My first sentence means a universal right to free speech...
Freedom of speech at stake
- Thread starter Andrea Wylan
- Start date
Andrea Wylan
Sponsor
The side of truth, Ricter.
C'mon Ricter, if the self-anointed "Trader Success Coach" says she's the truth, believe it.
Wait. . . what were those qualifications, again?
Wait. . . what were those qualifications, again?
Sites like Facebook & Twitter have every right to decide what content is published on their sites. They can be as liberal or conservative as they choose. But Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act only applies to sites that aren't actively involved in publishing content. So they should lose their immunity from liable & slander if they aren't applying their rules evenly to everyone.
there is evidence that you have embezzled millions from your clients. Further, several of your clients have committed suicide and a few have died under suspicious circumstances.
Thankfully there is freedom of speech and baron shouldn’t silence me from telling the truth about your business.
Link?
Person A makes a slanderous post about person B.
Person C makes a slanderous post about person D.
Baron should apply the rules equally and remove both posts. He shouldn't decide which posts to remove based of whether or not he likes person B or person D.
Google, Twitter, Facebook, etc. can all choose to censor stories that haven't been verified, but they have to apply this rule to everyone. They can't allow unverified stories about Trump and censor unverified stories about Biden and his family. If they do that, they've become actively involved in content publishing and they lose their protection from lawsuits under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
Last edited:
Lets say Scion owns a trading board named 100GreatTraders.net
And people come along and libels the hell out of the President Barrack Trump with hundreds of posts a day. (read by millions)
And other groups come along and libels the hell out of Candidate Hillary Romney
230 lets Scion remain insulated from a lawsuit for slander or libel because in essence the law treats the posters as the content creators... So Scion is would not be held responsible for the libelous content. Pretty settled law right now... correct?
But, what if Scion deletes every negative post about Hillary Romney but allows all the negative posts about President Barrack Trump to remain?
I don't think the law would be settled on that point. I would think that a lawyer would argue that act of curation with a Political viewpoint is an editorial creation and hence it is content creation. Therefore, 230 should not be protect Scion and 100GreatTraders.com for a libel suit. I think the Publishers should be pushed out of 230 protection if they exercise content curation with a viewpoint.
And people come along and libels the hell out of the President Barrack Trump with hundreds of posts a day. (read by millions)
And other groups come along and libels the hell out of Candidate Hillary Romney
230 lets Scion remain insulated from a lawsuit for slander or libel because in essence the law treats the posters as the content creators... So Scion is would not be held responsible for the libelous content. Pretty settled law right now... correct?
But, what if Scion deletes every negative post about Hillary Romney but allows all the negative posts about President Barrack Trump to remain?
I don't think the law would be settled on that point. I would think that a lawyer would argue that act of curation with a Political viewpoint is an editorial creation and hence it is content creation. Therefore, 230 should not be protect Scion and 100GreatTraders.com for a libel suit. I think the Publishers should be pushed out of 230 protection if they exercise content curation with a viewpoint.
w/230 protections removed, person B and D will be welcome to sue Baron, forcing him to remove the forum section and thus ending his ET venture.
If _______ were selectively deleting libelous posts about one candidate but allowing the liblous posts about the other to stand... he or she should not be protected by 230.
Neutral forums who are not taking editorial viewpoints should have 230 protection.
Forums which take editorial viewpoints should be responsible for their editorial decisions. They should have same protections as newspapers.
Neutral forums who are not taking editorial viewpoints should have 230 protection.
Forums which take editorial viewpoints should be responsible for their editorial decisions. They should have same protections as newspapers.