- Sep 13, 2012
- Reaction score
I’ve said this a few times now, but in the more antiquated forms of community post cork boards the same free speech protections exist. If your place of business has a community cork boar, you are not allowed to pick and choose what gets posted as long as it’s legal. So if you own a convenience store with a community cork board, and a competing store decides to post an advertisement on there, you cannot take it down, or cover it up with another flier. Or say someone posts a flier for a pro-choice rally and the business owner is pro-life, again it’s against the law to remove that flier. Similarly Google has been doing the same using algorithms to suppress business searches that compete with one of their subsidiaries. Same with likes of twitter and YouTube manipulating their algorithms and the next day the traffic for conservative content magically goes down by 40%. Same with the shadow banning, same with labeling pro-life content as porn, etc.They ban as well. Right above you there is mud claiming that they do, indeed, politically sensor. What do you think happens if he decides to sue even though it is utterly frivolous?They can disagree all they want. Moving the thread to a different topic heading is not the same as deleting it and banning you from posting.So says most of the right here.This website censors very little, and they spell out very plainly the things that aren't allowed. Opinions the moderators don't agree with isn't included.Nope, every website censors. Including this one.Censoring is editorializing, moron. If they don't want to follow the rules, then their protection from lawsuits will be stripped from them.No, its not.This is the appropriate remedy.“Today, I am signing an Executive Order to protect and uphold the free speech and rights of the American people,” Trump declared. “Currently, social media giants like Twitter receive an unprecedented liability shield based on the theory that they’re a neutral platform, which they are not, not an editor with a viewpoint.
My executive order calls for new regulations under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to make it so that social media companies that engage in censoring or any political conduct will not be able to keep their liability shield.
My executive order further instructs the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to prohibit social media companies from engaging in any deceptive acts or practices regarding commerce.”
The United States Government should not be in the business of picking select companies to reward with liability shields, especially when they operate in ways that are against the US Constitution and Constitutional Rights.
The President did NOT take action to stop Twitters and other private companies from operating as they so choose but took action to remove govt protections that prevent them from having to face the consequences of their choice to operate their companies as they choose.
The President did not strip Twitter of anything that was 'theirs'. He just acted to deny giving companies like Twitter protections they did not earn and did not deserve.
He had no right to shut them down, and his threats to do so were quite troubling.
But, this is every bit appropriate if they are going to continue to use Section 230 as both a sword and a shield. Either be a publication or be a provider.
They are not editorializing, they are censoring content on their own damn property. There is no reason that they should be liable for the bad comments of others on their site.
They sensor here (and they do so in a manner that can be construed to be political). Should I be able to sue usmessageboards because you libel me? This is a sick case of Trump using the government to control the public message.
Want this law to go away then message boards like this one will cease to exist. That is just a fact.
Many of the nut jobs that get regulated tot he rubber room would disagree. Certainly, many of the hard left wing nutjobs in the legal system might disagree as well when Russian conspiracy threads are sent there.
Do you trust those judges to make the right call in those circumstances? Even worse, all it takes is a single frivolous lawsuit from Joe Noone to make a site like this one financially untenable. And worst of all, virtually every single one of those tiny conservative platforms that currently exist as both a publisher and a comment site for conservatives to share opinions would disappear as well with a single frivolous lawsuit. This is essentially what Media Matters does though they go after advertisers atm and they are VERY good at it. Open that Pandora's Box and you would be arming them with a bazooka to take down everyone they disagree with.
Therein lies the other problem, the left is FAR better at using the outrage machine to make platforms and alternative media sources disappear than the right is.
If we refuse to fight for what's right because we're afraid our opponents will fight back, then we deserve to become voiceless, helpless serfs.
The site would cease to exist.
You cant become voiceless helpless surfs because a social media company removes you from their platform. Only the government has the power to truly take your voice away. Twitter removing you means you go elsewhere.
Give the government the power to tell twitter how it will regulate speech on its platform and then you truly will lose your voice as soon as the next Obama/Hillary/Pelosi clone takes office and gets to 'interpret' such regulation.
It’s a shame it came to this when it didn’t have too, but it was inevitable. I’ve heard basically all conservative content creators on YouTube and twitter tell the companies they’re happy to follow the company “policy”, but the policy rules are extremely vague, aren’t applied anywhere close to equally, and often get suspended or shut down when they are following the rules, and then have to go through a long and confusing process to hopefully get their content restored or remonetized. They often don’t even get an answer back from the companies.