said:
    The First Amendment applies to government censorship, not private companies which Twitter Facebook etc. Are.

    and now they will be liable….. under the Law. 🙂

  17. like all the rest of the “Private Companies”

  18. I take it you would support Patrick, given Allan’s holocaust denial (which is a criminal offence in some countries), that because you and David could delete or edit Allan’s comments and don’t that you are publishing that holocaust denial? And so should be held (potentially criminally) liable for them?

  19. Interesting:

    Despite this executive order, the president does not have unilateral power to regulate tech companies and social media platforms

    https://www.axios.com/trump-executive-order-social-media-protections-8a53f1c6-3c05-4844-98a3-071373b497a8.html?stream=technology

  20. Of course he doesn’t have that power. This is an executive order, which is supposed to give effect to already existing legislation, not create new ones. The President legislating through Executive Order is something that Patrick condemned until the 20th January 2017.

  21. Dance all you want…….

    They were given an exemption because they sold themselves as FREE SPEECH Platforms….. They engaged in editing…. that violates FREE SPEECH PLATFORM exemptions.

    They will now lose what you all swore they didn’t have. Let the Lawsuites begin……

  22. “They were given an exemption because they sold themselves as FREE SPEECH Platforms”

    Can you show me the law that grants exemptions explicitly to free speech platforms but not to platforms of other forms?

  23. This executive order will not survive in the Courts. Trump is about to find out that conservative judges who are strict constitutionalists will not allow it.

  24. it does effect existing legislation….. they have an exemption from an existing Law….

    Removing that exemption effects existing Law it does not create a new one.

  25. He is a deranged tyrant who doesn’t understand the Constitution or the federal system.

    He is wasting everyone’s time with these tantrums on fake issues. He’s not addressing the country’s problems, which are many,

  26. Colm, I suspect your 11.07 may well be correct:

    What Trump’s “Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship” orders

    https://www.axios.com/trump-social-media-online-censorship-executive-order-3f5fcd6d-a160-49b7-9add-26551bd0ba61.html

  27. Let the Lawsuites begin…

    That’s what Mahons calls his office – the Lawsuite 🙂

  28. Patrick

    What, legally is a FREE SPEECH Platform, and how is it meant to operate ?

  29. Why won’t it survive Mahons ?

    Defend and Debate that statement.

  30. Can I get an answer to this Patrick?

    Would you support the idea, given Allan’s holocaust denial (which is a criminal offence in some countries), that because you and David could delete or edit Allan’s comments and don’t that you are publishing that holocaust denial? And so should be held (potentially criminally) liable for them?

  31. Lets see what Mahons says it’s not first Colm.

  32. Would you support the idea, given Allan’s holocaust denial (which is a criminal offence in some countries), that because you and David could delete or edit Allan’s comments and don’t that you are publishing that holocaust denial? And so should be held (potentially criminally) liable for them?

    Sure gladly.

    There is a disclaimer on this site that says we are not responsible for the views expressed.

    Allan could be sued, but as long as David doesn’t alter his words in anyway he is not responsible or liable for them.

  33. Now also take notice Mahons has been asked to defend and debate his position that this executive order won’t hold in court.

    How many of you think he’ll actually even try?

  34. “There is a disclaimer on this site that says we are not responsible for the views expressed.”

    And? If I issue a disclaimer saying I’m not responsible for stabbing a guy does that mean I’m not responsible for stabbing him when I stab him?

    “Allan could be sued, but as long as David doesn’t alter his words in anyway he is not responsible or liable for them.”

    Again and? Twitter either delete a post or don’t delete a post. Even their disclaimer on the Trump tweet doesn’t actually alter Trump’s words. You, and David, and others, have altered other people’s comments before (normally for good reason). If, taking the Trump line, you don’t do that to Allan’s comments is that not you standing by (and publishing) Allan’s comments?

