Trump Calls For End of 230 Protections Or Will Veto NDAA (funds the military)

[Zorro!]

THERE’S AN INTERESTING ANTI-BIG-TECH COALITION COMING TOGETHER: ‘Don’t back down’: Tulsi Gabbard tells Trump he has her full throated support in terminating Section 230.

President Trump has Democratic Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard’s full support in terminating Section 230.

“@realDonaldTrump I fully support you on this. Please don’t back down. The freedom and future of our country is at stake,” Gabbard tweeted Thursday.

The tweet came in response to Trump's writing, “Section 230, which is a liability shielding gift from the U.S. to ‘Big Tech’ (the only companies in America that have it - corporate welfare!), is a serious threat to our National Security & Election Integrity. Our Country can never be safe & secure if we allow it to stand.”

“Therefore, if the very dangerous & unfair Section 230 is not completely terminated as part of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), I will be forced to unequivocally VETO the Bill when sent to the very beautiful Resolute desk. Take back America NOW. Thank you!” he continued.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Call his bluff.

I hope they do.

This will be FUN to watch.

Lawsuits would tie it up until Trump is back in his own terlit.

Lawsuits? By whom and what for?

Companies opposed to his actions.

Companies cannot sue to get laws overturned just because they don't like them, dumbass. Where is the Constitutional issue?

 

[dudmuck]

THERE’S AN INTERESTING ANTI-BIG-TECH COALITION COMING TOGETHER: ‘Don’t back down’: Tulsi Gabbard tells Trump he has her full throated support in terminating Section 230.

President Trump has Democratic Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard’s full support in terminating Section 230.

“@realDonaldTrump I fully support you on this. Please don’t back down. The freedom and future of our country is at stake,” Gabbard tweeted Thursday.

The tweet came in response to Trump's writing, “Section 230, which is a liability shielding gift from the U.S. to ‘Big Tech’ (the only companies in America that have it - corporate welfare!), is a serious threat to our National Security & Election Integrity. Our Country can never be safe & secure if we allow it to stand.”

“Therefore, if the very dangerous & unfair Section 230 is not completely terminated as part of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), I will be forced to unequivocally VETO the Bill when sent to the very beautiful Resolute desk. Take back America NOW. Thank you!” he continued.

View attachment 424833​

the 230 rule is the only protection allowing conservative posts to stay up on social media.
Without 230, the social media companies would be sued for keeping those posts up, and they'd end up having to ban everybody.

 

[Zorro!]

THERE’S AN INTERESTING ANTI-BIG-TECH COALITION COMING TOGETHER: ‘Don’t back down’: Tulsi Gabbard tells Trump he has her full throated support in terminating Section 230.

President Trump has Democratic Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard’s full support in terminating Section 230.

“@realDonaldTrump I fully support you on this. Please don’t back down. The freedom and future of our country is at stake,” Gabbard tweeted Thursday.

The tweet came in response to Trump's writing, “Section 230, which is a liability shielding gift from the U.S. to ‘Big Tech’ (the only companies in America that have it - corporate welfare!), is a serious threat to our National Security & Election Integrity. Our Country can never be safe & secure if we allow it to stand.”

“Therefore, if the very dangerous & unfair Section 230 is not completely terminated as part of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), I will be forced to unequivocally VETO the Bill when sent to the very beautiful Resolute desk. Take back America NOW. Thank you!” he continued.

View attachment 424833​

the 230 rule is the only protection allowing conservative posts to stay up on social media.
Without 230, the social media companies would be sued for keeping those posts up, and they'd end up having to ban everybody.

Fake News. These platforms claimed they were politically neutral common carriers, clearly they are now political partisans and their justification for their special exemptions no longer applies. They have been repeatedly warned that if they want to keep their special immunity that they need to end the partisan discrimination, and clearly they have made their choice.

 

[busybee01]

Call his bluff.

I hope they do.

This will be FUN to watch.

Lawsuits would tie it up until Trump is back in his own terlit.

Lawsuits? By whom and what for?

Companies opposed to his actions.

Companies cannot sue to get laws overturned just because they don't like them, dumbass. Where is the Constitutional issue?

The constitutional issue is whether free speech rights can be forced on a public company. The Supreme Court has already sqaid that they cannot.

 

[busybee01]

THERE’S AN INTERESTING ANTI-BIG-TECH COALITION COMING TOGETHER: ‘Don’t back down’: Tulsi Gabbard tells Trump he has her full throated support in terminating Section 230.

President Trump has Democratic Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard’s full support in terminating Section 230.

“@realDonaldTrump I fully support you on this. Please don’t back down. The freedom and future of our country is at stake,” Gabbard tweeted Thursday.

The tweet came in response to Trump's writing, “Section 230, which is a liability shielding gift from the U.S. to ‘Big Tech’ (the only companies in America that have it - corporate welfare!), is a serious threat to our National Security & Election Integrity. Our Country can never be safe & secure if we allow it to stand.”

