Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The 1st amendment ensure universal political expression as long as it does not harm the rights of anyone else.
Any service provider that then discriminates based on interpretation of political content, is then in violation of FCC regulations.
I hear what you're saying, and there are ways to get it done. One option is to have Section 230 apply only to companies worth less than $1b or some number. Large companies don't get Section 230 protection.You wouldn't be able to post here if Section 230 were deleted. As the board owners would be personally liable for any batshit crazy nonsense was posted.Its not really a Trump thing, he's just starting the case, its that big tech is just too damn big and they don't have enough regulation, I also support the deletion of Section 230.I don't see the connection you apprear to be making between breaking up facebook and others and Trump's lack of any first amendment claim against private companies.I'm curious if the USMB progs/dems will side with Trump on this important censorship issue, Should big tech be broken up? Should Section 230 be repealed? Should censorship end? Should Parler be reactivated? Should the "Fairness Doctrine" be revised and tried again? What do you recommend. I recommend "all of the above".
“We’re asking the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida to order an immediate halt to stop social media companies’ illegal and shameful censorship of the American people. That’s exactly what they’re doing,” Trump said. “We’re demanding an end to the shadow banning, a stop to the silencing, a stop to the blacklisting, banishing, and canceling that you know so well.”
Trump Files Lawsuit Against Big Tech Over 'Censorship Of The American People'
Former President Donald Trump said he is filing a lawsuit against Big Tech companies — Twitter, Facebook, and Google and their CEOs, over allegations of violating Americans’ First Amendment rights by selectively censoring information and its recent action of banning and suspending his accounts.floridianpress.com
Former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi argued the platforms have “increasingly engaged in impermissible censorship resulting from threatened legislative action, a misguided reliance upon Section 230.” Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is a 1996 provision that gives social media platforms legal liability shield over content posted on their platform by third parties.
Most folks that want Section 230 deleted have no idea what it actually does.
Oh boo fucking hoo.You wouldn't be able to post here if Section 230 were deleted.
They don't care. They're willing to destroy the nation, to obliterate the Constitution, in the name of partisan "victory". This is what Trump does to people.
Facebook is not a service provider. That they provide a service or services on the internet does not make them what I understand is a service provider under the FCC. You pay your service provider for access to the internet. You join facebook and accept their TOS for free.I do not like Trump, but banning him was totally illegal.
It does not matter if he lied or told the truth, that is not the business of the service provider.
The service provider can not use their own discretion in any way.
The only time the service provider can and should act, is when it is without doubt harmful, such as revenge porn or the illegal dissemination of private contract information.
The service provider can put what ever they want in a service agreement, and it does not matter.
The only thing that matters is what the FCC requires service providers to adhere to for them to be allowed on the Internet.
"If you're not paying, you're not the customer — you're the product"
Oh boo fucking hoo.You wouldn't be able to post here if Section 230 were deleted.
They don't care. They're willing to destroy the nation, to obliterate the Constitution, in the name of partisan "victory". This is what Trump does to people.
Section 230 could still apply to companies worth less than some value, say $1b. Then only the super huge companies would NOT get Section 230 protection. Help the little guys, and regulate the big guys.
1. No nation will be destroyed.
2. The Constitution is alive and well.
3. What partisan victory? Winning what exactly? Trump did NOT create the problem.
I never said that. Next strawman?ummm, I'll bite. Why would you think anyone has a first amendment right to use a private message website/app?Youre
Your first damn sentence did ya nutI believe I called them private industry. Poor Trumpybear, he has no 1st amendment rights to post his lies on any private platform.Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are not the press lolClearly the 1st amendment prohibits the government from censoring the private press. It does not compel private industry to print the copious lies of a few lunatics, no matter how powerful they are.
An interactive press is something the founders could not have imagined.
They need to be regulated as a public utility because that's what they are.
Well, no, not yet. You want government to declare them to be a public utility, so the state can assert control over them. Like socialism. But we're not there yet.
I hope you lose.
