GOP working on legislation to strip Twitter of federal liability protections

[ABikerSailor]

He CLEARLY explains the difference between being a platform open to all & a publisher which can control content.

Well done President Trump

Sure, I know what it is....WAHHHHHHH!!!!, they're being mean to me!! They won't let me post lies!! Honestly, what a whiny little bitch. Twitter didn't delete his tweets, didn't alter the words in his tweets (which would be censorship). They slapped a fact check tag on his tweets?..Why?...because they're unsubstantiated claims. So the media empire that basically built, enabled, and then let fester his 2016 campaign is now the enemy? Careful about biting the hand that made you!

I've had 3 posts deleted from Facebook in the last 2 months. No notification. No explanation of and infraction. Just *poof*

That is what a publisher does not an open platform.

And to be CRYSTAL CLEAR I have been calling for Social Media to be regulated for at least a year so it has nothing to docwith Trumps Twitter account. In fact I called for it LONG BEFORE Elizabeth Warren took up the issue during her campaign.

Twitter and Facebook are privately held companies that are allowed to set their own rules and TOS.
Again, Twitter did not delete or alter his tweets. No censorship took place.

Exactly. And for those who think that Twitter is censoring Trump, it helps to know what those words mean.................

censor
[ sen-ser ]

SEE SYNONYMS FOR censor ON THESAURUS.COM
noun
1. an official who examines books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds.
2. any person who supervises the manners or morality of others.
an adverse critic; faultfinder.
3. (in the ancient Roman republic) either of two officials who kept the register or census of the citizens, awarded public contracts, and supervised manners and morals.

verb (used with object)
1. to examine and act upon as a censor.
2. to delete (a word or passage of text) in one's capacity as a censor.

As you can clearly see from the definition, in order to censor someone, part of the information is deleted or changed in some way. Nobody has modified any of Trump's tweets, all they did was put a tag on it saying that it was questionable information. No deletions, no editing, therefore, no censoring.

 

[OldLady]

Let people decide for themselves.

And how do they do that when they don't have both sides of the story? Twitter gave them the other side. The President is not just another Tweeter. He is assumed to know what he is saying. If he is going to use Twitter as his bully pulpit, he needs to be more accurate.

 

[colfax_m]

I've heard plenty of conservatives here say that they've been banned from this and that site for being conservatives. Why is it legal for those sites but not for Twitter? I don't understand.

I'm not a conservative [I do have conservative leanings] and I've never been banned from anywhere but my post was in reference to "legalities" within the law, I know that may not be obvious from my post but the post was just off the cuff and not intended to be anything more than some clarity regarding that [it certainly was not meant to be the "end all be all" definition of trump or twitters behavior]... and censorship even of the "acceptable and legal" variety" is still censorship... fighting censorship in all its forms was once a great source of pride for Democrats, it is now just another weapon used against America by white liberals who pretend they are defenders of our constitution.

go to r/politics on redit. Post something that disagrees in a very gentle way and see how long you last. I was kicked within five minutes.

Go to r/conservative and you’ll get kicked off just as quick.

That is correct. There are terms of use with every discussion group.

Those terms constitute censorship (by their own definition).

No they don't - they are private groups and if you want to belong you have to go by the rules. I don't think churches would let someone into the church to get up on the altar and preach about how good Satan is, now would they.

I'm not required to let someone in on my block party if I don't like them, now do I.

Completely different. Doesn't equate to a platform provider.

They are not private groups by any definition. Anyone can make an account and post in that subreddit. But they will be censored almost immediately for having the wrong opinion.

 

[Ken Mac]

Let people decide for themselves.

And how do they do that when they don't have both sides of the story? Twitter gave them the other side. The President is not just another Tweeter. He is assumed to know what he is saying. If he is going to use Twitter as his bully pulpit, he needs to be more accurate.

You've never been on twitter obviously. It is all about debate and information sharing to counter other peoples points. That's what the whole platform thrives on. We don't need a company deciding to be the arbiter for determination of when someone posts something misleading.

He doesn't need to be more accurate - You need to be more informed.

 

[BluesLegend]

The nation has had enough of the left wing propaganda ministry invading, rigging social media.

