Freedom of speech at stake

[LS1Z28]

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.

That's true. I'm not arguing that Section 230 should be removed. It's a vital part of the internet. All I'm saying is that social media companies are required to apply their rules equally to everyone if they want to claim the legal protection it provides.

Jem gets it. Once a site starts applying their rules selectively, they've become actively involved with publishing content, and they should be held to the same legal standard as other publishers.

 

[El OchoCinco]

That's true. I'm not arguing that Section 230 should be removed. It's a vital part of the internet. All I'm saying is that social media companies are required to apply their rules equally to everyone if they want to claim the legal protection it provides.

Jem gets it. Once a site starts applying their rules selectively, they've become actively involved with publishing content, and they should be held to the same legal standard as other publishers.

What legal standard is there for other publishers?

FOX and CNN can choose what news to cover and what news to avoid and not mention.....

NYT and WaPo can make editorial decisions what to investigate and what to claim is unfounded statements...

Twitter and FB can kind of do the same thing....people are free to post elsewhere.

 

[LS1Z28]

What legal standard is there for other publishers?

FOX and CNN can choose what news to cover and what news to avoid and not mention.....

NYT and WaPo can make editorial decisions what to investigate and what to claim is unfounded statements...

Twitter and FB can kind of do the same thing....people are free to post elsewhere.

Fox News, CNN, the NYT, & the WaPo are all held liable for the content published on their sites. They can be sued for things like defamation of character and slander. See the Nick Sandmann lawsuits for reference.

Social media companies are held to a very different legal standard under Section 230. They're granted immunity from that type of lawsuit because they aren't considered publishers of content. Obviously they risk losing that immunity once they start selectively enforcing rules to shape the content published on their sites.

 

[newwurldmn]

Link?

I have evidence. But I will release in due time. I have witnesses too.

 

[Cuddles]

What legal standard is there for other publishers?

FOX and CNN can choose what news to cover and what news to avoid and not mention.....

NYT and WaPo can make editorial decisions what to investigate and what to claim is unfounded statements...

Twitter and FB can kind of do the same thing....people are free to post elsewhere.

the legal standard of "my vagina hurts" set by Donnie

That's true. I'm not arguing that Section 230 should be removed. It's a vital part of the internet. All I'm saying is that social media companies are required to apply their rules equally to everyone if they want to claim the legal protection it provides.

Jem gets it. Once a site starts applying their rules selectively, they've become actively involved with publishing content, and they should be held to the same legal standard as other publishers.

they are not required to do anything. Donnie's just spouting his latest scheme advised by his lawyers to bully media into doing his bidding. W/230 gone, social media will be gone, as moderating content to avoid lawsuits becomes a financial impossibility

 

[newwurldmn]

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.

your truth is my lie. My truth is your lie.
It’s an unsolvable problem in the absolute sense.

The pragmatic reality is that Conservatives are pushing this rule because trump (and his Russian supporters) have been masterful at spreading lies - some of which are verifiable in 10 seconds but many bend the absolute truth just enough that it’s no longer an absolute truth.

The true Conservative ideal (the Constitutional ideal) is that it’s twitter’s, facebooks, and google’s right to choose what content they censor.

 

[Andrea Wylan]

Link?

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.

Honestly, you’re missing the whole point in the middle of your ignorance.
Your comment is nasty.

 

[Andrea Wylan]

The bottom line is that one party is being censored and the other one is not. Either sensor both of them and we can full on live in China or sensor neither of them and will get our country back. If it keeps going the way it’s going we no longer live in a free country and everyone should give a shit about that.

 

[Cuddles]

The bottom line is that one party is being censored and the other one is not.

wrong

About the same level of wrong as "Obama's IRS peresecuted conservatives", or "election fraud", or "illegals took my job"

Cons___the perpetual victim

 

[newwurldmn]

Honestly, you’re missing the whole point in the middle of your ignorance.
Your comment is nasty.

Nasty has everything to do about it. And since is unverifiable, you support my right to continue to say it wherever you post.

the whole point is the president wants to restrict the free speech of a private enterprise so that he can spread his nasty misinformation.

But as your OP pointed out, it’s about Trump first and freedom of speech second (even though freedom of speech only relates to government censorship).