Trump Files Lawsuit Against Big Tech Over Censorship (Poll)

[colfax_m]

Couldn't be more totalitarian.

Could be more totalitarian.

We could force Facebook and Twitter to promote speech they disagree with.

 

[dblack]

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.

What is your opinion of the case where a baker was forced to make cakes for gay couples and undergo sensitivity training?

Baker forced to make gay wedding cakes, undergo sensitivity training, after losing lawsuit

A family owned bakery has been ordered to make wedding cakes for gay couples and guarantee that its staff be given comprehensive training on Colorado’s anti-discrimination laws after the state’s Civil Rights Commission determined the Christian baker violated the law by refusing to bake a wedding...

www.foxnews.com

Couldn't be more totalitarian.

But a website being forced to cater to politicians they oppose - well, that's totally different.

 

[bendog]

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.

You really are wrong. But let's let the court tell your that.

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.

Not to doubt your "expertise", but do you have a link to an actual law that is being violated?

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

www.fcc.gov

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.

He finally screwed himself.

Those policies obviously are illegal.
It obviously is and must always remain legal to incite violence, such as arresting murderers, retaliating against other countries committing acts of violence against the US, etc.
The anti Vietnam war demonstrations, the Civil Rights demonstrations, obviously were deliberately inciting violence, because violence in a just cause is usually necessary.

It most certainly IS an FCC regulation at the heart of the matter, because arbitrary terms of agreement rules by any service on the internet is under FCC regulation, and can not arbitrarily violate the 1st amendment.
If violence is not necessary, then we would not issue firearms to police or the military.

If FaceBook or LinkIn has a case that Trump was harming the rights of others, then they were obligated to prove it in court. And I don't think they can. You would have to prove Trump knew the election vote was not defrauded and was accurate. And I doubt that is possible. Since Trump was illegally banned from social media before Jan 6th, then Trump has legal justification for claiming the election was invalid. Banning Trump from social media likely did harm the election.

I was partially in agreement until this post. No one has a first amendment right to post or say anything in any newspaper to tv/radio station. While I would have agreed that there are some similarities between facebook or even twitter and traditional public utilities, your misstatement of what the first amend requires illustrates why it would be simply unworkable to treat the social media entities as public utilities. You actually post that the GOVT should determine what a private company (like NBC or Houghton Mifflin) may choose not to publish. That actually RESTRICTS private econ activity, which is totally at odds with our notion of a free exchange of ideas and using private property for the best use the owner can find.

 

[bendog]

FCC regulations do not allow anyone to discriminate at all, against anyone.

Dude, I don’t know where you get this from but there’s like a long list of court decisions that say otherwise.

Yeah at the heart of it, it may simply be a misunderstanding of what the first amend is.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

What is your opinion of the case where a baker was forced to make cakes for gay couples and undergo sensitivity training?

Baker forced to make gay wedding cakes, undergo sensitivity training, after losing lawsuit

A family owned bakery has been ordered to make wedding cakes for gay couples and guarantee that its staff be given comprehensive training on Colorado’s anti-discrimination laws after the state’s Civil Rights Commission determined the Christian baker violated the law by refusing to bake a wedding...

www.foxnews.com

Couldn't be more totalitarian.

But a website being forced to cater to politicians they oppose - well, that's totally different.

But your sort forces bakers to make cakes their conscience disapproves of.



As I've pointed out before...

 

[dblack]

But your sort forces bakers to make cakes their conscience disapproves of.

No, my "sort" vehemently opposes such policies.

You're the hypocrite.

 

[bendog]

Couldn't be more totalitarian.

Could be more totalitarian.

We could force Facebook and Twitter to promote speech they disagree with.

Imo that is precisely Rigby's aim. Not that he's evil or anything, and imo we agree that "the problem" is facebook is so large and entering the market for social media has barriers created simply by facebook (and twitter) size.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

You really are wrong. But let's let the court tell your that.

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.

Not to doubt your "expertise", but do you have a link to an actual law that is being violated?

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

www.fcc.gov

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.

He finally screwed himself.

