GOP working on legislation to strip Twitter of federal liability protections

easyt65

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2015
Messages
62,562
Reaction score
17,051
Points
2,290
"Sen. Josh (R-Mo.) and Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) on Wednesday separately announced they were both working on legislation to strip Twitter of federal protections that ensure the company is not held liable for what is posted on its platform.

Both Hawley and Gaetz argued that Twitter’s decision to flag the tweets called its legal liability protections under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act into question. Section 230 protects social media platforms from facing lawsuits over what users post.

Hawley sent a letter to Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey on Wednesday questioning why the platform should be given Section 230 protections and tweeted that he would soon introduce legislation to end “government giveaways” under the legal shield.

“If @Twitter wants to editorialize & comment on users’ posts, it should be divested of its special status under federal law (Section 230) & forced to play by same rules as all other publishers”



IMO subsidies and / or government protections should not be given to companies that engage in trampling on Freedom of Speech. Yes, Twitter (and Facebook) is a privately owned and run company and can operate as they see fit ... but they can do so without tax dollars or protections from a government that supports and defends the Constitution which affords the right of Freedom of Speech to all Americans.









.
 

colfax_m

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
10,939
Reaction score
2,295
Points
150
Gaetz is virtue signaling. His little hissy fit has no chance at doing anything.

Second, if his bill did pass, the result would be the immediate removal of Trump from the platform.

The sole intention of this episode is to intimidate Twitter like the thugs they are.
 

TNHarley

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2012
Messages
66,694
Reaction score
11,344
Points
2,030
Gaetz is virtue signaling. His little hissy fit has no chance at doing anything.

Second, if his bill did pass, the result would be the immediate removal of Trump from the platform.

The sole intention of this episode is to intimidate Twitter like the thugs they are.
Like what LGBTQRSTUVs do with bakeries? Intimidate them like the thugs they are?
 

colfax_m

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
10,939
Reaction score
2,295
Points
150
Gaetz is virtue signaling. His little hissy fit has no chance at doing anything.

Second, if his bill did pass, the result would be the immediate removal of Trump from the platform.

The sole intention of this episode is to intimidate Twitter like the thugs they are.
Like what LGBTQRSTUVs do with bakeries? Intimidate them like the thugs they are?
This has nothing to do with that
 

TNHarley

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2012
Messages
66,694
Reaction score
11,344
Points
2,030
Gaetz is virtue signaling. His little hissy fit has no chance at doing anything.

Second, if his bill did pass, the result would be the immediate removal of Trump from the platform.

The sole intention of this episode is to intimidate Twitter like the thugs they are.
Like what LGBTQRSTUVs do with bakeries? Intimidate them like the thugs they are?
This has nothing to do with that
So legislation has nothing to do with other legislation built off the same premise?
Lol ok
 

colfax_m

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
10,939
Reaction score
2,295
Points
150
Gaetz is virtue signaling. His little hissy fit has no chance at doing anything.

Second, if his bill did pass, the result would be the immediate removal of Trump from the platform.

The sole intention of this episode is to intimidate Twitter like the thugs they are.
Like what LGBTQRSTUVs do with bakeries? Intimidate them like the thugs they are?
This has nothing to do with that
So legislation has nothing to do with other legislation built off the same premise?
Lol ok
The rationale for public accommodation laws does not apply to social media websites.

This is not the same premise.
 

Damaged Eagle

Do you hear the people sing?
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2015
Messages
13,444
Reaction score
18,460
Points
2,445
Location
A Tea Party
Twitter owns the site, they can regulate content
1590673461840.png


There's some bakeries that would tell you that no you apparently can't regulate content if you're a privately owned company.

Shouldn't have progressive courts setting precedents if you don't like how the game is played.

*****CHUCKLE*****


:)
 

TNHarley

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2012
Messages
66,694
Reaction score
11,344
Points
2,030
Gaetz is virtue signaling. His little hissy fit has no chance at doing anything.

