GOP working on legislation to strip Twitter of federal liability protections

[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.

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

Go for it. Just don’t expect Twitter or anyone else fund the propagation of your expression. That’s exactly what you’re demanding.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Not if they are a "public accomadation," and that was the justification for exempting social media sites from lawsuits.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

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

I see no difference between a privately owned bakery and a internet site.

The precedent has been set that a privately owned business can not discriminate against someone because you don't agree with the content of what they have to say so long as they stay within the general rules set for everyone that utilizes that business. Like no swear words, no nudity, no graphic content, etc,...

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[bripat9643]

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

Go for it. Just don’t expect Twitter or anyone else fund the propagation of your expression. That’s exactly what you’re demanding.

That's what Twitter agreed to do, moron.

 

[mdk]

Boring political theater and nothing more.

 

[my2¢]

Section 230 protects social media platforms from facing lawsuits over what users post.

If this goes through I'll initially set the over-under percentage of users banned here at USMB at 50%. Too low? Too High?

 

[berg80]

The argument is Twitter owns this site to Twitter can do what the fuck they want.

Don't be so naive. This is about Trump trying to gain some degree of control over monitoring social media platforms............"The order would also seek to channel complaints about political bias to the Federal Trade Commission, which would be encouraged to probe whether tech companies’ content-moderation policies are in keeping with their pledges of neutrality."

And threaten media platforms to do what Trump wants or suffer the economic consequences..........."It would also require federal agencies to review their spending on social media advertising, according to the people familiar with the White House’s thinking."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/05/27/trump-twitter-executive-order/

 

[colfax_m]

The precedent has been set that a privately owned business can not discriminate against someone because you don't agree with the content of what they have to say so long as they stay within the general rules set for everyone that utilizes that business. Like no swear words, no nudity, no graphic content, etc,...

That’s not the precedent at all. The law states you can’t discriminate based on some characteristics, for instance race or gender. Some states say sexual orientation, some don’t.

Content of speech is not one of those characteristics.

 

[Desperado]

Phone companies have no say in what you discuss over their phones
The same principal should be applied to social media,

 

[colfax_m]

Phone companies have no say in what you discuss over their phones
The same principal should be applied to social media,

Phone conversations are private. Social media is by definition public.

Totally different.

 

[bripat9643]

The argument is Twitter owns this site to Twitter can do what the fuck they want.

Don't be so naive. This is about Trump trying to gain some degree of control over monitoring social media platforms............"The order would also seek to channel complaints about political bias to the Federal Trade Commission, which would be encouraged to probe whether tech companies’ content-moderation policies are in keeping with their pledges of neutrality."

And threaten media platforms to do what Trumps want or suffer the economic consequences..........."It would also require federal agencies to review their spending on social media advertising, according to the people familiar with the White House’s thinking."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/05/27/trump-twitter-executive-order/

Why do you have a problem with these social media monopolies treating everyone equally?

 

[Damaged Eagle]

The precedent has been set that a privately owned business can not discriminate against someone because you don't agree with the content of what they have to say so long as they stay within the general rules set for everyone that utilizes that business. Like no swear words, no nudity, no graphic content, etc,...

That’s not the precedent at all. The law states you can’t discriminate based on some characteristics, for instance race or gender. Some states say sexual orientation, some don’t.

Content of speech is not one of those characteristics.

I see... So what you're saying is it's alright to discriminate so long as it's an approved group to discriminate against.

Do you really believe that'll work out well for you?

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[anynameyouwish]

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?

gays are freedom fighters


conservatives are traitors and human scum


see the difference?

 

[colfax_m]

The precedent has been set that a privately owned business can not discriminate against someone because you don't agree with the content of what they have to say so long as they stay within the general rules set for everyone that utilizes that business. Like no swear words, no nudity, no graphic content, etc,...

That’s not the precedent at all. The law states you can’t discriminate based on some characteristics, for instance race or gender. Some states say sexual orientation, some don’t.

Content of speech is not one of those characteristics.

View attachment 342004

I see... So what you're saying is it's alright to discriminate so long as it's an approved group to discriminate against.

Do you really believe that'll work out well for you?

*****CHUCKLE*****

Who said anything about discrimination of a group?

 

[martybegan]

Twitter owns the site, they can regulate content

Then they should be liable for anything they fail to regulate.

They can't have it both ways, either they control the content and or liable, or they don't control the content and are not liable.

 

[martybegan]

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.

The only reason you support twitter in this is you know they only seem to gun for views you disagree with.

Fucking fascist.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Dodge, duck, dip dive and dodge.

It all boils down to "It's OK when we do it" for progressive SJW scum like yourself.

 

[Crepitus]

"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.

Hillicon Valley: House FISA bill in jeopardy | Democrats drop controversial surveillance measure | GOP working on legislation to strip Twitter of federal liability protections

Welcome to Hillicon Valley, The Hill’s newsletter detailing all you need to know about the tech and cyber news from Capitol Hill to Silicon Valley. If you don’t already, be sure to sign up fo…

thehill.com

Republicans working on legislation to strip Twitter of federal liability protections

Sen. Josh Hawley (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&nb…

thehill.com

.

The GOP has gone full retard.

 

[Crepitus]

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.

The only reason you support twitter in this is you know they only seem to gun for views you disagree with.

Fucking fascist.

If your side wasn't posting so many lies and so much hate they wouldn't be getting banned.

Follow the rules.

 

[BrokeLoser]

The argument is Twitter owns this site to Twitter can do what the fuck they want.

Don't be so naive. This is about Trump trying to gain some degree of control over monitoring social media platforms............"The order would also seek to channel complaints about political bias to the Federal Trade Commission, which would be encouraged to probe whether tech companies’ content-moderation policies are in keeping with their pledges of neutrality."

And threaten media platforms to do what Trumps want or suffer the economic consequences..........."It would also require federal agencies to review their spending on social media advertising, according to the people familiar with the White House’s thinking."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/05/27/trump-twitter-executive-order/

Why do you have a problem with these social media monopolies treating everyone equally?

Twisted LefTards have never sought equality...that’s just simply another cool word they like to use as part of the PC programming.