  35. Patrick

    I have just read the FOX NEWS (hardly a lefty site) detailed story on the Executive order and the conclusion of their report is that this order will have no effect on the legal status of social media platforms. The CDA clauses which apply to them balances their protections from being sued with their rights as owners to manage their sites. Trump’s order is going nowhere.

  36. I am sure that Twitter and facebook have wordings somewhere that they’re not responsible for the billions of unmoderated comments that are issued on either over the course of a year.

    How could they be responsible.

    If they were to supervise / moderate all comments, they’d have to hire huge numbers of additional staff, and stop instant distribution. What purpose would that serve?

    The only choices are a) lose control over the platform and let the neo Nazis jihadis and conspiracy nuts run wild, or b) supervise everything.

    What a completely ridiculous cause you guys have here

  37. If these sites are ‘free speech’ platforms, how come they ban violent content in some cases and obscure it in others; how come they don’t allow pornography of any sort?

  38. The First Amendment protects the public from censorship by the government. It does not require private companies to publish things they deem inappropriate. The funny thing is Trump virtually exists on Twitter, and the longest running criticism has been has social media companies haven’t done anything to his lies.

  39. Patrick thinks any regulations that give them protections from lawsuits for content posted by users must mean that they cannot remove , edit or alter anything that anyone posts. That is a clearly absurd claim that quite frankly is just made up nonsense.

  40. Lets be fair to Patrick. He takes his role here seriously. He is the unchallenged ‘Trump Defender’of ATW.. and often its a bloody hard and impossible slog but he keep on going 🙂

  41. So your stance is by removing the exemption that these platforms enjoy in the existing publishing Laws is the First Amendment ?

  42. Then can REMOVE Colm, they can not edit or alter anything that anyone posts.

  43. Trump is trying to force the platforms to distribute content that they want no part of.

    That’s an absolute attack on their speech freedoms.

    Twitter and facebook controls what goes on their pages – not the tyrant, not you.

  44. Patrick – I have no idea what you are talking about. The real knock on FB was that they were permitting lies and falsehoods to be spread as political speech.

  45. here is the debate broken down very well for both sides

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/28/business/section-230-internet-speech.html

    My question to you Mahons was you said the executive order won’t stand in court…. the next comment you were talking about the first Amendment. I was asking if that was the position you were taking to defend your view that it wouldn’t stand up in court.

  46. There is a disclaimer on this site that says we are not responsible for the views expressed.

    Allan could be sued, but as long as David doesn’t alter his words in anyway he is not responsible or liable for them.

    Sorry, Patrick, this is not correct. Under English law David Vance is legally the publisher of anything that appears on this site. He is liable under civil law for any libel or copyright infringement. In the case of libel he and the commenter responsible both share liability and might therefore be both liable to pay damages.

    It is worth noting that when one of the commentators on his Biased BBC blog libelled a prominent individual some years ago it was David who had to make the apology, not the commenter.

    The disclaimer that you refer to on this site means absolutely nothing in legal terms.

    I’m a reformed journalist. Trust me, I know this legal area like the back of my hand.

  47. This site masterson is not hosted in gb it is hosted by a US firm and is adjudicated under american law…. for precisely that reason…

    You can’t subject American writers under any set of laws than those in the US.

    I would never be able to publish under any other jurisdiction.

  48. That more than anything else the rest of the world does not recognize but we understand as naturally as breathing. Unless I am inciting violence I can say what ever the hell I damn well please whether it be the fire and brimstone of Jesus or the satanic delight of nazism.

    I have the right granted by god to speak it no matter if it offends someone or not.

    That one acknowledged right sets this country apart from the world.

  49. I’m surprised Phantom you didn’t comment that I used the NYTs as citation…..

  50. //I have the right granted by god to speak it no matter if it offends someone or not//

    Do you have the right to say it in my house and then threaten me with law when I say you’re incorrect and ask you to leave?