Both Twitter and Facebook have written policies against anyone posts that incites violence. trump violated those policies on more than one occasion. trump is using the law suit, as he has on other occasions, to grift money from his clueless cult. His suspension was not arbitrary. These platforms will ban temporarily or permanently anyone who does the same. It is not a matter of FCC oversight. It is a matter of violating written, established policies that are in place to protect the public at large. So...he will lose. But in the process he will suck a little more wealth out of his stupid cult....and more importantly, both Twitter and Facebook will have the joy of sitting him for hours under oath, as he will be forced to give a deposition on his relationship to the violence on January 6th.Not to doubt your "expertise", but do you have a link to an actual law that is being violated?You really are wrong. But let's let the court tell your that.I do not like Trump, but banning him was totally illegal.
It does not matter if he lied or told the truth, that is not the business of the service provider.
The service provider can not use their own discretion in any way.
The only time the service provider can and should act, is when it is without doubt harmful, such as revenge porn or the illegal dissemination of private contract information.
The service provider can put what ever they want in a service agreement, and it does not matter.
The only thing that matters is what the FCC requires service providers to adhere to for them to be allowed on the Internet.
Wrong. I am an expert on FCC internet regulations, so I know that it is illegal for social media sites to discriminate based on political beliefs. About the only thing they can legally censor are criminal acts.
Again, laws establish jurisdiction, but actually rules are set by arbitrary FCC regulations.
And they are currently under examination as to possible reinterpretation.
So I am generalizing the original principles.
But if you want to read more as to how the FCC is proceeding, here is some interesting reading:
{...
Last week, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai announced his intent to move forward with a rulemaking to interpret Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934. Under certain circumstances, Section 230 provides websites, including social media companies, that host or moderate content generated by others with immunity from liability. In announcing his decision, Chairman Pai noted that “[m]embers of all three branches of government have expressed serious concern about the prevailing interpretation” of Section 230, and observed that an overly broad interpretation could “shield[] social media companies from consumer protection laws in a way that has no basis in the text” of the statute.
The Chairman’s decision was consistent with my advice that the FCC has the legal authority to interpret Section 230. Due to the unique interest generated by this proceeding, Chairman Pai has now asked me to make my analysis public, in furtherance of his longstanding commitment to transparency in the rulemaking process.
The policy issues raised by the debate over Section 230 may be complex, but the FCC’s legal authority is straightforward. Simply put, the FCC has the authority to interpret all provisions of the Communications Act, including amendments such as Section 230. As I explain below, this authority flows from the plain meaning of Section 201(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, which confers on the FCC the power to issue rules necessary to carry out the provisions of the Act. By expressly directing that Section 230 be placed into the Communications Act, Congress made clear that the FCC’s rulemaking authority extended to the provisions of that section. Two seminal U.S. Supreme Court cases authored by the late Justice Antonin Scalia—AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utilities Bd., 525 U.S. 366 (1999) and City of Arlington v. FCC, 569 U.S. 290 (2013)—confirm this conclusion. Based on this authority, the Commission can feel confident proceeding with a rulemaking to clarify the scope of the Section 230 immunity shield.
Statutory Background
To understand why the Commission has authority to interpret Section 230, it helps to understand how that section became part of the Communications Act. In 1934, Congress adopted the Communications Act in its original form, establishing the FCC as an independent federal agency charged with regulating interstate and international communications. Four years later, Congress added Section 201(b), which delegated to the Commission the power to “prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary in the public interest to carry out the provisions of this Act.”
Since then, the most consequential set of amendments to the Communications Act arrived in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which updated the Act for the then-nascent Internet age. Section 1(b) of that Act made clear that, except where otherwise expressly provided, each of the 1996 Act’s provisions were to be inserted into the Communications Act of 1934.
Title V of the 1996 Act was named the “Communications Decency Act of 1996.” Among other provisions, this Title included Section 509, named “Online family empowerment.” Consistent with Section 1(b), Congress instructed in Section 509 that “Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 . . . is amended by adding at the end the following new section: Section 230.” Thus, Section 230 was born and became part of the Communications Act of 1934.
Section 230 provides, among other things, that “[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” It further provides that “[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of . . . any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.” The term “interactive computer service” is defined “as any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions.” That broad definition is commonly understood to include websites that host or moderate content generated by others, such as social media companies.
