GOP working on legislation to strip Twitter of federal liability protections

[JLW]

why do they have to act fairly?

They don't. The govt also does not have to give them special protection from consequences from how they run their business.

I agree if they repeal social media immunity let’s also repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act that gives gun dealers and manufactures immunity from civil suits. Deal? What is the difference ?

Nope. That law is because you assholes want to attempt an end run around the constitution by putting all firearm manufacturers out of business.

and gun owners can still be sued if their product fails due to negligence in the manufacturing process, just like any other manufacturer. What is prevented is suing them for the actions of others when their product works as intended.

It would be like suing Ford if a drunk driver used an Explorer to kill 30 people by driving into a crowd, even if the car functioned properly.

The OP says government should not give businesses special protections. The question is he a hypocrite or does he apply this standard to all businesses.

I am saying that Twitter doesn't deserve 230 protection anymore, but gun manufacturers shouldn't be sued if their product works as intended. Two different issues, but you attempt to link them in a gotcha attempt.

Sorry, doesn't fly.

Isn’t social media working as intended? A platform to air one’s views is exactly its purpose. Congress just can’t take immunity from one company and leave it place for others. It would need to repeal the law in its entirety. Say good bye to forums like this and Social media.

 

[Care4all]

"A small handful of social media monopolies controls a vast portion of all public and private communications in the United States. They’ve had unchecked power to censor, restrict, edit, shape, hide, alter, virtually any form of communication between private citizens and large public audiences. ”

He's right.

He's totally wrong to use his govt power....

And 230 is protection from law suits against any Forum owners, for what their posters say.....

Which gives all of us, freedom to express ourselves, with little moderation or censorship...

USMB has the same 230 protections.....

It has nothing to do with the fairness doctrine that Trump is NOW promoting for forums.... censorship.

Y'all have fricken lost your minds... Lord forgive you, for ye know not, what you do....

 

[easyt65]

I am saying that Twitter doesn't deserve 230 protection anymore, but gun manufacturers shouldn't be sued if their product works as intended. Two different issues, but you attempt to link them in a gotcha attempt. Sorry, doesn't fly.

If I buy a gun, it's MINE. I have the Constitutional right to own it and use it responsibly. If I choose to break the law and kill someone with that gun, why the hell should gun manufacturers and gun stores that sell them be held accountable for the way some criminal used them.

THAT shit doesn't fly. If we go down that road, are we going to hold knife manufacturers / stores that sell knives equally responsible for crimes committed by knife-wielding criminals? How about axes, baseball bats, cars....... You punish the person who perpetrated the crime because THAT is the one who is responsible.

As far as Twitter goes, Twitter is a privately owned company...so why should they be protected by the govt from what they do with what they own?

'Equal Accountability'?

 

[martybegan]

why do they have to act fairly?

They don't. The govt also does not have to give them special protection from consequences from how they run their business.

I agree if they repeal social media immunity let’s also repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act that gives gun dealers and manufactures immunity from civil suits. Deal? What is the difference ?

Nope. That law is because you assholes want to attempt an end run around the constitution by putting all firearm manufacturers out of business.

and gun owners can still be sued if their product fails due to negligence in the manufacturing process, just like any other manufacturer. What is prevented is suing them for the actions of others when their product works as intended.

It would be like suing Ford if a drunk driver used an Explorer to kill 30 people by driving into a crowd, even if the car functioned properly.

The OP says government should not give businesses special protections. The question is he a hypocrite, I.e. legislative immunity only a-plies to business he approves or, or does he apply this standard to all businesses.

In this case we just want twitter to be fair. In the case of the gun manufacturers the purpose is to run them out of business under the logic of "if no one makes guns, no one can get guns"

 

[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.

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

Follow the rules.

Yes, because progressive losers like you never post "hateful" or "lying" tweets.

Fuck off.

Twitter removes an enormous amount of tweets for being hateful. No one removed Trump’s lying tweet. They just posted a link below it stating why they thought it wasn’t true. What’s ironic is that you’re all outraged that Twitter is using their freedom of expression to reply to Trump’s tweet.

Fascist.

They claim to be an open forum, accepting all viewpoints, and yet the only viewpoints they seem to delete with any consistency are those from the right.

If they want to take a side, they should have to say it, in writing. If they want to be a forum for open exchange they shouldn't be banning people for content based on their politics.