 

[colfax_m]

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.

you lose a lot of cred if you say twitter is being pushed around. they either allow open communication on their platform, trump included, or they choose to edit trump and then they are responsible for ALL content in the same manner as other publishers are.

having the best of both worlds isn't a solution that works for all. trying to portray people tired of being censured as "thugs" is self serving and not seeing the issue for what it is.

when you grow up enough, the rules you have to go by change. its how corporations grow up. i watched microsoft do it from inside the company and they one day got big enough to where what they did yesterday was illegal today; so to speak. so they had to alter and change and play by new rules.

to think social media isn't subject to these same rules, frankly, is bullshit.

You don’t know what you’re asking for. You will break the internet by getting what you’re asking for.

For starters, no one edited Trump.

Internet companies need protection from liability now more than ever given the massive volume of posts. Without this protection, Twitter wouldn’t exist in the first place.

maybe it shouldn't. it's basically an RSS feed on steroids anyway. and the TRUMP WILL GET HURT TOO - good. i don't give a flying flipshit about his tweets and think most of the time he does it for a reaction.

very stupid, very juvenile. however i don't go into a rage every time he does something stupid.

also - being an internet company isn't even close to the issue. twitter, facebook and these sites need to declare one of 2 things -
platform
publisher

pick your road and play by those rules.

to date "social media" has had the best of both worlds and never held accountable to crossing boundaries as their will. this sideshow bob of THE INTERNET MUST BE PROTECTED doesn't really have shit to do with what i said.

twitter can exist just fine as one or the other. but they can't keep being both.

Trump will get hurt along with everyone else that uses Twitter. And you'll burn it all down, why? Because you're butt hurt that Twitter put a "fact check" link in his tweet?

Internet companies don’t have to pick between “publisher and platform”. It’s a false dichotomy. The law states they aren’t responsible for content from users and that’s how it should stay if you enjoy user submitted content at all including posting on this site. Section 230 was made because the internet was unique and needed different laws to manage it. Section 230 was written in 1996. It’s responsible for the internet as we know it.

because it's not twitters place to do fact checking.

you and others keep pretending i am in a trump defense mode. far from it. i'm in a "stop tearing up our base rights" mode.

and INTERNET companies do not. social media companies, do. the fact you keep saying something so vastly untrue simply speaks to your overall knowledge of the topic.

if they're not responsible for the content of their users, stop correcting said users. when you do that you are crossing the line as being the authority on the topic OF WHICH, "social media" is far from the authority on accuracy.

you just illustrated the problem. social media can be not held accountable for what their posters post, yet they can correct them AND fact check them AND try to act like the authority on the topic FROM SITES THEY CHOOSE to represent facts they like.

if you don't see a problem here, then our conversation is done and i'm moving on.

The last sentence is pretty telling to me. Do you really end conversations because people don’t agree with you? How boring.

No one asked you what Twitter’s place is. You don’t get to tell anyone what their place is. That’s not you’re right.

The relevant portion of section 230 calls these companies provider of interactive computer service. I said internet companies because the actual phrase is cumbersome. It’s not specific to social media, which didn’t really even exist in 1996 when it was made. I believe I know more about this than you, to be honest. I’ve been interested in this topic for a few years now. Some really good pieces out there explaining how important this is.

So you’re upset that Twitter can include “fact checking” articles and links next to user submitted content? Honestly, that just makes it look like you’re the one opposed to freedom of speech. Twitter is engaging in speech and that’s the problem?

I end conversations because you are not having one. You are projecting your shit on me and acting as if that's OK. If you don't want to talk about things wo a Trump focus, thats on you and fine.

But stop the arrogance that I have to be a part of it. I have zero interest in making every fucking discussion about Trump.

Ergo yes. I end stupid convos.

It feels like you're refusing to acknowledge the elephant in the room. Trump is absolutely central to this story.

 

[MarathonMike]

Obama twists the law into a pretzel to authorize the FBI to spy on President Trump and his family. Democrats say "COOL!" President Trump signs an EO to call out obviously partisan social media platforms for selective harassment and censorship and Democrats squeal like stuck pigs.

 

[colfax_m]

We do need changes - The executive order is making it quite clear that they are now a content provider.

