And what consequences are those other than libel? And if Twitter user commits libel then that is the person from whom to seek redress.
Twitter cannot violate anyone's first amendment rights.
Thank you for making the argument that Twitter has no need for 302 Protection. I could not agree with you more.
They don't need it because Twitter is not capable of violating anyone's First Amendment rights.
Twitter is also not responsible for the statements made by its users.
So what do they need protection from?
I agree they don't need it...so why are snowflakes wetting themselves about the President voiding giving them selective 302 Protection?
How the **** should I know.
The EO is completely meaningless.
If Trump knew anything about the Constitution he would know that
Section 230 of the CDA makes Twitter not responsible for the postings of their users. If someone posts something defamatory, Twitter cannot be sued. Without it, Twitter wouldn't exist.
Trump is trying to take that away which will ruin Twitter. It's the political equivalent of throwing the frisbee on the roof and going home because no one wants to play with you.
Sure it could exist because Twitter has the right to edit, redact or refuse to post anything written by its users. Just like the way this site does
They definitely do. However, before Section 230 was put into place in the mid 90s, there were message boards online. One company that ran a message board would filter out profanity and other objectional material. Someone on that message board sued the company (Prodigy) for defamation after a user on the message board posted something defamatory. The court held that Prodigy was a publisher of all user submitted information since they exercised their right to moderate their board.
That's not what anyone wanted, so they made any company that ran a message board or anything like it immune from libel lawsuits for the posting of their users specifically so that message boards would continue deleting material that was objectionable.
So by taking away section 230, Twitter would either have to stop moderating all together or they would have to take responsibility for their users postings. Either way, it would probably destroy Twitter. The presence of section 230 is what made the internet the internet.
It's Done.... Twitter is now free to exercise whatever control it wants, run its company any way it wants....without any Government 'Liability Shield' just like so many other companies and businesses across this country have to do every day.....
On Thursday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order calling for social media companies to
pjmedia.com
'On Thursday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to strip social media companies of their “liability shield” if they engage in censorship or political content.'
Welcome to being treated just like every other business, Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc....
It doesn't matter. Nothing is stopping them from controlling the content on their websites.
I don't have to let you into my business so you can make some political speech and I can tell you to leave or have you removed by the cops and that will not violate your first amendment rights because no private party can violate your first amendment rights as the first amendment applies only to the government.
"Congress shall make no laws...."
When the government protects your business from being sued because of what the people you let into your business say, then my constitutional rights are being denied.
Don't sue the company sue the person that said whatever it is that was libelous or slanderous.
Twitter is not responsible for what people post
You can't have it both ways.
They are if they start saying what is, real or not. That crosses the line from platform to something else. What if Twitter corrects someone and is wrong? Can we sue them now?
You agreed to the terms of service when you signed up for your user account did you not?
I suggest you read them then you might find the answer to your question
So a ToS invalidates law.
You funny.
What law?
No social media provider is capable of violating your freedom of speech rights so they can censor anyone they want to for any reason.
But you don't want them to do that right?
Why doesn't the company that owns the social media site have the right to dispute anything that any user says?
If you people don't like what the social media company does don't use it.
No, they can't censor anyone they want to for any reason if they want government protection from lawsuits. When are you going to get that through your ******* skull?
No private company can violate the first amendment. And I'll say it again fact checking is not censorship
You do not have a guaranteed right to post on Twitter.
you clearly are devoid of any and all anti-trust history in the owrld.
Twitter does not have a monopoly.
Therefore anti trust laws do not apply
It certainly does have a monopoly.
No it doesn't.
You can post in literally millions of other forums on the internet.
You can get your own URL and publish your opinions on anything you want.
Twitter does not control that.
The First amendment does not guarantee you access to an audience.
Twitter is not a message board, moron.
Of course it is.
It's only different from this place in the size of its user numbers.
Wrong. Twitter occupies a specific market niche, and it has virtually 100% of the business in that niche. The justice department has taken numerous companies to court for exactly those circumstances. Just check out the cases of U.S vs Alcoa Aluminum. or U.S. vs Standard Oil.
that's what he simply doesn't understand. he's equating twitter to this board.
this board is great as far as xenforo sites so. one of the most active i've seen. but the people who run it can in no way control what you or i say, nor verify the authenticity of it. so in the 90s, sect 230 came to life so owners of sites like this, VERY VERY COMMON in the 90s (mostly vbulletin) couldn't be held accountable for the things we say.
when twitter came into being, they needed that "protection" also so they were given platform status. doesn't matter if blues or anyone else agrees or disagrees with it. from a legal standpoint, it happened and that's how they've been governed and to a large degree, have grown.
but now they are not simply wanting protection from what you or i would say on twitter, they set themselves up to say what is true and false and that simply dives over the line of what a "platform" intention is. they are now "publishers" in the eyes of the law because they are creating or validating content. in this case, validating.
they are also doing it very unevenly. they cover a trump post for inciting violence but the head of twitters department that makes these decisions says divisive things quite often and has even called it an "emergency" and wants to "pull out all the stops" to get hillary elected.
can someone who has the power to say what is real or not to billions of people in the world take such an obvious bias AND continue to be allowed to have that control?
no. i don't care what side you are on. no.
all this "they're a private company" or "not a monopoly" - honestly it doesn't matter. they were classified as a platform, enjoyed the "you can't sue me" status and now that is on the way to ending. it's a part of a legal process that started back in the 90s.
i will fully agree the rules of engagement for social media are hard to define. but they must be moving forward. whatever the ever changing opinion anus-blues-boy here thinks simply is as irrelevant as what he says. it's legal, its in process and it's happening. whining you don't like it, just don't care.
esp when you can't even own up to misstatement that we all make. i make them and i own them, not get up in someones face for noticing. hell yesterday i made a huge error and posted the suicide note and when i was wrong, reported myself, edited what i could and moved on.
how it should be done, to me anyway.
so blues can ague his emotional imbalances all day long and it simply won't matter.
legally social media sites are considered a platform.
legally that is under review and quite likely to change.
as that is now in legal question, twitter needs to tread very carefully as not having this status opens them up to legal action out the ass.
whether bluesboy likes it or not.