...}
The FCC's Authority to Interpret Section 230 of the Communications Act
Last week, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai announced his intent to move forward with a rulemaking to interpret Section 230 of the Cwww.fcc.gov
So....under your rational, no one can be banned from USMB for violating written policy? Is that your contention?I never said that. Next strawman?ummm, I'll bite. Why would you think anyone has a first amendment right to use a private message website/app?Youre
Your first damn sentence did ya nutI believe I called them private industry. Poor Trumpybear, he has no 1st amendment rights to post his lies on any private platform.Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are not the press lolClearly the 1st amendment prohibits the government from censoring the private press. It does not compel private industry to print the copious lies of a few lunatics, no matter how powerful they are.
An interactive press is something the founders could not have imagined.
They need to be regulated as a public utility because that's what they are.
Well, no, not yet. You want government to declare them to be a public utility, so the state can assert control over them. Like socialism. But we're not there yet.
I hope you lose.
If they are providing access to any aspect of the internet, then YES they ARE a public utility under FCC regulations.
The internet is not private and they can't use it at all unless they comply with the FCC rules that govern it, which prevent political discrimination.
trump does not care about this country. He only cares about himself and his petty revenge. He blames everyone else for his loses, but jumps to the front of the line to take credit for anything that he does not screw up.You wouldn't be able to post here if Section 230 were deleted.
They don't care. They're willing to destroy the nation, to obliterate the Constitution, in the name of partisan "victory". This is what Trump does to people.
Twitter is not a Public Utility. It will NEVER be a public utility.trump does not care about this country. He only cares about himself and his petty revenge. He blames everyone else for his loses, but jumps to the front of the line to take credit for anything that he does not screw up.You wouldn't be able to post here if Section 230 were deleted.
They don't care. They're willing to destroy the nation, to obliterate the Constitution, in the name of partisan "victory". This is what Trump does to people.
Doesn't matter.
I don't like Trump either, but the precedent censoring any valid politician from social media, is and must always remain horrendously illegal.
The whole point of the 1st amendment is to protect speech you do NOT like.
The fact this every happened is astounding.
FaceBook should be facing huge fines to ensure it never happens again.
If someone wants to correct lies by Trump, the appropriate and only legal way is in court, not by arbitrary censorship.
trump does not care about this country. He only cares about himself and his petty revenge. He blames everyone else for his loses, but jumps to the front of the line to take credit for anything that he does not screw up.You wouldn't be able to post here if Section 230 were deleted.
They don't care. They're willing to destroy the nation, to obliterate the Constitution, in the name of partisan "victory". This is what Trump does to people.
Doesn't matter.
I don't like Trump either, but the precedent censoring any valid politician from social media, is and must always remain horrendously illegal.
The whole point of the 1st amendment is to protect speech you do NOT like.
The fact this every happened is astounding.
FaceBook should be facing huge fines to ensure it never happens again.
If someone wants to correct lies by Trump, the appropriate and only legal way is in court, not by arbitrary censorship.
When that speech threatens the welfare and safety of the public at large, the platform has every right to prohibit it. trump is an idiot. He has no filter and he would be entirely happy to have seen the January 6th crowd destroy our democracy, just to sooth his damaged ego. Twitter and Facebook had every right to ban him. The courts will confirm that decision.trump does not care about this country. He only cares about himself and his petty revenge. He blames everyone else for his loses, but jumps to the front of the line to take credit for anything that he does not screw up.You wouldn't be able to post here if Section 230 were deleted.
They don't care. They're willing to destroy the nation, to obliterate the Constitution, in the name of partisan "victory". This is what Trump does to people.
Doesn't matter.
I don't like Trump either, but the precedent censoring any valid politician from social media, is and must always remain horrendously illegal.
The whole point of the 1st amendment is to protect speech you do NOT like.
The fact this every happened is astounding.
FaceBook should be facing huge fines to ensure it never happens again.
If someone wants to correct lies by Trump, the appropriate and only legal way is in court, not by arbitrary censorship.
