Freedom of speech at stake

Andrea Wylan

Andrea Wylan

Sponsor
For those of you who are Trump fans, or those of you who are fans of free speech, I thought I would share this clip with you. It’s from a woman that I follow and very much respect.

They’re going after Google and YouTube and Twitter to do an injunction for the free speech that’s been taken away in the last few days. And, to try to prevent these companies from influencing the election by suppressing information. This is critically serious.

There’s a go fund me page and an opportunity to help support what they’re up to.

If you’re not interested, please just ignore this. If you’re interested, take a look and see if you want to participate.

https://sarahwestall.com/emergency-injunction-stop-big-tech-election-interference/
 
  • Like
Reactions: jem
This is what the leftist commie Dumbocrats want and need to spread their agenda:

1200x800.jpg
 
Here4money said:
Indeed, removing 230 protections would be disastrous for online speech. Donnie is a nutbag.
More...

Biden is also on board removing section 230.

There is however a salient argument here - section 230 essentially calls websites with comment sections (such as this one) non-publishers. Makes sense, right up until you actually censor content. To be clear censor content that is legally in the clear.

A social network so popular it may as well be a public utility is selectively censoring information about bacon. Bacon lovers are very upset at this. Understandably so - bacon is delicious. The line between publisher and "content provider" blurs at this point. If you are a publisher you selectively run various articles typically around content you "approve". For example, it might be expected "Judeo-Christian Weekly" would censor bacon lovers. But it's a magazine run by some fictitious publisher and so they don't get 230 protection.

A social network like facebook chooses to censor right-wing political posts no matter how benign. They are now, effectively, a publisher of left-wing content. Not too different than a link aggregator for <insert your favorite left-wing site here>.

I don't think gutting 230 is the answer but I think 230 affords far too much protection for obvious curated content rackets.
 
gaussian said:
Biden is also on board removing section 230.

There is however a salient argument here - section 230 essentially calls websites with comment sections (such as this one) non-publishers. Makes sense, right up until you actually censor content. To be clear censor content that is legally in the clear.

A social network so popular it may as well be a public utility is selectively censoring information about bacon. Bacon lovers are very upset at this. Understandably so - bacon is delicious. The line between publisher and "content provider" blurs at this point. If you are a publisher you selectively run various articles typically around content you "approve". For example, it might be expected "Judeo-Christian Weekly" would censor bacon lovers. But it's a magazine run by some fictitious publisher and so they don't get 230 protection.

A social network like facebook chooses to censor right-wing political posts no matter how benign. They are now, effectively, a publisher of left-wing content. Not too different than a link aggregator for <insert your favorite left-wing site here>.

I don't think gutting 230 is the answer but I think 230 affords far too much protection for obvious curated content rackets.
More...

right wing censorship is a myth. Cons just love playing perpetual victims

https://www.businessinsider.com/don...ts-amnesty-international-anti-semitic-2020-10
 
Here4money said:
right wing censorship is a myth. Cons just love playing perpetual victims

https://www.businessinsider.com/don...ts-amnesty-international-anti-semitic-2020-10
More...

Sure, it's a myth. Uh huh.

Twitter allows the pee pee tape in the clear, but bans the NY Post for the Biden email scandal because it isn't "proven". Then, same week allows total plastering of the walls with Rudy Giuliani /Borat fake news as if its real without questioning it.

Just as the latest example of a double standard.
 
What is the difference between Facebook Twitter or CNN and FOX..... the owners/editors pick and choose what stories and content to run or be posted. You either support a complete freedom right or hypocritically pick and choose how much of a right that you want.
 
El OchoCinco said:
What is the difference between Facebook Twitter or CNN and FOX..... the owners/editors pick and choose what stories and content to run or be posted. You either support a complete freedom right or hypocritically pick and choose how much of a right that you want.
More...
One claims to be the press while the other one doesn't?

I can't demand Fox keep an interview of me online if I start saying crazy shit
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top