Twitter has never stated there are no limits to what you can post. You’re either lying or just making shut up.

Being an open forum and having no limits on what you can post are two different things, and you know that.

Twitter's own missions statement:

Twitter's purpose is to serve the public conversation. Violence, harassment and other similar types of behavior discourage people from expressing themselves, and ultimately diminish the value of global public conversation. Our rules are to ensure all people can participate in the public conversation freely and safely.

As their statement says, moderation is essential to keeping the platform viable.

That’s precisely why they wrote section 230 in the first place. That’s why these websites even exist.

"Moderation".

So that's how you explain content based bans and filtering.

Uh, yes. That’s exactly what it means. If someone posts something with content that is unacceptable, the moderators remove it. It’s how it works on this forum too.

And of course, to you, unacceptable means "anything I disagree with politically"

Just admit it, you favor banning speech of people you don't like.

Twitter has a ton of speech on it that I disagree with. I have no desire to see it banned.

Have you ever seen a platform with the lack of moderation that you desire? They’re cesspools of racism, anti-semitism and generally fringe nonsense. No one wants that.

Bullshit.

You are a censoring lying twat. FOAD.

And you’re a fascist thug. Nice to meet you.

Twitter has no obligation to pay to propagate idiots speech.

What am i doing to stop you from spreading your idiocy?

Twitter claims to be a discussion forum, and then takes sides in the discussion.

You don't care because it takes your side, filth.

You’re supporting a government action for force Twitter to support your dear leader.

Right now government action gives them immunity from liability because they claim people's posts are not "their content".

They then claim the right to moderate content based on whatever they feel like because it is 'their site", and thus their content.

They want the best of both worlds, and they should have to choose. Claim all content as theirs, moderate as they see fit, and then be liable for whatever they let through, or keep their protections as "not their content" and not moderate based on political, cultural, or moral viewpoints of their own.

That’s exactly the point of section 230 as I’ve been trying to tell you.

You don’t want to take away their ability to moderate. You really don’t want that. Go to an unmoderated forum. It’s garbage. It’s an absolute cesspool.

Section 230 was to prevent something like someone tweeting "I am going to blow up a bridge" and then twitter being sued because they didn't do anything about it.

It wasn't designed for Twitter to take sides in political debates and still claim the content isn't theirs.

That doesn’t make any sense. Why would the goal be to allow internet companies immunity from reporting specific identifiable threats?

You don’t really know what you’re talking about.

It's to stop someone from suing twitter for the threat made by another person.

Tweeter: "I am going to kill X"
20 min later, person X is killed by said tweeter.

230 stops the victim's family from suing twitter because they didn't call the cops.

You really think that the government wrote legislation that permitted internet companies to ignore individual specific threats?

That makes absolutely no sense.

It's exactly why they wrote it. Why do you think they wrote it?

Prodigy was sued for defamation by a bank because a poster on their message board accuses that bank of fraud. Prodigy was liable for that defamation.

What made Prodigy liable? They had moderators who removed posts that were insulting, off topic or harassment.

So it created a perverse incentive. The only way to avoid liability for the posts is to allow people to post basically whatever they wanted. It stopped anyone from trying to keep their Internet forums civil and that’s not what anyone wants.

Progressives are the kings of "this is why we can't have nice things". Section 230 works when only used to weed out criminal or completely vulgar postings. But now you want to use it to silence opponents.

Thus it has to go. All on you, none on us.

Alright then. Show me what has been censored.

Certainly not President Snowflake. No one took down his idiotic tweets even when they do constitute harassment.

You Can’t Say That on Twitter | National Review

So the complaint is that you can’t use twitter to express your discrimination of transgendered individuals which is against the terms of service?

How is it against the terms of service to say a man is a man and a woman is a woman?

Sorry, but all you are doing is messing with the paint job and the fender, the DNA stays the same.

See? This is the issue, your side decides a viewpoint is ist/ic and thus verboten.

Because it's targeted harassment of the transgendered community.

No, it isn't. It's amazing how Nazi you assholes go to "protect" your cherished notions.

Is saying "Red Sox Suck" targeted harrassment of Bostonians?

All they are doing is pretending to be the opposite sex, hell a ton of them now don't even go with the surgeries.