  51. I notice Twitter have now flagged and partially removed Trump’s Minnesota tweet for glorifying violence.

  52. OK lets get a proper handle on this. Patrick’s repeated arguments that social media platforms have some legal protections as part of a bargain with government that they must be uncensored free speech platforms is utter nonsense and just a made up excuse by annoyed Trumpists and right wing paranoiacs.

    The legal protections which the social media platforms have were put in place to reflect the purely technical difficulties they have in instantly removing any contentious content. They are designed to reflect and protect the open instant access nature of how large scale media and social websites work. It does not mean they cannot have their own standards and rules (or even political biases) and cannot police their own sites. Nothing in the CDA regulations instruct these platforms on what content they must admit. As private entities they can set up their websites according to whatever ethics they choose. The law simply reflects the difficulties of instant and 100% comprehensive monitoring. It doesn’t ban them from monitoring or removing third party content at all.

  53. Colm

    Agree

    Patrick

    I almost did!

  54. I think his executive order was an attempted end run around existing US Law and legal precedent protecting these sites that won’t survive a legal challenge. Conservatives used to take a harder look at executive orders (often correctly) when Obama was President.

  55. This site masterson is not hosted in gb it is hosted by a US firm and is adjudicated under american law…. for precisely that reason…

    Fair enough, Patrick. I was wrong.

  56. I am pretty certain that would not exempt it from English libel laws. If the website is accesible to UK based users an offended party can seek redress in the British courts for content they think is a personal defamation. It doesn’t matter where the site is tehcnically hosted from.

  57. Mahons, on May 29th, 2020 at 10:34 AM Said:
    I think his executive order was an attempted end run around existing US Law and legal precedent protecting these sites that won’t survive a legal challenge. Conservatives used to take a harder look at executive orders (often correctly) when Obama was President.

    How many were stopped Mahons ? They bitched about them, but it didn’t stop them or prevent any.

    All executive orders in my view are not legal, but the practice exists and is used way to much. GW used them all the time also and his were worse, he didn’t do executive orders he added stuff as he signed Bills.

    This is going to be challenged because it effects two of the largest not just companies but communication companies in the country.

    Court however is not the way to go. They Twitter/FB/YT have got a real problem due to how they have applied their censorship. It has not been dished out evenly. If it had been there would not be a problem.

    The issue in court will be that imbalance. They won’t be able to justify the established pattern of shutting down/censoring/editing conservative voices while not applying the same standards to liberal comments and commentators.

    They would be better off working on Congress because section 230 is under review now in both the House and the Senate and there are already 2 different proposal pieces of legislation on the floor.

  58. Patrick

    What law requires them to balance conservative and liberal voices and who on earth can determine legally what is a ‘conservative’ posting and a ‘liberal’ one

  59. “The issue in court will be that imbalance.”

    Of that is the issue then there is no issue. There is no law requiring companies to provide balance. If the White House provide that as their legal argument then the judge will laugh at them then rule against them (probably followed by the President’s sheep attacking the judge).

  60. Due to how they have applied their censorship. It has not been dished out evenly. If it had been there would not be a problem.

    The issue in court will be that imbalance.

    Absolute fabricated rubbish.

  61. I’m not sure you guys understand the issue…..

    The exemption requires neutrality. There is a Law…… there are multiple Laws in regard to speech and Liability.

    The 3 platforms have a carve out against liability based a neutral application of established rules.

    They do not apply those rules neutrally so they forfeit the protection. I have argued this for years here trying to get you all to understand this. What I have been met with is not just a lack of understanding but a downright dismissal that this even existed.

    here is the debate broken down very well for both sides

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/28/business/section-230-internet-speech.html

    Please read it, it explains it a lot better than I can. You should also read it out of just the curiosity of me using a story from the NYTs as a reference point,,,,,,

  62. The tyrant wants to control the content of private websites.

    That is all that this is.

  63. “The exemption requires neutrality.”

    Where does the law require neutrality? Chapter and verse of the law please.

  64. Phantom, on May 29th, 2020 at 3:13 PM Said:
    The tyrant wants to control the content of private websites.

    That is all that this is.