The executive order can not rewrite legislation. Twitter is not liable for the content of their users. If they were, Trump would be kicked off immediately.

THEY can be held LIABLE because the just opened up the Pandoras box by editorializing. They are now a content provider not a content platform. They now will have to police the whole twitter universe. You know that isn't gonna happen.

Nope. The language of the law is extremely basic and clear. Trump cannot rewrite law by executive order.

nope. most he can do is get the FCC to investigate them and be a PITA. unfortunately both sides are being a PITA and pushing this as far as they can go.

the gov is going to win. twitter is going to have to play by the US rules in as much as any other country they choose to be in. you think China doesn't control shit on twitter?

we need to have our laws force social media to be one or the other designation but not both.

So what then. Use government to harass private companies to help Trump?

Sounds like abuse of power.

you keep pushing trump off on me as if he has shit to do with my point.

since you are not even trying to have an open conversation where what *I* say counts vs what you want to argue with, bye.

It has everything to do with Trump. Where do you think this all came from?

Later snowflake. Let me know when you grow a spine.

The problem does not lie with Trump. He was just the one that was the receiver on the first Twitter play. The problem is in Twitter overstepping their boundaries and editorializing If you don't see a problem with that then you will when you see some horseshit you disagree with thrown your way on Twitter.

Does Twitter not have a right to express speech? What’s so bad with editorializing?

Because you are letting a Private (publicly owned) company dictate what is misleading and untruthful. They then get the green light to shape the discussion. You don't see a problem with that? Jeebus, how many times have the liberals complained about companies making political donations? That's very weak compared to shaping the conversation.

Twitter is all about fact checking. Don't know if you've been there (obviously not) but if you post something that is slightly off you will hear about it. To the nth degree. The public does a much better job and keeps companies out of the conversation.

A private (publicly owned) company is entitled to free speech, are they not? Twitter is using that free speech to give their opinion. They aren't dictating anything to anyone. You're welcome to believe their opinion or not.

Why are you so threatened by Twitter's engaging in free speech?

 

[Ken Mac]

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.

you lose a lot of cred if you say twitter is being pushed around. they either allow open communication on their platform, trump included, or they choose to edit trump and then they are responsible for ALL content in the same manner as other publishers are.

having the best of both worlds isn't a solution that works for all. trying to portray people tired of being censured as "thugs" is self serving and not seeing the issue for what it is.

when you grow up enough, the rules you have to go by change. its how corporations grow up. i watched microsoft do it from inside the company and they one day got big enough to where what they did yesterday was illegal today; so to speak. so they had to alter and change and play by new rules.

to think social media isn't subject to these same rules, frankly, is bullshit.

You don’t know what you’re asking for. You will break the internet by getting what you’re asking for.

For starters, no one edited Trump.

Internet companies need protection from liability now more than ever given the massive volume of posts. Without this protection, Twitter wouldn’t exist in the first place.

maybe it shouldn't. it's basically an RSS feed on steroids anyway. and the TRUMP WILL GET HURT TOO - good. i don't give a flying flipshit about his tweets and think most of the time he does it for a reaction.

very stupid, very juvenile. however i don't go into a rage every time he does something stupid.

also - being an internet company isn't even close to the issue. twitter, facebook and these sites need to declare one of 2 things -
platform
publisher

pick your road and play by those rules.

to date "social media" has had the best of both worlds and never held accountable to crossing boundaries as their will. this sideshow bob of THE INTERNET MUST BE PROTECTED doesn't really have shit to do with what i said.

twitter can exist just fine as one or the other. but they can't keep being both.

Trump will get hurt along with everyone else that uses Twitter. And you'll burn it all down, why? Because you're butt hurt that Twitter put a "fact check" link in his tweet?