“Therefore, if the very dangerous & unfair Section 230 is not completely terminated as part of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), I will be forced to unequivocally VETO the Bill when sent to the very beautiful Resolute desk. Take back America NOW. Thank you!” he continued.

View attachment 424833​

the 230 rule is the only protection allowing conservative posts to stay up on social media.
Without 230, the social media companies would be sued for keeping those posts up, and they'd end up having to ban everybody.

Free speech rights in the Constitution apply to the government not private companies. Try going to Walmart and pass out political material at the entrance. You can be arrested for trespassing if you do not leave.

 

[Slyhunter]

I don't see the problem. Why can't Conservative alternatives be introduce and supplant the liberal crap shoot? It worked for Talk Radio.

 

[Zorro!]

Call his bluff.

I hope they do.

This will be FUN to watch.

It will. Dumb Donald would be unable to post ANY of his lies ANYWHERE, if he ends these protections.

Just pull 230 protections from those abusing them. Twitter, Facebook, etc. If they are going to censor, then 230 protections aren’t necessary. Easy.

So 230 protections are pulled....and then what? What is the result of pulling those protections?

Big Tech Platforms would no longer have a government license to censor and discriminate. They would be subject to same claims for harm that every other publisher is.

ANTISOCIAL MEDIA: Ex-Gay Pastor Appeals After Court Rules Section 230 Allows Big Tech to Discriminate Against Him.

A pastor sued Vimeo for discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and religion after the platform banned him from publishing videos telling the stories of people who identify as ex-gay.

“This is a case of grave importance because it is about whether big tech platforms can unlawfully discriminate against persons based on religion or sexual orientation,” attorney Nada Higuera argued on Thursday in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.​

Southern California Christian Pastor Jim Domen sued Vimeo as the platform discriminated against him on the basis of his Christian religion and his sexual orientation as a former homosexual. The lower court granted Vimeo’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit, claiming Section 230 allowed the company to discriminate against the pastor. This logic echoes a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling along similar lines.

“This case is significant because the lower court and the Ninth Circuit have interpreted the federal Communications Decency Act to give immunity to Big Tech whenever such a company commits unconscionable acts of discrimination against protected classes of individuals – for example, classifications based on race, religion, color creed or sexual orientation,” attorney Robert Tyler, Partner at Tyler & Bursch, LLP and President of Advocates for Faith & Freedom, said in a statement.​

The lower court’s interpretation of Section 230 allows “a company like Vimeo, YouTube or even Amazon to decide that it will not allow someone to hold an account with their site just because they are of a particular race or religion. This invidious discrimination is normally unlawful for businesses operating in any states; but according to this federal district court, the CDA exempts Big Tech from states’ nondiscrimination laws when censoring content or deciding who is allowed to access the service they offer. This should concern everyone from left to right.”

Vimeo censored some of Church United’s 89 videos claiming they constituted harassment because Pastor Domen and other ex-gays spoke about the help they received through counseling and talk therapy. The videos in question involved people telling their personal stories about how therapy helped them put their homosexual lifestyles behind them.

Vimeo removed Church United’s account because the Big Tech company disapproves of Pastor Domen’s sexual orientation and religion.

“There are many individuals like me who were once engaged in a same-sex lifestyle that are now ostracized for our personal intimate decisions regarding our sexual orientation,” Pastor Domen said in a statement. “As a Pastor, I just want the ability to share the good things that have happened in my life as a Christian and to help unify Pastors in California to engage in the world around them.”​

Domen filed the lawsuit on June 25, 2019. On January 15, 2020, two days after oral arguments, Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron of the Southern District Court of New York granted Vimeo’s motion to dismiss, citing the CDA.

Attorneys representing Pastor Domen, argue that Congress did not intend to protect internet platforms from federal anti-discrimination law when it passed Section 230 as part of the Communications Decency Act in 1996.

“I am grateful for a legal firm like Tyler & Bursch who is willing to represent Americans who have blatantly been discriminated against for their sexual orientation and religious beliefs,” Domen said in a statement on the oral arguments in the appeal Thursday.

“As a Former homosexual, I was targeted because I am now married to a woman with three biological children. Vimeo also targeted Church United, a non-profit religious organization, by deleting all of Church United’s videos created over a 2-year period. Vimeo did these egregious actions the day after Thanksgiving. Then, days later in December, Christians’ holiest month of the year, Vimeo completely wiped-out Church United’s account, which crippled the organization financially.”