    Phantom the Tyrants are controlling content that is the problem…..

    Unelected, unaccountable, leftists are silencing political views they disagree with and have been granted protection from being sued.

    As “Private” companies they have the right to censor, but since they are NOT neutral in that censorship the only protection the public has is Lawsuits. Section 230 has been a shield to allow them to censor political speech….. that is being corrected.

  65. Seamus please read the article I linked.

  66. here let me make it easy for all of you…….

    Legal Shield for Social Media Is Targeted by Trump

    Section 230, from a 1996 federal law, was meant to protect young internet companies from liability. Lawmakers have threatened to change it.

    Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 helped create today’s internet giants. It also protects fringe websites from responsibility for material posted by users.
    Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 helped create today’s internet giants. It also protects fringe websites from responsibility for material posted by users.
    Daisuke Wakabayashi
    By Daisuke Wakabayashi
    May 28, 2020

    This article was originally published in August and has been updated.

    When the most consequential law governing speech on the internet was created in 1996, Google.com didn’t exist and Mark Zuckerberg was 11 years old.

    The federal law, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, has helped Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and countless other internet companies flourish.

    But Section 230’s liability protection also extends to fringe sites known for hosting hate speech, anti-Semitic content and racist tropes like 8chan, the internet message board where the suspect in the El Paso shooting massacre last August posted his manifesto.

    The First Amendment protects free speech, including hate speech, but Section 230 shields websites from liability for content created by their users. It permits internet companies to moderate their sites without being on the hook legally for everything they host. It does not provide blanket protection from legal responsibility for some criminal acts, like posting child pornography or violations of intellectual property.

    As scrutiny of big technology companies has intensified in Washington over a wide variety of issues, including how they handle the spread of disinformation or police hate speech, Section 230 has faced new focus.

    Last year, Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, said in a hearing about Google and censorship that the law was “a subsidy, a perk” for big tech that may need to be reconsidered, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California called Section 230 a “gift” to tech companies “that could be removed.”

    Thanks for reading The Times.
    Subscribe to The Times
    [Explaining President Trump’s executive order targeting social media sites.]

    Now, President Trump is aiming to curtail the protections that Section 230 gives to social media companies with an executive order. The order could be signed as soon as Thursday, and the draft, which refers to what it calls “selective censoring,” would allow the Commerce Department to try to refocus how broadly Section 230 is applied.

    Here is an explanation of the law’s history, why it has been so consequential and whether it is really in jeopardy.

    So why was the law created?
    We can thank “The Wolf of Wall Street.”

    Stratton Oakmont, a brokerage firm, sued Prodigy Services, an internet service provider, for defamation in the 1990s. Stratton was founded by Jordan Belfort, who was convicted of securities fraud and was portrayed by Leonardo DiCaprio in the Martin Scorsese film about financial excess. An anonymous user wrote on Prodigy’s online message board that the brokerage had engaged in criminal and fraudulent acts.

    The New York Supreme Court ruled that Prodigy was “a publisher” and therefore liable because it had exercised editorial control by moderating some posts and establishing guidelines for impermissible content. If Prodigy had not done any moderation, it might have been granted free speech protections afforded to some distributors of content, like bookstores and newsstands.

    The ruling caught the attention of a pair of congressmen, Ron Wyden, a Democrat from Oregon, and Christopher Cox, a Republican from California. They were worried the decision would act as a disincentive for websites to take steps to block pornography and other obscene content.

    The Section 230 amendment was folded into the Communications Decency Act, an attempt to regulate indecent material on the internet, without much opposition or debate. A year after it was passed, the Supreme Court declared that the indecency provisions were a violation of First Amendment rights. But it left Section 230 in place.

    Since it became law, the courts have repeatedly sided with internet companies, invoking a broad interpretation of immunity.

    Last July, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed a lower court’s ruling that Facebook was not liable for violent attacks coordinated and encouraged by Facebook accounts linked to Hamas, the militant Islamist group. In the majority opinion, the court said Section 230 “should be construed broadly in favor of immunity.”