Internet companies don’t have to pick between “publisher and platform”. It’s a false dichotomy. The law states they aren’t responsible for content from users and that’s how it should stay if you enjoy user submitted content at all including posting on this site. Section 230 was made because the internet was unique and needed different laws to manage it. Section 230 was written in 1996. It’s responsible for the internet as we know it.

because it's not twitters place to do fact checking.

you and others keep pretending i am in a trump defense mode. far from it. i'm in a "stop tearing up our base rights" mode.

and INTERNET companies do not. social media companies, do. the fact you keep saying something so vastly untrue simply speaks to your overall knowledge of the topic.

if they're not responsible for the content of their users, stop correcting said users. when you do that you are crossing the line as being the authority on the topic OF WHICH, "social media" is far from the authority on accuracy.

you just illustrated the problem. social media can be not held accountable for what their posters post, yet they can correct them AND fact check them AND try to act like the authority on the topic FROM SITES THEY CHOOSE to represent facts they like.

if you don't see a problem here, then our conversation is done and i'm moving on.

The last sentence is pretty telling to me. Do you really end conversations because people don’t agree with you? How boring.

No one asked you what Twitter’s place is. You don’t get to tell anyone what their place is. That’s not you’re right.

The relevant portion of section 230 calls these companies provider of interactive computer service. I said internet companies because the actual phrase is cumbersome. It’s not specific to social media, which didn’t really even exist in 1996 when it was made. I believe I know more about this than you, to be honest. I’ve been interested in this topic for a few years now. Some really good pieces out there explaining how important this is.

So you’re upset that Twitter can include “fact checking” articles and links next to user submitted content? Honestly, that just makes it look like you’re the one opposed to freedom of speech. Twitter is engaging in speech and that’s the problem?

I end conversations because you are not having one. You are projecting your shit on me and acting as if that's OK. If you don't want to talk about things wo a Trump focus, thats on you and fine.

But stop the arrogance that I have to be a part of it. I have zero interest in making every fucking discussion about Trump.

Ergo yes. I end stupid convos.

It feels like you're refusing to acknowledge the elephant in the room. Trump is absolutely central to this story.

No he's not. He was only the first. There will be more. Count on it. This story isn't about Trump, it's about Twitter.

 

[Ken Mac]

I've heard plenty of conservatives here say that they've been banned from this and that site for being conservatives. Why is it legal for those sites but not for Twitter? I don't understand.

I'm not a conservative [I do have conservative leanings] and I've never been banned from anywhere but my post was in reference to "legalities" within the law, I know that may not be obvious from my post but the post was just off the cuff and not intended to be anything more than some clarity regarding that [it certainly was not meant to be the "end all be all" definition of trump or twitters behavior]... and censorship even of the "acceptable and legal" variety" is still censorship... fighting censorship in all its forms was once a great source of pride for Democrats, it is now just another weapon used against America by white liberals who pretend they are defenders of our constitution.

go to r/politics on redit. Post something that disagrees in a very gentle way and see how long you last. I was kicked within five minutes.

Go to r/conservative and you’ll get kicked off just as quick.

That is correct. There are terms of use with every discussion group.

Those terms constitute censorship (by their own definition).

No they don't - they are private groups and if you want to belong you have to go by the rules. I don't think churches would let someone into the church to get up on the altar and preach about how good Satan is, now would they.

I'm not required to let someone in on my block party if I don't like them, now do I.

Completely different. Doesn't equate to a platform provider.

They are not private groups by any definition. Anyone can make an account and post in that subreddit. But they will be censored almost immediately for having the wrong opinion.

No - you have to apply and agree to terms of use.
Guess you haven't been there.

 

[lantern2814]

OF course the usual leftard suspects miss the obvious. Once you start censoring content or doing what the biased Twitter nuts are doing, you are now a content provider. That means you are now subject to libel laws.

 

[Crepitus]

Obama twists the law into a pretzel to authorize the FBI to spy on President Trump and his family. Democrats say "COOL!" President Trump signs an EO to call out obviously partisan social media platforms for selective harassment and censorship and Democrats squeal like stuck pigs.

Well that's a lie.

 

[colfax_m]

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.

you lose a lot of cred if you say twitter is being pushed around. they either allow open communication on their platform, trump included, or they choose to edit trump and then they are responsible for ALL content in the same manner as other publishers are.

having the best of both worlds isn't a solution that works for all. trying to portray people tired of being censured as "thugs" is self serving and not seeing the issue for what it is.

when you grow up enough, the rules you have to go by change. its how corporations grow up. i watched microsoft do it from inside the company and they one day got big enough to where what they did yesterday was illegal today; so to speak. so they had to alter and change and play by new rules.

to think social media isn't subject to these same rules, frankly, is bullshit.