Those policies obviously are illegal.
It obviously is and must always remain legal to incite violence, such as arresting murderers, retaliating against other countries committing acts of violence against the US, etc.
The anti Vietnam war demonstrations, the Civil Rights demonstrations, obviously were deliberately inciting violence, because violence in a just cause is usually necessary.

It most certainly IS an FCC regulation at the heart of the matter, because arbitrary terms of agreement rules by any service on the internet is under FCC regulation, and can not arbitrarily violate the 1st amendment.
If violence is not necessary, then we would not issue firearms to police or the military.

If FaceBook or LinkIn has a case that Trump was harming the rights of others, then they were obligated to prove it in court. And I don't think they can. You would have to prove Trump knew the election vote was not defrauded and was accurate. And I doubt that is possible. Since Trump was illegally banned from social media before Jan 6th, then Trump has legal justification for claiming the election was invalid. Banning Trump from social media likely did harm the election.

I was partially in agreement until this post. No one has a first amendment right to post or say anything in any newspaper to tv/radio station. While I would have agreed that there are some similarities between facebook or even twitter and traditional public utilities, your misstatement of what the first amend requires illustrates why it would be simply unworkable to treat the social media entities as public utilities. You actually post that the GOVT should determine what a private company (like NBC or Houghton Mifflin) may choose not to publish. That actually RESTRICTS private econ activity, which is totally at odds with our notion of a free exchange of ideas and using private property for the best use the owner can find.

Nonsense. Your post is a pretense bordering on fabrication.


If you believe that, lets obviate section 230, providing them government protections.

 

[PoliticalChic]

But your sort forces bakers to make cakes their conscience disapproves of.

No, my "sort" vehemently opposes such policies.

You're the hypocrite.

Do you vote Democrat?

Then you are simply a bald-faced liar.

 

[colfax_m]

But your sort forces bakers to make cakes their conscience disapproves of.

The idea that a conscious disapproves of a cake always cracks me up.

I mean, it's a cake. Who doesn't like cake?

 

[dblack]

But your sort forces bakers to make cakes their conscience disapproves of.

No, my "sort" vehemently opposes such policies.

You're the hypocrite.

Do you vote Democrat?

Nope. Never have. Any other ignorant presumptions you'd like to clear up?

 

[PoliticalChic]

But your sort forces bakers to make cakes their conscience disapproves of.

The idea that a conscious disapproves of a cake always cracks me up.

I mean, it's a cake. Who doesn't like cake?

Wait….now I remember you! You’re the lying low-life who tried to lie about what I wrote!!!!



You lied and claimed I said it.....when I proved that you did.





Let's do it again.

I never said what you keep claiming I said....you said it....and I don't mind continuing to prove it with your own words.


Did I say 'therefore...blah blah blah...' or did you?

Let's check:

Here's your own post, proving you are lying scum:
You did and I quoted you saying it.

You: "Since you are so fond of copying and pasting your responses, I’m guessing you don’t really read them. I’ll quote it again in case you decide to look at this again.
PoliticalChic said:
The 'rich' are Democrats.



The rich are Democrats therefore they aren’t Republicans. "






But you didn't quote me. You simply posted an interpretation of what I said, and lied about me saying it.
"therefore" was your word, as is everything after that words.

Every word after 'therefore' is yours.......not mine, liar.

Every reader recognizes you a lying scum.

If you hurry, I bet you can scoop up a new avi..."LyingLow-LifeScum.'

I want this series of posts to be what readers recall whenever you post.

https://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/wrong-a-lot-fauci-destroyed-the-economy.884102/page-4#post-26659165

Don't address me again, low-life.

 

[PoliticalChic]

But your sort forces bakers to make cakes their conscience disapproves of.

No, my "sort" vehemently opposes such policies.

You're the hypocrite.

Do you vote Democrat?

Nope. Never have. Any other ignorant presumptions you'd like to clear up?

I've seen your posts....and they lead me to believe you're lying.


Or....provide a sampling of your pro-Trump posts.

 

[dblack]

But your sort forces bakers to make cakes their conscience disapproves of.

