Canadian Court Rules: Twitter can be sued for content.

theHawk

Registered Conservative
Joined
Sep 20, 2005
Messages
33,211
Reaction score
19,108
Points
1,905
Location
Arizona

White 6

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2019
Messages
12,104
Reaction score
6,191
Points
940

jackflash

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2020
Messages
1,311
Reaction score
1,022
Points
1,908
Location
USA

fncceo

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2016
Messages
27,968
Reaction score
13,407
Points
1,100
Comical, lefties fighting lefties!
When the French Revolution successfully eliminated any opposition from Royalists, they immediately turned their guillotines on themselves.

When The Bolshevik Revolution was firmly in control of Russia, they began putting their own supporters into gulags.

After The Chinese Communist Revolution, came the "Cultural Revolution" which interned millions into work camps in the name of re-education.

It's the inevitable destiny of "people's revolutions" to come after "the people " first.
 

RodISHI

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2008
Messages
23,320
Reaction score
8,493
Points
900
As soon as 230 is taken away in the USA, social .media and so called free speech, dies....

When they can be sued, for what users say.... then every word posted has to be moderated by them.... freedom is removed from everyone.
So you believe that slandering and defaming of someone is perfectly fine an should not have repercussions or remedy for the person being slandered?

Like this calling one of our military a white supremacist because he has a Jesus tattoo on his arm and wanting him demoted for it?

Love Jesus be accused.PNG
 

there4eyeM

unlicensed metaphysician
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
16,226
Reaction score
2,820
Points
280
GM will be sued when a bank robber uses a Chevy.
 

justinacolmena

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2017
Messages
5,703
Reaction score
1,765
Points
210
Location
alaska, usa
Twitter can ban @realDonaldTrump, but they can't be sued for content? Good old Jack Dorsey has his cake and eats it too on both sides of the bench. What a bunch of jackasses the whole sorry lot of those damned social media bosses.
 

there4eyeM

unlicensed metaphysician
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
16,226
Reaction score
2,820
Points
280
Refusing content and being sued for content are not related issues.
 

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
58,685
Reaction score
16,507
Points
2,180
Location
In a Republic, actually

Care4all

Warrior Princess
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
57,369
Reaction score
15,668
Points
2,220
Location
Maine
As soon as 230 is taken away in the USA, social .media and so called free speech, dies....

When they can be sued, for what users say.... then every word posted has to be moderated by them.... freedom is removed from everyone.
So you believe that slandering and defaming of someone is perfectly fine an should not have repercussions or remedy for the person being slandered?

Like this calling one of our military a white supremacist because he has a Jesus tattoo on his arm and wanting him demoted for it?

View attachment 444550
As soon as 230 is revoked, the law that protects them from being sued, for what a poster says and posts, then the social media sites will have to moderate heavily....So to protect themselves from being sued, for what a user posts.

It will completely shut off, what we call, free speech.

I don't know the answer Rodishi... on how to prevent people from being lying, vicious, and hurtful people on social media... I simply stay away from it.....

I am just skeptical about this push to revoke 230 protections, because it is we the people, or at least those on social media, that are hurt the most....by social media, having to moderate with an iron fist, every post.
 
Last edited:

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
58,685
Reaction score
16,507
Points
2,180
Location
In a Republic, actually
As soon as 230 is taken away in the USA, social .media and so called free speech, dies....

When they can be sued, for what users say.... then every word posted has to be moderated by them.... freedom is removed from everyone.
So you believe that slandering and defaming of someone is perfectly fine an should not have repercussions or remedy for the person being slandered?

Like this calling one of our military a white supremacist because he has a Jesus tattoo on his arm and wanting him demoted for it?

View attachment 444550
As soon as 230, the law that protects them from being sued, for what a poster says and posts, then the social media sites will have to moderate heavily....So to protect themselves from being sued, for what a user posts.

It will completely shut off, what we call, free speech.

I don't know the answer Rodishi... on how to prevent people from being lying, vicious, and hurtful people on social media... I simply stay away from it.....

I am just skeptical about this push to revoke 230 protections, because it is we the people, or at least those on social media, that are hurt the most....by social media, having to moderate with an iron fist, every post.
What’s worse is that all of this nonsense, such as ‘revoking’ S. 230, is based on the ridiculous lie that social media seek to ‘silence’ conservatives, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.
 

Monk-Eye

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2018
Messages
1,879
Reaction score
383
Points
140
" Freedom Of Information "

* Hands Off Rules *

So you believe that slandering and defaming of someone is perfectly fine an should not have repercussions or remedy for the person being slandered?

Like this calling one of our military a white supremacist because he has a Jesus tattoo on his arm and wanting him demoted for it?
If someone issues libelous statements or slanderous speach and they open themselves to lawsuit for defamation , the issue remains whether the media outlet should be held accountable as well .

In my opinion , the media outlet could be held accountable for libel if they were complicit in themselves knowingly issuing defamation statements ; however , online social media companies would be exempt from such a rule because they are not be able to evaluate the content prior to the statements being published by individuals , and only by a ruling of a judge from a civil trial , or active criminal prosecution , should the content be taken down from online social media .

If someone issues a threat for violence , it is a matter for law enforcement , and the statements should be taken down where prosecution is being pursued .

ISPs and social media outlets should abide by Net neutrality - Wikipedia , and only take action against actual crimes or by direction from judicial ruling that libel or slander has occurred .

 
Last edited:

Monk-Eye

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2018
Messages
1,879
Reaction score
383
Points
140
" Learning Curve And Free Flow Of Information "

" Caveat Emptor Versus Private Despot Opinion Police *

What’s worse is that all of this nonsense, such as ‘revoking’ S. 230, is based on the ridiculous lie that social media seek to ‘silence’ conservatives, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.
The S.230 was setup so that social media outlets could not be sued or prosecuted for individuals posting content that could be subject to criminal prosecution , or could be subject to civil complaint for defamation .

Issue is that the social media outlets took advantage of the rule for not being sued and decided to take on the role of sanctioning public opinion and quashing opinions with which the companies did not agree , and clearly that should not be allowed by the statute .
 

RodISHI

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2008
Messages
23,320
Reaction score
8,493
Points
900
" Freedom Of Information "

* Hands Off Rules *

So you believe that slandering and defaming of someone is perfectly fine an should not have repercussions or remedy for the person being slandered?

Like this calling one of our military a white supremacist because he has a Jesus tattoo on his arm and wanting him demoted for it?
If someone issues libelous statements or slanderous speach and they open themselves to lawsuit for defamation , the issue remains whether the media outlet should be held accountable as well .

In my opinion , the media outlet could be held accountable for libel if they were complicit in themselves knowingly issuing defamation statements ; however , online social media companies would be exempt from such a rule because they are not be able to evaluate the content prior to the statements being published by individuals , and only by a ruling of a judge from a civil trial , or active criminal prosecution , should the content be taken down from online social media .

If someone issues a threat for violence , it is a matter for law enforcement , and the statements should be taken down where prosecution is being pursued .

ISPs and social media outlets should abide by Net neutrality - Wikipedia , and only take action against actual crimes or by direction from judicial ruling that libel or slander has occurred .

If they take it down I would see where that works. Google slam a blog I put up about the bank's fraud. I wrote them and said 'If it is not true let them prove it as I have the proof they I committed fraud'. The blog was reinstated.
 

Rambunctious

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2010
Messages
39,743
Reaction score
21,196
Points
1,905
A lot of nations have condemned Twitter for canceling Trumps account...and they are springing into action to limit these big tech Nazis censoring thought in their countries...hey GOP!!!! WTF!!!!! what is taking you so long?....
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top