Your opinion on the topic is irrelevant. It's Twitter's platform and they set the rules. They specifically say that type of rhetoric is not allowed and considered hateful speech against a group.

My opinion and you response just shows you are a hateful bigot who refuses to let other people voice their opinions on anything they disagree with.

That you agree with twitter on this just shows you are an SJW thug, and a cowardly one at that, because you let others do your dirty work for you.

Saying an obvious fact, i.e." you can't turn a man into a woman or vice versa in reality, you can just do it cosmetically, is 'hate speech" just shows you don't have an actual counter-argument.

Im not stopping you from expressing your opinion but I will stick up for the rights of Twitter to refuse to participate in your speech. If you want to express such an opinion, do it on your own dime.

That you think you have a right to Twitter’s resources for your own purposes makes you more akin to a communist.

You only stick up for them because you agree with their position. You want them to surpress only views you don't like.

Question, is telling a religious person that God doesn't exist a hate crime?

Twitter can do what they want, just without 230 protections.

 

[martybegan]

why do they have to act fairly?

They don't. The govt also does not have to give them special protection from consequences from how they run their business.

I agree if they repeal social media immunity let’s also repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act that gives gun dealers and manufactures immunity from civil suits. Deal? What is the difference ?

Nope. That law is because you assholes want to attempt an end run around the constitution by putting all firearm manufacturers out of business.

and gun owners can still be sued if their product fails due to negligence in the manufacturing process, just like any other manufacturer. What is prevented is suing them for the actions of others when their product works as intended.

It would be like suing Ford if a drunk driver used an Explorer to kill 30 people by driving into a crowd, even if the car functioned properly.

The OP says government should not give businesses special protections. The question is he a hypocrite or does he apply this standard to all businesses.

I am saying that Twitter doesn't deserve 230 protection anymore, but gun manufacturers shouldn't be sued if their product works as intended. Two different issues, but you attempt to link them in a gotcha attempt.

Sorry, doesn't fly.

Isn’t social media working as intended? A platform to air one’s views is exactly its purpose. Congress just can’t take immunity from one company and leave it place for others. It would need to repeal the law in its entirety. Say good bye to forums like this and Social media.

Why not? The standard is the law protects sites that allow private content from private individuals. Twitter had decided to control the content beyond the standard controls for vulgarity and actual criminal activities. furthermore, they have decided to unequally control the content, yet still claim to be a public forum.

 

[easyt65]

Isn’t social media working as intended? A platform to air one’s views is exactly its purpose. Congress just can’t take immunity from one company and leave it place for others. It would need to repeal the law in its entirety. Say good bye to forums like this and Social media.

When you claim that your platform is an open-air platform for everyone to share their views equally and fairly then Censure the shit out of those who do not support your agenda, no, it's not working AS CLAIMED. Maybe that IS how Twitter, YouTube, Google, and Facebook owners intended / intend now. If that is what they want to do, then let them....but enough of the govt-given 302 protection.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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

Why does the "law" say that bakeries can't use their discretion but Twitter can?

 

[jknowgood]

Stung By Twitter, Trump Signs Executive Order To Weaken Social Media Companies

President Trump signs an executive order aimed at limiting the broad legal protections enjoyed by social media companies days after Twitter fact-checked two of his tweets.

www.npr.org

I suppose the First Amendment only limits The Congress to obey the First Amendment, and once again Donald Trump believes he is above the law, even when that law it not statutory, but number one in the Bill of Rights. What next, locking up those who criticize him with no regards to the 4th, 5th and 6th articles in the Bill of Rights?

So when the media spreads lies about him it's okay, but it's not okay for him to go after them?

When the lame street media went after Obama, the First Lady famously said, "when they go low, we go high". Nobody can go as low as dumb donald, the most vindictive turd to ever float in a punch bowl.

Obama, they bring a knife we bring a gun. Oh and Michelle stated, she wasn't proud to be an American till Barry was elected. Letting us know he hatred for America. Also Obama ran on transforming America.

 

[jknowgood]

Stung By Twitter, Trump Signs Executive Order To Weaken Social Media Companies

President Trump signs an executive order aimed at limiting the broad legal protections enjoyed by social media companies days after Twitter fact-checked two of his tweets.

www.npr.org

I suppose the First Amendment only limits The Congress to obey the First Amendment, and once again Donald Trump believes he is above the law, even when that law it not statutory, but number one in the Bill of Rights. What next, locking up those who criticize him with no regards to the 4th, 5th and 6th articles in the Bill of Rights?