Both Twitter and Facebook have written policies against anyone posts that incites violence. trump violated those policies on more than one occasion. trump is using the law suit, as he has on other occasions, to grift money from his clueless cult. His suspension was not arbitrary. These platforms will ban temporarily or permanently anyone who does the same. It is not a matter of FCC oversight. It is a matter of violating written, established policies that are in place to protect the public at large. So...he will lose. But in the process he will suck a little more wealth out of his stupid cult....and more importantly, both Twitter and Facebook will have the joy of sitting him for hours under oath, as he will be forced to give a deposition on his relationship to the violence on January 6th.Not to doubt your "expertise", but do you have a link to an actual law that is being violated?You really are wrong. But let's let the court tell your that.I do not like Trump, but banning him was totally illegal.
It does not matter if he lied or told the truth, that is not the business of the service provider.
The service provider can not use their own discretion in any way.
The only time the service provider can and should act, is when it is without doubt harmful, such as revenge porn or the illegal dissemination of private contract information.
The service provider can put what ever they want in a service agreement, and it does not matter.
The only thing that matters is what the FCC requires service providers to adhere to for them to be allowed on the Internet.
Wrong. I am an expert on FCC internet regulations, so I know that it is illegal for social media sites to discriminate based on political beliefs. About the only thing they can legally censor are criminal acts.
Again, laws establish jurisdiction, but actually rules are set by arbitrary FCC regulations.
And they are currently under examination as to possible reinterpretation.
So I am generalizing the original principles.
But if you want to read more as to how the FCC is proceeding, here is some interesting reading:
{...
Last week, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai announced his intent to move forward with a rulemaking to interpret Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934. Under certain circumstances, Section 230 provides websites, including social media companies, that host or moderate content generated by others with immunity from liability. In announcing his decision, Chairman Pai noted that “[m]embers of all three branches of government have expressed serious concern about the prevailing interpretation” of Section 230, and observed that an overly broad interpretation could “shield[] social media companies from consumer protection laws in a way that has no basis in the text” of the statute.
The Chairman’s decision was consistent with my advice that the FCC has the legal authority to interpret Section 230. Due to the unique interest generated by this proceeding, Chairman Pai has now asked me to make my analysis public, in furtherance of his longstanding commitment to transparency in the rulemaking process.
The policy issues raised by the debate over Section 230 may be complex, but the FCC’s legal authority is straightforward. Simply put, the FCC has the authority to interpret all provisions of the Communications Act, including amendments such as Section 230. As I explain below, this authority flows from the plain meaning of Section 201(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, which confers on the FCC the power to issue rules necessary to carry out the provisions of the Act. By expressly directing that Section 230 be placed into the Communications Act, Congress made clear that the FCC’s rulemaking authority extended to the provisions of that section. Two seminal U.S. Supreme Court cases authored by the late Justice Antonin Scalia—AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utilities Bd., 525 U.S. 366 (1999) and City of Arlington v. FCC, 569 U.S. 290 (2013)—confirm this conclusion. Based on this authority, the Commission can feel confident proceeding with a rulemaking to clarify the scope of the Section 230 immunity shield.
Statutory Background
To understand why the Commission has authority to interpret Section 230, it helps to understand how that section became part of the Communications Act. In 1934, Congress adopted the Communications Act in its original form, establishing the FCC as an independent federal agency charged with regulating interstate and international communications. Four years later, Congress added Section 201(b), which delegated to the Commission the power to “prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary in the public interest to carry out the provisions of this Act.”
Since then, the most consequential set of amendments to the Communications Act arrived in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which updated the Act for the then-nascent Internet age. Section 1(b) of that Act made clear that, except where otherwise expressly provided, each of the 1996 Act’s provisions were to be inserted into the Communications Act of 1934.
Title V of the 1996 Act was named the “Communications Decency Act of 1996.” Among other provisions, this Title included Section 509, named “Online family empowerment.” Consistent with Section 1(b), Congress instructed in Section 509 that “Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 . . . is amended by adding at the end the following new section: Section 230.” Thus, Section 230 was born and became part of the Communications Act of 1934.
Section 230 provides, among other things, that “[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” It further provides that “[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of . . . any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.” The term “interactive computer service” is defined “as any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions.” That broad definition is commonly understood to include websites that host or moderate content generated by others, such as social media companies.
