Zone1 Do you believe in Free Speech

[martybegan]

Because I am a capitalist. Private industry is private industry. You seem to want to have the big bad government regulate social media because you believe you have a right to it.

Utter madness.

We regulate private industry all the time. Since the government gives these companies protection from bad consequences of the speech, they can't claim it as their speech.

I see no evidence of government protecting these companies.

Section 230 - Wikipedia

Section 230 is a section of Title 47 of the United States Code that was enacted as part of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which is Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and generally provides immunity for online computer services with respect to third-party content generated by its users. At its core, Section 230(c)(1) provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an "interactive computer service" who publish information provided by third-party users:

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

We constrain other private businesses. Can a phone company shut of the calls of a white supremacist?

Why should it? Who does it hurt? It is not public.

 

[dblack]

I see no evidence of government protecting these companies.

Marty is following the liberal conceit that, if you benefit from laws enforced by the government, the government owns you, and can "regulate" you as they see fit. It's like the public accommodations horseshit.

 

[dblack]

We constrain other private businesses. Can a phone company shut of the calls of a white supremacist?

Sure. But who would put up with that? I mean, I would never do business with a company that spied on my phone calls, or tried to censor my political activities. Would you?

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

We regulate private industry all the time. Since the government gives these companies protection from bad consequences of the speech, they can't claim it as their speech.


Section 230 - Wikipedia

Section 230 prevents the government regulation you are so keen to bring to private industry.

 

[pknopp]

it makes a huge difference.

Lol, if you say so. Just because something offends you does not make it law.

 

[martybegan]

Why should it? Who does it hurt? It is not public.

because it can be used on anyone if it's used on one.

That's the price of freedom of speech and expression.

 

[martybegan]

Sure. But who would put up with that? I mean, I would never do business with a company that spied on my phone calls, or tried to censor my political activities. Would you?

Then you would have to go without phones.

 

[dblack]

We regulate private industry all the time. Since the government gives these companies protection from bad consequences of the speech, they can't claim it as their speech.


Section 230 - Wikipedia

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. If Section 230 is your beef, repeal it. And stop whining about media companies that won't do what you want them to.

Seriously, I would support repealing 230. Because, it won't make any difference. The courts will settle on the same policy through case law, because it make sense. And then what will you whine about?

 

[martybegan]

Section 230 prevents the government regulation you are so keen to bring to private industry.

No, it prevents carriers and platforms for getting sued or held criminally liable for 3rd party content.

It has nothing to do with government regulation except being government regulation.

 

[martybegan]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. If Section 230 is your beef, repeal it. And stop whining about media companies that won't do what you want them to.

Seriously, I would support repealing 230. Because, it won't make any difference. The courts will settle on the same policy through case law, because it make sense. And then what will you whine about?

And I'll say it again, if we let the left control all the means of discussion and information, they win.

Enjoy your cell.

 

[dblack]

Then you would have to go without phones.

Ok. But we both know that's not true. Other companies would happily promise not to do that and take all the business away from those that do.

 

[martybegan]

Lol, if you say so. Just because something offends you does not make it law.

Just because it's your side being protected viewpoint wise just shows you are a biased actor in this situation.

 

[Slade3200]

We constrain other private businesses. Can a phone company shut of the calls of a white supremacist?

Sure, if that white supremacist violates their user policy

 

[dblack]

And I'll say it again, if we let the left control all the means of discussion and information, they win.

Of course. Trash all your principles in the name of the motherfucking culture war. Great plan.

 

[martybegan]

Ok. But we both know that's not true. Other companies would happily promise not to do that and take all the business away from those that do.

Starting a phone network from scratch?

 

[martybegan]

Sure, if that white supremacist violates their user policy

Actually they can't because the phone company can't regulate their content. Same would apply to social media companies' platforms.

 

[martybegan]

Of course. Trash all your principles in the name of the motherfucking culture war. Great plan.

It's called being a realist. Principles are fine and dandy as a basis but sticking to them when all you become is a forgotten martyr is idiotic.

 

[dblack]

Starting a phone network from scratch?

Maybe you haven't noticed. There's more than one!

 

[dblack]

It's called being a realist.

It's called being a statist sellout. Enjoy your fascism.