So when the media spreads lies about him it's okay, but it's not okay for him to go after them?

Quoting Dopey Donald Trump verbatim is spreading lies.

Please show the quote of him personally telling people to fill a syringe with bleach and inject it into their veins or just shut up.

I refuse to provide justification for your stupidity.

I'm not the one quoting Trump said to inject bleach into yourself. You stupid loons are.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Isn’t social media working as intended? A platform to air one’s views is exactly its purpose. Congress just can’t take immunity from one company and leave it place for others. It would need to repeal the law in its entirety. Say good bye to forums like this and Social media.

When you claim that your platform is an open-air platform for everyone to share their views equally and fairly then Censure the shit out of those who do not support your agenda, no, it's not working AS CLAIMED. Maybe that IS how Twitter, YouTube, Google, and Facebook owners intended / intend now. If that is what they want to do, then let them....but enough of the govt-given 302 protection.

Obama helped build them and Hillary was going to allow them to flip the switch on Conservatives.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

GOP working on legislation to strip Twitter of federal liability protections

Oh, the irony. BLINDING!!!
.

 

[easyt65]

Why does the "law" say that bakeries can't use their discretion but Twitter can?

BTW...You left out the word 'CHRISTIAN' prior to the word 'bakeries'.

Christian bakeries refuse to violate their freedom of religion / religious beliefs. Liberal Progressive Socialist Democrats HATE Christians and, as they have been taught / believe, they hate anything people look to / lean on other than the govt. It's a socialist / communist / dictator 'thing'.

Twitter discriminates against Conservatives, Republicans, Trump-supporters - anything and anyone who opposes liberal policies and the liberal agenda. That's 'ok'.

 

[Flash]

Trump has the courage to confront the Left Wing assholes that will try to stifle his voice.

The Left Wing assholes don't like that. They are use to politicians just giving in to their hate and lies.

That is why the Moon Bats hate Trump so much. He stands up to their filth.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

Yes, because progressive losers like you never post "hateful" or "lying" tweets.

Fuck off.

Twitter removes an enormous amount of tweets for being hateful. No one removed Trump’s lying tweet. They just posted a link below it stating why they thought it wasn’t true. What’s ironic is that you’re all outraged that Twitter is using their freedom of expression to reply to Trump’s tweet.

Fascist.

They claim to be an open forum, accepting all viewpoints, and yet the only viewpoints they seem to delete with any consistency are those from the right.

If they want to take a side, they should have to say it, in writing. If they want to be a forum for open exchange they shouldn't be banning people for content based on their politics.

Twitter has never stated there are no limits to what you can post. You’re either lying or just making shut up.

Being an open forum and having no limits on what you can post are two different things, and you know that.

Twitter's own missions statement:

Twitter's purpose is to serve the public conversation. Violence, harassment and other similar types of behavior discourage people from expressing themselves, and ultimately diminish the value of global public conversation. Our rules are to ensure all people can participate in the public conversation freely and safely.

As their statement says, moderation is essential to keeping the platform viable.

That’s precisely why they wrote section 230 in the first place. That’s why these websites even exist.

"Moderation".

So that's how you explain content based bans and filtering.

Uh, yes. That’s exactly what it means. If someone posts something with content that is unacceptable, the moderators remove it. It’s how it works on this forum too.

And of course, to you, unacceptable means "anything I disagree with politically"

Just admit it, you favor banning speech of people you don't like.

Twitter has a ton of speech on it that I disagree with. I have no desire to see it banned.

Have you ever seen a platform with the lack of moderation that you desire? They’re cesspools of racism, anti-semitism and generally fringe nonsense. No one wants that.

Bullshit.

You are a censoring lying twat. FOAD.

And you’re a fascist thug. Nice to meet you.

Twitter has no obligation to pay to propagate idiots speech.

What am i doing to stop you from spreading your idiocy?

Twitter claims to be a discussion forum, and then takes sides in the discussion.

You don't care because it takes your side, filth.

You’re supporting a government action for force Twitter to support your dear leader.

Right now government action gives them immunity from liability because they claim people's posts are not "their content".

They then claim the right to moderate content based on whatever they feel like because it is 'their site", and thus their content.