    Why is the law so consequential?
    Section 230 has allowed the modern internet to flourish. Sites can moderate content — set their own rules for what is and what is not allowed — without being liable for everything posted by visitors.

    Whenever there is discussion of repealing or modifying the statute, its defenders, including many technology companies, argue that any alteration could cripple online discussion.

    The internet industry has a financial incentive to keep Section 230 intact. The law has helped build companies worth hundreds of billions of dollars with a lucrative business model of placing ads next to largely free content from visitors.

    That applies to more than social networks like Facebook, Twitter and Snapchat. Wikipedia and Reddit depend on its visitors to sustain the sites, while Yelp and Amazon count on reviews for businesses and products.

    More recently, Section 230 has also provided legal cover for the complicated decisions regarding content moderation. Facebook and Twitter have recently cited it to defend themselves in court when users have sued after being barred from the platforms.

    Many cases are quickly dismissed because companies assert they have the right to make decisions on content moderation as they see fit under the law.

    What are the problems with the law?
    The criticisms of Section 230 vary. While both Republicans and Democrats are threatening to make changes, they disagree on why.

    Some Republicans have argued that tech companies should no longer enjoy the protections because they have censored conservatives and thereby violated the spirit of the law, which states that the internet should be “a forum for a true diversity of political discourse.”

    Facebook, Twitter and Google, which runs YouTube, which are the main targets for bias claims, have said they are baseless.

    On the flip side, some Democrats have argued that small and large internet sites aren’t serious about taking down problematic content or tackling harassment because they are shielded by Section 230.

    Mr. Wyden, now a senator, said the law had been written to provide “a sword and a shield” for internet companies. The shield is the liability protection for user content, but the sword was meant to allow companies to keep out “offensive materials.”

    However, he said firms had not done enough to keep “slime” off their sites. In an interview with The New York Times last year, Mr. Wyden said he had recently told tech workers at a conference on content moderation that if “you don’t use the sword, there are going to be people coming for your shield.”

    There is also a concern that the law’s immunity is too sweeping. Websites trading in revenge pornography, hate speech or personal information to harass people online receive the same immunity as sites like Wikipedia.

    “It gives immunity to people who do not earn it and are not worthy of it,” said Danielle Keats Citron, a law professor at Boston University who has written extensively about the statute.

    Is Section 230 in jeopardy?
    The first blow came in 2018 with the signing of a law that creates an exception in Section 230 for websites that knowingly assist, facilitate or support sex trafficking. Critics of the new law said it opened the door to create other exceptions and would ultimately render Section 230 meaningless.

    Ms. Citron, who is also vice president of the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative, a nonprofit devoted to combating online abuse, said this was “a moment of re-examination.” After years of pressing for changes, she said there was more political will to modify Section 230.

    Senator Josh Hawley, a Republican from Missouri and a frequent critic of technology companies, introduced a bill last June that would eliminate the immunity under the law unless tech companies submitted to an external audit that their content moderation practices were politically neutral.

    While there is growing political will to do something about Section 230, finding a middle ground on potential changes is a challenge.

    “When I got here just a few months ago, everybody said 230 was totally off the table, but now there are folks coming forward saying this isn’t working the way it was supposed to work,” said Mr. Hawley, who took office in January 2019.

  67. “Seamus please read the article I linked.”

    It doesn’t speak to that issue.

  68. The exemption requires neutrality. There is a Law…… there are multiple Laws in regard to speech and Liability.

    The 3 platforms have a carve out against liability based a neutral application of established rules.

    They do not apply those rules neutrally so they forfeit the protection.

    I’ve got Section 230 sitting in front of me now and can’t see anywhere where that’s the case.

    I can’t read the NYT article as it’s behind a paywall.

  69. no it’s not it’s right here read it…….

  70. It doesn’t speak to the issue……..

    you are lost then.

  71. “you are lost then.”