Second, if his bill did pass, the result would be the immediate removal of Trump from the platform.

The sole intention of this episode is to intimidate Twitter like the thugs they are.
Like what LGBTQRSTUVs do with bakeries? Intimidate them like the thugs they are?
This has nothing to do with that
So legislation has nothing to do with other legislation built off the same premise?
Lol ok
The rationale for public accommodation laws does not apply to social media websites.

This is not the same premise.
Guess you need to contact webster and have him redefine what a business is, because you are wrong at this point.
 

TNHarley

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2012
Messages
66,694
Reaction score
11,344
Points
2,030
Let this site block all the blacks and latinos and see these hypocrites rage like a mf'er
The constitution doesnt give the fed gov or the states power to regulate private property. All this shit is a power trip.
And of course, the partisan hacks are inconsistent. As always.
 
Last edited:

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
206,645
Reaction score
34,028
Points
2,190
Twitter owns the site, they can regulate content
View attachment 341991

There's some bakeries that would tell you that no you apparently can't regulate content if you're a privately owned company.

Shouldn't have progressive courts setting precedents if you don't like how the game is played.

*****CHUCKLE*****


:)
Bakeries have to follow the law
There is no “law” regulating how websites can control content
 

berg80

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2017
Messages
5,376
Reaction score
2,833
Points
960
"Sen. Josh (R-Mo.) and Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) on Wednesday separately announced they were both working on legislation to strip Twitter of federal protections that ensure the company is not held liable for what is posted on its platform.

Both Hawley and Gaetz argued that Twitter’s decision to flag the tweets called its legal liability protections under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act into question. Section 230 protects social media platforms from facing lawsuits over what users post.

Hawley sent a letter to Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey on Wednesday questioning why the platform should be given Section 230 protections and tweeted that he would soon introduce legislation to end “government giveaways” under the legal shield.

“If @Twitter wants to editorialize & comment on users’ posts, it should be divested of its special status under federal law (Section 230) & forced to play by same rules as all other publishers”



IMO subsidies and / or government protections should not be given to companies that engage in trampling on Freedom of Speech. Yes, Twitter (and Facebook) is a privately owned and run company and can operate as they see fit ... but they can do so without tax dollars or protections from a government that supports and defends the Constitution which affords the right of Freedom of Speech to all Americans.









.
I must say it's a curious reaction by the Liar-in-Chief in response to having his lies about voting exposed.

Twitter has been his go-to platform for freely spewing lies without concern for years.

As we all know Congress has demanded social media platforms try to do a better job of keeping liars like Trump from indiscriminately spreading lies in the wake of Russia's use, primarily of Facebook, to spread anti-Clinton propaganda.

If Baby Donald puts the onus on Twitter to monitor his lies he runs the risk of being severely censored.

Ah yes, now we come to it. That is what he wants. The goal here is to claim he is being unfairly censored so he can play the role of the victim again.
 
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
23,028
Reaction score
5,738
Points
290
Location
Tejas
Gaetz is virtue signaling. His little hissy fit has no chance at doing anything.

Second, if his bill did pass, the result would be the immediate removal of Trump from the platform.

The sole intention of this episode is to intimidate Twitter like the thugs they are.
Like what LGBTQRSTUVs do with bakeries? Intimidate them like the thugs they are?
This has nothing to do with that
So legislation has nothing to do with other legislation built off the same premise?
Lol ok
The rationale for public accommodation laws does not apply to social media websites.

This is not the same premise.
The argument is Twitter owns this site to Twitter can do what the fuck they want.

That argument doesn't also apply to other businesses wanting to do what they want?

Just like every other commie leftist out there, you have played both sides of the issue. How perfect.

.
 
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
23,028
Reaction score
5,738
Points
290
Location
Tejas
Twitter owns the site, they can regulate content
View attachment 341991

There's some bakeries that would tell you that no you apparently can't regulate content if you're a privately owned company.

Shouldn't have progressive courts setting precedents if you don't like how the game is played.