You don’t know what you’re asking for. You will break the internet by getting what you’re asking for.

For starters, no one edited Trump.

Internet companies need protection from liability now more than ever given the massive volume of posts. Without this protection, Twitter wouldn’t exist in the first place.

maybe it shouldn't. it's basically an RSS feed on steroids anyway. and the TRUMP WILL GET HURT TOO - good. i don't give a flying flipshit about his tweets and think most of the time he does it for a reaction.

very stupid, very juvenile. however i don't go into a rage every time he does something stupid.

also - being an internet company isn't even close to the issue. twitter, facebook and these sites need to declare one of 2 things -
platform
publisher

pick your road and play by those rules.

to date "social media" has had the best of both worlds and never held accountable to crossing boundaries as their will. this sideshow bob of THE INTERNET MUST BE PROTECTED doesn't really have shit to do with what i said.

twitter can exist just fine as one or the other. but they can't keep being both.

Trump will get hurt along with everyone else that uses Twitter. And you'll burn it all down, why? Because you're butt hurt that Twitter put a "fact check" link in his tweet?

Internet companies don’t have to pick between “publisher and platform”. It’s a false dichotomy. The law states they aren’t responsible for content from users and that’s how it should stay if you enjoy user submitted content at all including posting on this site. Section 230 was made because the internet was unique and needed different laws to manage it. Section 230 was written in 1996. It’s responsible for the internet as we know it.

because it's not twitters place to do fact checking.

you and others keep pretending i am in a trump defense mode. far from it. i'm in a "stop tearing up our base rights" mode.

and INTERNET companies do not. social media companies, do. the fact you keep saying something so vastly untrue simply speaks to your overall knowledge of the topic.

if they're not responsible for the content of their users, stop correcting said users. when you do that you are crossing the line as being the authority on the topic OF WHICH, "social media" is far from the authority on accuracy.

you just illustrated the problem. social media can be not held accountable for what their posters post, yet they can correct them AND fact check them AND try to act like the authority on the topic FROM SITES THEY CHOOSE to represent facts they like.

if you don't see a problem here, then our conversation is done and i'm moving on.

The last sentence is pretty telling to me. Do you really end conversations because people don’t agree with you? How boring.

No one asked you what Twitter’s place is. You don’t get to tell anyone what their place is. That’s not you’re right.

The relevant portion of section 230 calls these companies provider of interactive computer service. I said internet companies because the actual phrase is cumbersome. It’s not specific to social media, which didn’t really even exist in 1996 when it was made. I believe I know more about this than you, to be honest. I’ve been interested in this topic for a few years now. Some really good pieces out there explaining how important this is.

So you’re upset that Twitter can include “fact checking” articles and links next to user submitted content? Honestly, that just makes it look like you’re the one opposed to freedom of speech. Twitter is engaging in speech and that’s the problem?

I have no problem with it as long as they are not shielded from liability.

Why do you want Twitter to be liable for user content?

Give me a good reason. What good would come
of that?

You can't be a referee and then say "It wasn't me! - they said it! I'm just injecting my opinion". Well that "Opinion" has consequences. It makes you the arbiter and decision maker on what is correct. Used by evil people (which there are plenty of when they have a heavy bias), it will shape the political landscape. That is in, no fucking way shape or form, Twitters job. Let people decide for themselves. if you want corporations to run our world to a degree WAY fucking higher than today - in fact to the point of tyranny and authoritarianism, then by all means support their effort. This is a very slippery slope. one step and we're all fucked of our freedoms of thought and expression.

It's not your job to tell Twitter what their job is. Twitter is not forcing anyone to believe anything. If you want to sue Twitter for the content of their speech as libelous, go right ahead, although opinion is specifically exempted from those laws.

This is an attempt to silence Twitter for political purposes. That's a big problem. If we let government do this, we're all fucked of our freedom of thought and expression.

 

[Ken Mac]

We do need changes - The executive order is making it quite clear that they are now a content provider.

The executive order can not rewrite legislation. Twitter is not liable for the content of their users. If they were, Trump would be kicked off immediately.

