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.
That’s not at all what section 230 says. It’s literally the opposite. Section 230 permits social media websites to control content on their site without taking on the liability of a publisher.When you are controlling content, you are censoring. Section 230 specifically stops them from doing this and if they do, they are no longer acting as a free platform but as a publisher. Section 230 was specifically designed to keep them from being sued for the opinions/postings of others. Once they began to control what is on the platform they are no longer acting as a free platform, but as a publisher. Censorship by another name.
maybe you should read the case first.Explain how that case is directly on point.
Good lord you’re a moron. You have no idea what you’re talking about.maybe you should read the case first.
i find it illogical to have serious discussions with dembots like yourself that refuse to even educate yourself before having a discussion.
says the ass clown that never read the caseGood lord you’re a moron. You have no idea what you’re talking about.
I read it and explained it to you already. It has nothing to do with the current issue.says the ass clown that never read the case
oh so you don’t understand it..gotchaI read it and explained it to you already. It has nothing to do with the current issue.
It’s embarrassing that you pretend to be a lawyer.
Let's cut to the chase, and prove you just as irrational and ignorant as I suggest:Sorry I threaten your safe space.
Fact: Texas law makes it illegal to ban Nazis from social media.
Fix the problemWell I personally think the reason you're having a hard time explaining things is because you're batshit crazy, but I'm just going on the dozens of posts I've read from you. But you are entertaining at times.
What are you talking about? 230 doesn't say they can't censor.
Only for companies that serve as a common carrier. T-Mobile is a common carrier. They don't regulate content at all.That’s not at all what section 230 says. It’s literally the opposite. Section 230 permits social media websites to control content on their site without taking on the liability of a publisher.
You didn't understand the premise, moron.Good lord you’re a moron. You have no idea what you’re talking about.
I already explained the premise of the case to you anyway. I guess you missed that.
Wrong.That’s not at all what section 230 says. It’s literally the opposite. Section 230 permits social media websites to control content on their site without taking on the liability of a publisher.
Posting on social media is only a natural right for Democrats and far leftists. Wrongthink is suppressed routinely.
Both accusations were complete BULLSHIT!
The Democrats were calling for impeachment before Trump was sworn in, and you KNOW this!
This is a common misconception. It’s strange how clearly wrong it is while being widely held.Wrong.
Only if they don't control content, moron. If they do control content, then they aren't entitled to protection from being sued. You have it precisely backwards.
No one has a right to post on social media.
This one, by Democrats:
2. Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors 2of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????
“The 1954 federal Johnson Amendment prohibits a pastor from talking about candidates from the pulpit in light of Scripture. Thus, based on what a pastor says about an election from the pulpit, the tax code allows the government to tax a church. Consider that in light of the Internal Revenue Service's increasingly vague regulations, and you have a recipe for the censorship of religion. The IRS, through those vague regulations, reserves for itself tremendous discretion and power to decide which churches to punish for violations of the Johnson Amendment and which not to punish.”
Why don't churches pay taxes?
Any reading of the first amendment will prove this to be unconstitutional.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
"My Administration is also defending religious liberty, and that includes the Constitutional right to pray in public schools. In America, we do not punish prayer. We do not tear down crosses. We do not ban symbols of faith. We do not muzzle preachers and pastors. In America, we celebrate faith. We cherish religion. We lift our voices in prayer, and we raise our sights to the Glory of God!"
Trump, SOTU 2020
Get it, you dunce???????
Your theory a lie, douchebag. Why would they need protection from lawsuits if they can control content?This is a common misconception. It’s strange how clearly wrong it is while being widely held.
If you don’t moderate content, you don’t need a law to protect you from liability. They was shown from the case Cubby v CompuServe. This case is from before section 230 was passed.
CompuServe was sued for defamation but they argued they aren’t liable because they don’t moderate any content. The court agreed.
The law was written specifically to allow moderating content without taking on liability.