...}
The FCC's Authority to Interpret Section 230 of the Communications Act
Last week, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai announced his intent to move forward with a rulemaking to interpret Section 230 of the C
He finally screwed himself.
My money is on Trump dropping the lawsuit after he cons a few million bucks out of the suckers & his lawyers tell him he'll have to sit down for a deposition under oath. And the whole shebang is fair game. Imagine, just imagine Trump having to explain the little game he played on Ja.6 & before & after that with his filthy lies.The SCOTUS will take a very dim view of social media banning a POTUS, shits about to hit the fan.
Of course he will. Then he will whine and cry about the liberal courts. This is all just to milk more money out of his stupid followers. He knows that he will be subject to sworn testimony at any proceeding going forward. The last thing in the world he wants to know is testify under oath about his part in the insurrection.My money is on Trump dropping the lawsuit after he cons a few million bucks out of the suckers & his lawyers tell him he'll have to sit down for a deposition under oath. And the whole shebang is fair game. Imagine, just imagine Trump having to explain the little game he played on Ja.6 & before & after that with his filthy lies.The SCOTUS will take a very dim view of social media banning a POTUS, shits about to hit the fan.
Trump's argument, as documented in his lawsuits, is that giant social media companies have become a de facto arm of the Democratic Party also the US government. As such, they must allow 1st-Amendment protection for freedom of expression.1. Killing "free speech" on social media is censorshipThere is no ‘censorship issue.’important censorship issue
Private social media editing their content as they’re at liberty to do isn’t ‘censorship.’
Censorship is when government seeks to preempt speech or publication through force of law, threatening publishers with punitive measures.
2. Banning conservatives isn't "editing content"
3. Big tech are monopolies, they control the media, control information, can oppress viewpoints they disagree with, so even though big tech isn't "the government" "big tech" can and does suppress free speech.
Hot air. Trump got away with his lies, threats & the rest of his shit on social media for years until he statrted his propoganda campaign that the election was stolen & the violence that ensued as a result of his lies. He brought it on himself. Trump is an idiot & his own worst enemy, even though he blames everyone else for his own screw ups. And the lawsuit is just another grift anyway. Think his lawyers aren't tellim him the lawsuits are bullshit?Trump's argument, as documented in his lawsuits, is that giant social media companies have become a de facto arm of the Democratic Party also the US government. As such, they must allow 1st-Amendment protection for freedom of expression.1. Killing "free speech" on social media is censorshipThere is no ‘censorship issue.’important censorship issue
Private social media editing their content as they’re at liberty to do isn’t ‘censorship.’
Censorship is when government seeks to preempt speech or publication through force of law, threatening publishers with punitive measures.
2. Banning conservatives isn't "editing content"
3. Big tech are monopolies, they control the media, control information, can oppress viewpoints they disagree with, so even though big tech isn't "the government" "big tech" can and does suppress free speech.
He argues that these companies were coerced by the Dem party, through threats of revoking 230 protection, unless the companies agreed to start censoring Conservative content. He gives countless examples.
He also argues that the companies worked in concert with the US government to censor free speech.
It's an interesting argument.
"Interesting" and terribly flawed. He won't go through with it. He will need to make sworn testimony. We all know that truth and trump don't go together.Trump's argument, as documented in his lawsuits, is that giant social media companies have become a de facto arm of the Democratic Party also the US government. As such, they must allow 1st-Amendment protection for freedom of expression.1. Killing "free speech" on social media is censorshipThere is no ‘censorship issue.’important censorship issue
Private social media editing their content as they’re at liberty to do isn’t ‘censorship.’
Censorship is when government seeks to preempt speech or publication through force of law, threatening publishers with punitive measures.
2. Banning conservatives isn't "editing content"
3. Big tech are monopolies, they control the media, control information, can oppress viewpoints they disagree with, so even though big tech isn't "the government" "big tech" can and does suppress free speech.
He argues that these companies were coerced by the Dem party, through threats of revoking 230 protection, unless the companies agreed to start censoring Conservative content. He gives countless examples.
He also argues that the companies worked in concert with the US government to censor free speech.
It's an interesting argument.