    Can you show me the law, or even the quote from the NYT article, that says the law requires neutrality?

  72. It makes no reference whatsoever to what you claim.

  73. Platforms should not necessarily have to be neutral

    And platform owners should not generally be responsible for content that they didn’t write, and that they did not review beforehand.

    And government should generally not have the right to tell a printed or web platform or publication what content must be included in their pages.

  74. Neutrality is not a neutral term.

    There would be endless arguments about what it was supposed to be.

  75. Commie Moore wanting the state to swoop in and take control of successful businesses again?

  76. Of course the government does not dictate what content/viewpoints/opinions must be allowed on websites or social media platforms. The law will only ever be about what is not allowed. Patrick’s repeated claims that websites must legally host content they don’t wish to is ridiculous.

  77. Is Patrick getting this mixed up with the concept of ‘Net Neutrality’ which is about fair access, not content ?

  78. The Trump / Patrick position is one for government dictated ” forced speech “, against the wishes of the platform/publication.

    It is against both property rights and the First Amendment.

    It has zero chance of surviving any court test.

  79. you guys really don’t get it…. sad.

    I don’t know how to get it across to you.

    These websites have used 230 as a blanket shield from Lawsuit. They were granted that because the content was not created by them. The second they edit/censor or label anything for any reason they now own the content. They can therefore be sued.

    It’s that simple.

    The rich little yuppies couldn’t allow “The People” to argue equally, they had to put their hand on the scale….. now it’s going to cost them.

  80. Another fallacy above, up there with the ‘neutral balance’ that they supposedly have to enforce.

  81. No.

    https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230

    Tucked inside the Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996 is one of the most valuable tools for protecting freedom of expression and innovation on the Internet: Section 230.

    This comes somewhat as a surprise, since the original purpose of the legislation was to restrict free speech on the Internet. The Internet community as a whole objected strongly to the Communications Decency Act, and with EFF’s help, the anti-free speech provisions were struck down by the Supreme Court. But thankfully, CDA 230 remains and in the years since has far outshone the rest of the law.

    Section 230 says that “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider” (47 U.S.C. § 230). In other words, online intermediaries that host or republish speech are protected against a range of laws that might otherwise be used to hold them legally responsible for what others say and do. The protected intermediaries include not only regular Internet Service Providers (ISPs), but also a range of “interactive computer service providers,” including basically any online service that publishes third-party content. Though there are important exceptions for certain criminal and intellectual property-based claims, CDA 230 creates a broad protection that has allowed innovation and free speech online to flourish.

    This legal and policy framework has allowed for YouTube and Vimeo users to upload their own videos, Amazon and Yelp to offer countless user reviews, craigslist to host classified ads, and Facebook and Twitter to offer social networking to hundreds of millions of Internet users. Given the sheer size of user-generated websites (for example, Facebook alone has more than 1 billion users, and YouTube users upload 100 hours of video every minute), it would be infeasible for online intermediaries to prevent objectionable content from cropping up on their site. Rather than face potential liability for their users’ actions, most would likely not host any user content at all or would need to protect themselves by being actively engaged in censoring what we say, what we see, and what we do online. In short, CDA 230 is perhaps the most influential law to protect the kind of innovation that has allowed the Internet to thrive since 1996.

    You guys don’t understand the spirit or letter of this law at all.

    BTW, the Electronic Frontier Foundation is a very good source of information on all internet and internet privacy matters.

  82. Phantom, on May 29th, 2020 at 4:04 PM Said:
    The Trump / Patrick position is one for government dictated ” forced speech “, against the wishes of the platform/publication.

    It is against both property rights and the First Amendment.

    It has zero chance of surviving any court test.

    Phantom lets use the argument that is being used……

    You own a Phone ? Do you have conversations on that phone ?

    You don’t own the servers that those calls go through. A Private company does.