THEY can be held LIABLE because the just opened up the Pandoras box by editorializing. They are now a content provider not a content platform. They now will have to police the whole twitter universe. You know that isn't gonna happen.

Nope. The language of the law is extremely basic and clear. Trump cannot rewrite law by executive order.

nope. most he can do is get the FCC to investigate them and be a PITA. unfortunately both sides are being a PITA and pushing this as far as they can go.

the gov is going to win. twitter is going to have to play by the US rules in as much as any other country they choose to be in. you think China doesn't control shit on twitter?

we need to have our laws force social media to be one or the other designation but not both.

So what then. Use government to harass private companies to help Trump?

Sounds like abuse of power.

you keep pushing trump off on me as if he has shit to do with my point.

since you are not even trying to have an open conversation where what *I* say counts vs what you want to argue with, bye.

It has everything to do with Trump. Where do you think this all came from?

Later snowflake. Let me know when you grow a spine.

The problem does not lie with Trump. He was just the one that was the receiver on the first Twitter play. The problem is in Twitter overstepping their boundaries and editorializing If you don't see a problem with that then you will when you see some horseshit you disagree with thrown your way on Twitter.

Does Twitter not have a right to express speech? What’s so bad with editorializing?

Because you are letting a Private (publicly owned) company dictate what is misleading and untruthful. They then get the green light to shape the discussion. You don't see a problem with that? Jeebus, how many times have the liberals complained about companies making political donations? That's very weak compared to shaping the conversation.

Twitter is all about fact checking. Don't know if you've been there (obviously not) but if you post something that is slightly off you will hear about it. To the nth degree. The public does a much better job and keeps companies out of the conversation.

A private (publicly owned) company is entitled to free speech, are they not? Twitter is using that free speech to give their opinion. They aren't dictating anything to anyone. You're welcome to believe their opinion or not.

Why are you so threatened by Twitter's engaging in free speech?

You aren't reading what I'm posting - I'm done with this conversation with you.

 

[colfax_m]

OF course the usual leftard suspects miss the obvious. Once you start censoring content or doing what the biased Twitter nuts are doing, you are now a content provider. That means you are now subject to libel laws.

That is without a doubt completely untrue.

It's pretty clear:
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

That's the law

 

[occupied]

So

Long video, but very interesting details provided.

Will it work?

I only see two likely ways this could play out:

1. Twitter/Facebook et al could just accept their status as publishers and start banning more people/speech and further demonstrate their left-wing bias, which could lead to a mass exodus or boycott, including losses of advertising used to support their businesses.

2. They could stop acting like brown shirts or Heinrich Himmler and the SS, and only edit content under 230 (as will need to be clearly defined by the FCC or whomever) and they get to continue as mere platforms with 230 protections.

I am interested in how this will affect Google, given their seriously-troubling search content editing and manipulation. They have the most to lose by this, and their actions are clearly demonstrable.

.

Twitter could just ban him from the platform for attacking the moderation and management of the board. Very much within their rights to do that.

Social Media censorship goes well beyond Trump.

Fixiating on one individual in a sea of censorship is beyond stupid.

Take this little board as an example. We have all seen trolls get in fights with the mods and get banned. That's what Trump is doing only a million times worse. By the rules of practically any board he would be banned for directly confronting mod decisions on the platform or elsewhere. Further, he has now acted in a manner that will expose Twitter to litigation. Ban the troll, problem solved.

 

[TNHarley]

So glad you finally care about presidents abusing their power now. The donald really turned you leftist hacks into upholders of the law.
I love it!

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

If you want to engage in political speech, that's you're right. But you have no right to demand social media or anyone else propagate that speech.

"230 content" is a meaningless phrase.

Then, those bastards are now PUBLISHERS, not a platform.

You can't goose-step both ways, commie.

.

 

[lantern2814]

Seems we have to type slowly so leftists might understand. Once you do what Twitter has done, censor content and start labeling tweets, you are now a content provider. Meaning you have no protection from libel.

 

[Ken Mac]

Five threads on this already and yours is the worst OP. It doesn't even come close to the real issues. Why don't you delete and participate in the other threads.