No, my "sort" vehemently opposes such policies.

You're the hypocrite.

Do you vote Democrat?

Nope. Never have. Any other ignorant presumptions you'd like to clear up?

I've seen your posts....and they lead me to believe you're lying.


Or....provide a sampling of your pro-Trump posts.

There might be a few, but I'm not looking them up. I have no use for the miscreant. He's a blight.

 

[bendog]

If you're not a Trumpanzee, you must be a democrat

Love it.

 

[bendog]

btw, chic. I think there's a law against hijacking. LOL

 

[PoliticalChic]

But your sort forces bakers to make cakes their conscience disapproves of.

No, my "sort" vehemently opposes such policies.

You're the hypocrite.

Do you vote Democrat?

Nope. Never have. Any other ignorant presumptions you'd like to clear up?

I've seen your posts....and they lead me to believe you're lying.


Or....provide a sampling of your pro-Trump posts.

There might be a few, but I'm not looking them up. I have no use for the miscreant. He's a blight.

Exactly my point.

Thank you for your self-inflicted hara kiri.

 

[PoliticalChic]

If you're not a Trumpanzee, you must be a democrat

Love it.

Let me correct that: If you're not pro-America, you must be a Democrat.

And....you are.



Easy enough to prove:

The Founders, classical liberals, conservatives
a. individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.
“free markets, free voices, free people”

Fascists, Nazis, Liberals, Progressives, Socialists, Communists, Democrats
b. the collective, command and control regulation of private industry, and overarching government that can order every aspect of the private citizen's life....right down to control of his thoughts and speech.


None of the totalitarian forms of political plague have the slightest concern for human life: not communism (gulags), not Nazism (concentration camps), not Liberalism (abortion), not Progressivism (eugenics), not socialism (theft), not fascism (murder).

The Democrats check every one of those boxes.



They only differ in the final outcome: slavery, serfdom, or death.

They all follow Trotsky: "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life."

 

[dblack]

But your sort forces bakers to make cakes their conscience disapproves of.

No, my "sort" vehemently opposes such policies.

You're the hypocrite.

Do you vote Democrat?

Nope. Never have. Any other ignorant presumptions you'd like to clear up?

I've seen your posts....and they lead me to believe you're lying.


Or....provide a sampling of your pro-Trump posts.

There might be a few, but I'm not looking them up. I have no use for the miscreant. He's a blight.

Exactly my point.

Thank you for your self-inflicted hara kiri.

LOL - that's your litmus test? You're so sucked into a cult of personality that you use him as a gauge? Pull your head out.

Principles matter. Get some.

 

[colfax_m]

But your sort forces bakers to make cakes their conscience disapproves of.

The idea that a conscious disapproves of a cake always cracks me up.

I mean, it's a cake. Who doesn't like cake?

Wait….now I remember you! You’re the lying low-life who tried to lie about what I wrote!!!!



You lied and claimed I said it.....when I proved that you did.





Let's do it again.

I never said what you keep claiming I said....you said it....and I don't mind continuing to prove it with your own words.


Did I say 'therefore...blah blah blah...' or did you?

Let's check:

Here's your own post, proving you are lying scum:
You did and I quoted you saying it.

You: "Since you are so fond of copying and pasting your responses, I’m guessing you don’t really read them. I’ll quote it again in case you decide to look at this again.
PoliticalChic said:
The 'rich' are Democrats.



The rich are Democrats therefore they aren’t Republicans. "






But you didn't quote me. You simply posted an interpretation of what I said, and lied about me saying it.
"therefore" was your word, as is everything after that words.

Every word after 'therefore' is yours.......not mine, liar.

Every reader recognizes you a lying scum.

If you hurry, I bet you can scoop up a new avi..."LyingLow-LifeScum.'

I want this series of posts to be what readers recall whenever you post.

https://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/wrong-a-lot-fauci-destroyed-the-economy.884102/page-4#post-26659165

Don't address me again, low-life.

Oh no! The cake weighs on my conscience!

Meanwhile, we are going to force platforms to promote hate speech.