They want the best of both worlds, and they should have to choose. Claim all content as theirs, moderate as they see fit, and then be liable for whatever they let through, or keep their protections as "not their content" and not moderate based on political, cultural, or moral viewpoints of their own.

That’s exactly the point of section 230 as I’ve been trying to tell you.

You don’t want to take away their ability to moderate. You really don’t want that. Go to an unmoderated forum. It’s garbage. It’s an absolute cesspool.

Section 230 was to prevent something like someone tweeting "I am going to blow up a bridge" and then twitter being sued because they didn't do anything about it.

It wasn't designed for Twitter to take sides in political debates and still claim the content isn't theirs.

That doesn’t make any sense. Why would the goal be to allow internet companies immunity from reporting specific identifiable threats?

You don’t really know what you’re talking about.

It's to stop someone from suing twitter for the threat made by another person.

Tweeter: "I am going to kill X"
20 min later, person X is killed by said tweeter.

230 stops the victim's family from suing twitter because they didn't call the cops.

You really think that the government wrote legislation that permitted internet companies to ignore individual specific threats?

That makes absolutely no sense.

It's exactly why they wrote it. Why do you think they wrote it?

Prodigy was sued for defamation by a bank because a poster on their message board accuses that bank of fraud. Prodigy was liable for that defamation.

What made Prodigy liable? They had moderators who removed posts that were insulting, off topic or harassment.

So it created a perverse incentive. The only way to avoid liability for the posts is to allow people to post basically whatever they wanted. It stopped anyone from trying to keep their Internet forums civil and that’s not what anyone wants.

Progressives are the kings of "this is why we can't have nice things". Section 230 works when only used to weed out criminal or completely vulgar postings. But now you want to use it to silence opponents.

Thus it has to go. All on you, none on us.

Alright then. Show me what has been censored.

Certainly not President Snowflake. No one took down his idiotic tweets even when they do constitute harassment.

You Can’t Say That on Twitter | National Review

So the complaint is that you can’t use twitter to express your discrimination of transgendered individuals which is against the terms of service?

How is it against the terms of service to say a man is a man and a woman is a woman?

Sorry, but all you are doing is messing with the paint job and the fender, the DNA stays the same.

See? This is the issue, your side decides a viewpoint is ist/ic and thus verboten.

Because it's targeted harassment of the transgendered community.

No, it isn't. It's amazing how Nazi you assholes go to "protect" your cherished notions.

Is saying "Red Sox Suck" targeted harrassment of Bostonians?

All they are doing is pretending to be the opposite sex, hell a ton of them now don't even go with the surgeries.

Your opinion on the topic is irrelevant. It's Twitter's platform and they set the rules. They specifically say that type of rhetoric is not allowed and considered hateful speech against a group.

That's fine. The issue is them calling themselves a platform and getting liability protections.

.

 

[easyt65]

why do they have to act fairly?

They don't. The govt also does not have to give them special protection from consequences from how they run their business.

Fairness is not a requirement under the law providing 230 protections.... if he wants it under the law to require 230 protection, then the law needs changing.... And if you change the law, then YOU will kill all forum sites, like USMB...And cut out our free expression, including Twitter' s.

DUMMY!

Twitter can be as unfair as they want...and face the business risk of doing so, like so many other business across the country must do daily without government protections. The govt should not be in the business of protecting business who claim to be fair and equal while discriminating against and censoring people and their views.

Were Twitter run by a Conservative who was censoring liberal snowflakes / Democrats, Democrats and snowflakes would be screaming for proverbial blood, demanding they not only be stripped of their protection but demand they be shut down, as if they were some bakery that refused to make some Satanist's cake with icing that read 'F* Jesus'.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

"A small handful of social media monopolies controls a vast portion of all public and private communications in the United States. They’ve had unchecked power to censor, restrict, edit, shape, hide, alter, virtually any form of communication between private citizens and large public audiences. ”

He's right.

He's totally wrong to use his govt power....

And 230 is protection from law suits against any Forum owners, for what their posters say.....

Which gives all of us, freedom to express ourselves, with little moderation or censorship...

USMB has the same 230 protections.....

It has nothing to do with the fairness doctrine that Trump is NOW promoting for forums.... censorship.

Y'all have fricken lost your minds... Lord forgive you, for ye know not, what you do....