Congress would do well to amend Section 230 to clarify the legislation.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

This question should not be seen in terms of a whining or unfairly treated Trump vs. some Constitution-defying Liberal Establishment. This article by one of my favorite political economists — a respected opponent of “too big to fail” crony capitalism — puts the issue in a different and I think far more appropriate context:

DECEMBER 22, 2020
Getting Serious About Repealing Section 230
BY DEAN BAKER

Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act has been getting considerable attention lately for almost all the wrong reasons. Donald Trump has been yelling that he wants the provision repealed, and even threatened to veto the main military spending bill for next year if it does not include the repeal of Section 230. (It doesn’t.)

Trump apparently believes that repealing Section 230 would prevent Facebook from pulling down posts from Trump and his racist friends. He also is upset that Twitter labels his absurd lies as being subject to dispute. In fact, repealing Section 230 would in no way prevent Facebook from pulling down posts it found objectionable or stop Twitter from putting warning labels on Trump’s nonsense tweets.

There are others who seem to believe that repealing Section 230 would force Facebook, Twitter, and other social media networks to remove material that is racist, sexist, or in other ways offensive. There is nothing about Section 230 that facilitates the spread of such material and its repeal would not stop it.

The Real Reason for Repealing Section 230:
Restructuring the Industry

I have been arguing for the repeal of Section 230 for entirely different reasons. I have argued that repeal would fundamentally change the structure of the industry, leading to a major downsizing of Facebook, Twitter, and other social media giants. It would also level the playing field between social media platforms and traditional media outlets. To my view, these are hugely important accomplishments, even if they do not square with the more common arguments on Section 230....

Originally published here:

Getting Serious About Repealing Section 230

Repealing Section 230 means treating social media in the same way as print and broadcast media.

cepr.net

 

[dblack]

Trump Promises To Defund The Entire Military, If Congress Won't Let Him Punish The Internet For Being Mean To Him

President Trump has continued to throw his little temper tantrum in response to #DiaperDon trending on Twitter. When that happened, he suddenly demanded a full repeal of Section 230 — which w…

www.techdirt.com

At least this probably ensures democrats aren't going to nuke the internet.

Was hearing a lot of talk about how section 230 is bad for murica from the left in the last 4 years. Should stop that now hopefully

The partisan hypocrisy is pretty ridiculous. If Trump wasn't in the picture, and and it was the Democrats trying to crackdown on social media companies, the Republicans would be howling.

 

[dblack]

Trump Promises To Defund The Entire Military, If Congress Won't Let Him Punish The Internet For Being Mean To Him

President Trump has continued to throw his little temper tantrum in response to #DiaperDon trending on Twitter. When that happened, he suddenly demanded a full repeal of Section 230 — which w…

www.techdirt.com

At least this probably ensures democrats aren't going to nuke the internet.

Was hearing a lot of talk about how section 230 is bad for murica from the left in the last 4 years. Should stop that now hopefully

What do you think the consequences of removing 230 protections would be?

The end of the internet as we know it and all user created content hosting

Basic search engines might not even survive

We can pretty much count on any bill removing 230 to also include gobs of regulation/exemptions/loopholes/carve-outs/etc. That would allow these companies to survive, but put them firmly under government control - which is the whole point.

 

[dblack]

I don't see the problem. Why can't Conservative alternatives be introduce and supplant the liberal crap shoot? It worked for Talk Radio.

There's no actual argument behind this. Just excuse-making for Trump's desire for retribution. He lives and breathes getting back at his enemies. That's all that's going on here.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

We can pretty much count on any bill removing 230 to also include gobs of regulation/exemptions/loopholes/carve-outs/etc. That would allow these companies to survive, but put them firmly under government control - which is the whole point.

I don’t see why repealing 230 should have to “put them firmly under government control.” Any attempts to do that should be vigorously opposed! I also don’t believe it would be necessary to do anything further to “allow these companies to survive.” They would surely survive very well, just as less specially advantaged and less profitable companies. This was the whole point of the article I linked to above by economist Dean Baker: Getting Serious About Repealing Section 230 - Center for Economic and Policy Research

 

[dblack]

We can pretty much count on any bill removing 230 to also include gobs of regulation/exemptions/loopholes/carve-outs/etc. That would allow these companies to survive, but put them firmly under government control - which is the whole point.

I don’t see why repealing 230 should have to “put them firmly under government control.”

It doesn't have to. But Congress never does anything that doesn't expand their power. Especially for Democrats who would love to sink their regulatory teeth into social media.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

We can pretty much count on any bill removing 230 to also include gobs of regulation/exemptions/loopholes/carve-outs/etc. That would allow these companies to survive, but put them firmly under government control - which is the whole point.

I don’t see why repealing 230 should have to “put them firmly under government control.”

It doesn't have to. But Congress never does anything that doesn't expand their power. Especially for Democrats who would love to sink their regulatory teeth into social media.