*****CHUCKLE*****


:)
Bakeries have to follow the law
There is no “law” regulating how websites can control content
So, that's what they're doing right now.

And you're bitching about it.

Just what the fuck is it that you want?

.
 

colfax_m

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
10,939
Reaction score
2,295
Points
150
Gaetz is virtue signaling. His little hissy fit has no chance at doing anything.

Second, if his bill did pass, the result would be the immediate removal of Trump from the platform.

The sole intention of this episode is to intimidate Twitter like the thugs they are.
Like what LGBTQRSTUVs do with bakeries? Intimidate them like the thugs they are?
This has nothing to do with that
So legislation has nothing to do with other legislation built off the same premise?
Lol ok
The rationale for public accommodation laws does not apply to social media websites.

This is not the same premise.
Guess you need to contact webster and have him redefine what a business is, because you are wrong at this point.
A few big problems for you. First, public accommodation laws don’t apply to every business. Second, public accommodation laws don’t apply to discrimination based on political views. Third, this is not an instance of discrimination based solely on political view even if that were possible.
 

TNHarley

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2012
Messages
66,694
Reaction score
11,344
Points
2,030
Gaetz is virtue signaling. His little hissy fit has no chance at doing anything.

Second, if his bill did pass, the result would be the immediate removal of Trump from the platform.

The sole intention of this episode is to intimidate Twitter like the thugs they are.
Like what LGBTQRSTUVs do with bakeries? Intimidate them like the thugs they are?
This has nothing to do with that
So legislation has nothing to do with other legislation built off the same premise?
Lol ok
The rationale for public accommodation laws does not apply to social media websites.

This is not the same premise.
Guess you need to contact webster and have him redefine what a business is, because you are wrong at this point.
A few big problems for you. First, public accommodation laws don’t apply to every business. Second, public accommodation laws don’t apply to discrimination based on political views. Third, this is not an instance of discrimination based solely on political view even if that were possible.
A person deserves their right to express their own truth!
Its a human right!
FASCIST FASCIST FASCIST FASCIST FASCIST
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
124,230
Reaction score
18,361
Points
2,180
Gaetz is virtue signaling. His little hissy fit has no chance at doing anything.

Second, if his bill did pass, the result would be the immediate removal of Trump from the platform.

The sole intention of this episode is to intimidate Twitter like the thugs they are.
Like what LGBTQRSTUVs do with bakeries? Intimidate them like the thugs they are?
This has nothing to do with that
So legislation has nothing to do with other legislation built off the same premise?
Lol ok
The rationale for public accommodation laws does not apply to social media websites.

This is not the same premise.
Guess you need to contact webster and have him redefine what a business is, because you are wrong at this point.
A few big problems for you. First, public accommodation laws don’t apply to every business. Second, public accommodation laws don’t apply to discrimination based on political views. Third, this is not an instance of discrimination based solely on political view even if that were possible.
Of course it is, moron.

Who do you think you're fooling?
 

colfax_m

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
10,939
Reaction score
2,295
Points
150
Gaetz is virtue signaling. His little hissy fit has no chance at doing anything.

Second, if his bill did pass, the result would be the immediate removal of Trump from the platform.

The sole intention of this episode is to intimidate Twitter like the thugs they are.
Like what LGBTQRSTUVs do with bakeries? Intimidate them like the thugs they are?
This has nothing to do with that
So legislation has nothing to do with other legislation built off the same premise?
Lol ok
The rationale for public accommodation laws does not apply to social media websites.

This is not the same premise.
The argument is Twitter owns this site to Twitter can do what the fuck they want.

That argument doesn't also apply to other businesses wanting to do what they want?

Just like every other commie leftist out there, you have played both sides of the issue. How perfect.
.
Every business retains the right to toss out people based on a multitude of factors, especially individual behavior. That’s no different than what Twitter is doing. People have attempted to sue Twitter on grounds of title 2 of the Civil Rights Act and I believe they’ve always failed.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top