    So according to you because that Private company owns the platform that your phone conversation is taking place on according to your argument the Phone company can edit your call, block out certain things you say, and if they don’t like what you’re talking about they can temporarily shut your phone off, or permanently ban you from making a call over their servers, or bloc people they don’t want you to talk to…..

    You agree with that?

    That’s the position you are arguing.

  83. If that is in the terms and conditions of your contract with the phone company then they would be within their rights to do so. Is that within the terms and conditions of the phone contract?

  84. That is not the situation at all.

    Private phone or e-mail or other secure conversations are not remotely similar to social media broadcasts

    The phone company has no right to know anything that a person says on a phone call.

  85. Not going to go much further on this today.

    None of this has been thought out by the proponents of forced speech.

  86. AFAIK no phone company in the west monitors what is said on phone conversations.

    This is sideshow and diversion.

  87. you’re wrong Phantom these are communication platforms they provide the same service as your phone company.

    And every phone call in the world is listened to by both the providing company and the US Government…. it’s been that way your whole life, whether you’re aware of this fact or not is your problem my friend.

    The battle is always about what can be done to or with human communication. This puts the tech platforms into the proper category of what they are…… Communication Platforms.

  88. You’re wrong Phantom these are communication platforms they provide the same service as your phone company.

    I’m afraid you’re wrong Pat. You’re a client to your mobile phone company which you enter into a contract with and pay them for their servoce under agreed terms & conditions.

    Social media is a free platform that you accept under the terms and conditions of the platform.

  89. Secure, private communication systems including phone service are regulated by the government in a different way that those new social systems that were built not to be either secure or private. By its nature twitter is public, with default settings that are fairly insecure.

    If you tweet, you should expect that the world can see it. If you make a phone call to someone, you should not expect that the world can hear it.

    They’re not only not the same, they are completely different.

  90. Wow. This is Michael Moore:

    Good citizens burning down the evil police precinct in MN after all police were out & safe. All police should go home. No violence please. Police HQ must be demolished by the city tomorrow as a show of contrition to black America. Rebuild PD with decent kind ppl aka ppl of color

    https://twitter.com/MMFlint/status/1266225003407855616

  91. Unless he was being satirical, that’s a stupid tweet from Michael Moore

  92. It wasn’t just a tweet he said it on a bullhorn….. wrong thread guys…..

    go to the protest thread ….. you might get more interaction on that…..

  93. Do you mean he said it in person at a protest with a bullhorn ?

  94. They are communications companies. They make their money off of your presence by selling adds.

    You do enter a contract with them allowing them to profit off of you and your data. You may not read all that fine print when you sign up and hit that (I agree) to move to the next step but you just signed a contract.

    The fact that this business model for communication is less than 20yrs old is the Problem.

    It is not regulated under the proper category of Law which has lead to the problems that now exist. They’ve exploited a legislative hole.

    Due to their own Malfeasance that is about to be corrected.

  95. Colm, on May 29th, 2020 at 5:19 PM Said:
    Do you mean he said it in person at a protest with a bullhorn ?

    yes….. that was the picture I saw.

  96. no I was wrong Colm….. that was just a picture with the story….. sorry

    https://www.lifezette.com/2020/05/michael-moore-calls-for-minneapolis-police-headquarters-to-be-torn-down-as-contrition-to-black-america/

  97. They are communications companies. They make their money off of your presence by selling adds.

    As do a whole host of other internet sites and online newspapers, magazines, streaming services etc.

    You do enter a contract with them allowing them to profit off of you and your data.

    You don’t enter a contract with them. You accept their free service under their terms & conditions.

    The phone company is a fundamentally flawed comparison and you have been repeatedly incorrect on this issue.

  98. The First Amendment’s broad protection for editorial discretion from government dictates applies to social media platforms. In a 2017 federal appeals court fight over net neutrality rules, none other than future Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh argued that the government cannot tell companies such as Twitter and Facebook what content to post or favor.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-05-28/twitter-has-little-to-fear-from-trump

    If this were to make it to the Supreme Court ( it will not ) Kavanaugh would rule against Trump.