Well right now after Trump’s muddying up the issue (as usual) and making it personal, the Democrats will do nothing in the short term. So the opportunity remains to rebuild a bipartisan consensus.

p.s. In my opinion, there is also an opportunity to build an anti-monopoly, anti-trust, bi-partisan campaign against Amazon. Amazon Prime now has something like 75% of U.S. families enrolled, or so I’ve read. Amazon has various tax advantages that should also be ended.

 

[Mac-7]

We should change sec 230 to protect internet users from partisan lib censers - aka the tech companies

free speech should be for everyone rather than just libs

 

[dblack]

We can pretty much count on any bill removing 230 to also include gobs of regulation/exemptions/loopholes/carve-outs/etc. That would allow these companies to survive, but put them firmly under government control - which is the whole point.

I don’t see why repealing 230 should have to “put them firmly under government control.”

It doesn't have to. But Congress never does anything that doesn't expand their power. Especially for Democrats who would love to sink their regulatory teeth into social media.

Well right now after Trump’s muddying up the issue (as usual) and making it personal, the Democrats will do nothing in the short term. So the opportunity remains to rebuild a bipartisan consensus.

p.s. In my opinion, there is also an opportunity to build an anti-monopoly, anti-trust, bi-partisan campaign against Amazon. Amazon Prime now has something like 75% of U.S. families enrolled, or so I’ve read. Amazon has various tax advantages that should also be ended.

I'm not big on anti-trust interference. But I agree we should end all the special privileges. My beef with the Trumpster crackdown on social media is that section 230 is merely a convenient excuse to do something that (they think) will harm the companies who have censored Trump. And many of them want to go further and regulate these companies like public utilities.

Further, none of it represents a genuine desire for justice or fair application of the law. Trump is merely "hitting back" - it's retribution and nothing more.

 

[dblack]

We should change sec 230 to protect internet users from partisan lib censers - aka the tech companies

free speech should be for everyone rather than just libs

Nope. That's an utterly stupid reason. First, it wouldn't prevent them from censoring - it would encourage more censoring. And you clearly don't have a clue what free speech means. It doesn't mean other people have to accommodate you.

 

[Mac-7]

Nope. That's an utterly stupid reason. First, it wouldn't prevent them from censoring - it would encourage more censoring. And you clearly don't have a clue what free speech means. It doesn't mean other people have to accommodate you.

I think the far left social media will increase censorship of conservative speech with or without government protection

without special protection they will be forced to block leftwing speech also which they are not doing now

because any game liberals can think up conservatives can learn to play

 

[Zorro!]

We should change sec 230 to protect internet users from partisan lib censers - aka the tech companies

free speech should be for everyone rather than just libs

4 Reasons Why Trust Busting Trump Vetoed the Military Spending Bill.

Trump Says NO to NDAA.​

Reasons:

1. Section 230
Section 230 grants internet companies key liability immunity. Trump specifically called on Congress to strike down Section 230 in the NDAA, threatening to veto the bill without a Section 230 ban.

“Your failure to terminate the very dangerous national security risk of Section 230 will make our intelligence virtually impossible to conduct without everyone knowing what we are doing at every step,” Trump wrote in his statement on the veto.​

“Section 230 facilitates the spread of foreign disinformation online, which is a serious threat to our national security and election integrity. It must be repealed.”​

Congress should reform Section 230 to clarify what it does and does not allow Big Tech companies to do.

2. Limiting the president’s use of military funds
Trump faulted the NDAA for restricting “the President’s ability to preserve our Nation’s security by arbitrarily limiting the amount of military construction funds that can be used to respond to a national emergency. In a time when adversaries have the means to directly attack the homeland, the President must be able to safeguard the American people without having to wait for congressional authorization.”

3. Slowing the rollout of 5G
The bill “would slow down the rollout of nationwide 5G, especially in rural areas.” The NDAA involves two 5G-related provisions: a measure to “support the development of a 5G wireless network by establishing the Public Wireless Supply Chain Innovation Fund and the Multilateral Telecommunications Security Fund,” and a measure to reduce foreign influence in 5G — combatting the influence of Chinese technology.

4. War Party Preventing Trump from bringing troops home
The NDAA restricts the President's ability to bring American troops home from overseas.

“Numerous provisions of the Act directly contradict my Administration’s foreign policy, particularly my efforts to bring our troops home,” Trump explained. “I oppose endless wars, as does the American public. Over bipartisan objections, however, this Act restricts the President’s ability to withdraw troops from Afghanistan, Germany, and South Korea.”​

“Not only is this bad policy, but it is unconstitutional. Article II of the Constitution makes the President the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States and vests in him the executive power. Therefore, the decision regarding how many troops to deploy and where, including in Afghanistan, Germany, and South Korea, rests with him. The Congress may not arrogate this authority to itself directly or indirectly as purported spending restrictions.”​

The president has rightly characterized these provisions as unconstitutional.

Ex-Gay Pastor Appeals After Court Rules Section 230 Allows Big Tech to Discriminate Against Him