Those asshole are hiding behind government protections and using those unique protections as both a sword and a shield.

Nobody is shutting them down. They just opened up the floodgate of litigation by acting like a fucking newspaper.

Its their own fault. They know EXACTLY what they have been doing and so do you. They have a choice.

.

 

[JLW]

why do they have to act fairly?

They don't. The govt also does not have to give them special protection from consequences from how they run their business.

I agree if they repeal social media immunity let’s also repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act that gives gun dealers and manufactures immunity from civil suits. Deal? What is the difference ?

Nope. That law is because you assholes want to attempt an end run around the constitution by putting all firearm manufacturers out of business.

and gun owners can still be sued if their product fails due to negligence in the manufacturing process, just like any other manufacturer. What is prevented is suing them for the actions of others when their product works as intended.

It would be like suing Ford if a drunk driver used an Explorer to kill 30 people by driving into a crowd, even if the car functioned properly.

The OP says government should not give businesses special protections. The question is he a hypocrite or does he apply this standard to all businesses.

I am saying that Twitter doesn't deserve 230 protection anymore, but gun manufacturers shouldn't be sued if their product works as intended. Two different issues, but you attempt to link them in a gotcha attempt.

Sorry, doesn't fly.

Isn’t social media working as intended? A platform to air one’s views is exactly its purpose. Congress just can’t take immunity from one company and leave it place for others. It would need to repeal the law in its entirety. Say good bye to forums like this and Social media.

Why not? The standard is the law protects sites that allow private content from private individuals. Twitter had decided to control the content beyond the standard controls for vulgarity and actual criminal activities. furthermore, they have decided to unequally control the content, yet still claim to be a public forum.

All sites have terms of service, including this one. Violate those terms and they can expel you and you have no legal recourse. I have not read Twitter’s TOS but they may be in their rights to censure Trump. Does unequal enforcement of the TOS equal an actionable event, I.e. a law suit? I am not sure probably not. My feeling is that Trump has been given more leeway than the average Twitter user, but I really don’y know if that is accurate.

 

[martybegan]

why do they have to act fairly?

They don't. The govt also does not have to give them special protection from consequences from how they run their business.

I agree if they repeal social media immunity let’s also repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act that gives gun dealers and manufactures immunity from civil suits. Deal? What is the difference ?

Nope. That law is because you assholes want to attempt an end run around the constitution by putting all firearm manufacturers out of business.

and gun owners can still be sued if their product fails due to negligence in the manufacturing process, just like any other manufacturer. What is prevented is suing them for the actions of others when their product works as intended.

It would be like suing Ford if a drunk driver used an Explorer to kill 30 people by driving into a crowd, even if the car functioned properly.

The OP says government should not give businesses special protections. The question is he a hypocrite or does he apply this standard to all businesses.

I am saying that Twitter doesn't deserve 230 protection anymore, but gun manufacturers shouldn't be sued if their product works as intended. Two different issues, but you attempt to link them in a gotcha attempt.

Sorry, doesn't fly.

Isn’t social media working as intended? A platform to air one’s views is exactly its purpose. Congress just can’t take immunity from one company and leave it place for others. It would need to repeal the law in its entirety. Say good bye to forums like this and Social media.

Why not? The standard is the law protects sites that allow private content from private individuals. Twitter had decided to control the content beyond the standard controls for vulgarity and actual criminal activities. furthermore, they have decided to unequally control the content, yet still claim to be a public forum.

All sites have terms of service, including this one. Violate those terms and they can expel you and you have no legal recourse. I have not read Twitter’s TOS but they may be in their rights to censure Trump. Does unequal enforcement of the TOS equal an actionable event, I.e. a law suit? I am not sure probably not. My feeling is that Trump has been given more leeway than the average Twitter user, but I really don’y know if that is accurate.

I care less about Trump and more about normal people being banned because they say things like a man is a man and a woman is a woman. If you think something that banal is "hate speech" then you either are a queefing spineless wussy, or just don't like hearing things you disagree with.

Their"rules" call themself a public forum, and they do call out bad behaviors, however they don't enforce the rules they set equally or fairly, while claiming they do.

230 protection loss would force them to admit this, nothing more.

 

[CWayne]

What is amusing is that if these social platforms had been erasing, deleting, or placing liberal/progressive statements those who are defending this practice now would be the ones in court suing to have it stopped.