WSJ Op Ed Warns: Killing Section 230, Kills The Internet
from the good-to-see dept
Rupert Murdoch and his Wall Street Journal have frequently attacked Google and other internet services, often in ways that suggest little understanding of how things actually work. Sometimes this has dipped into conspiracy theories and totally bullshit news stories whose sole purpose seems to be to attack Google in a misguided way. So, it's actually nice to see that the WSJ at least agreed to publish the latest Andy Kessler op-ed about the importance of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to keeping the open internet. The title, while a bit hyperbolic, is important: Kill Section 230, You Kill the Internet.
Should Section 230 be repealed? Heck no. We don’t want politicians, as Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley suggests, forcing private companies to host content they find objectionable—a slippery slope. Facebook and others will likely end up neutral on their own, invoking the Michael Jordan rule: Republicans buy sneakers too. Leave Section 230 alone.
Kessler highlights how most of the "proposed" ways of dealing with the power of big tech won't actually solve any of the problems they're targeting. Instead, he suggests much greater transparency in how these companies operate -- which I agree is a good start, but not nearly far enough. He also suggests a slightly odd "ratings system" using user voting to determine if content is trustworthy. That's a creative idea, but would be gamed so fast that it would almost certainly be useless about 30 seconds after launching.
Either way, it's good to see that the WSJ isn't so on board with the "kill Section 230" nonsense that it wouldn't publish Kessler's op-ed...
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: andy kessler, cda 230, intermediary liability, internet, section 230, transparency
Companies: wsj
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Twitter, Facebook etc. are like clubs, you can join if you accept their rules, and if you do not, go and find a club more to your liking. Unless you join the clubs, you cannot use them to host your speech, and if you join, you follow their rules on speech.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Viewpoint Neutrality
Well as a Newspaper they seem to understand that even if they solicit submissions, the government can't force them to accept articles written by the Proud Boys or Illinois Nazi Party if they don't want.
Unlike some commenters that would be perfectly happy forcing speech on FB and Twitter because "We don't like those companies."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Viewpoint Neutrality -- NO immunity without The Deal
You are a corporatist is want "platforms" immunized yet maintain full editorial control.
Other day you stated that 230 was for The Public, not corporations. So how is The Public better off with the exact same editorial control of print, BUT also can have even Constitutional material / views suppressed? HMM? HOW IS THAT GOOD, let alone better?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Viewpoint Neutrality -- For the voices in your head
I’m the real Gary!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Better question: For what reason should the law force Twitter to host any speech its admins don’t want on the platform?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Twitter and Facebook want to act like both publishers and platforms and get the benefits of being both at the same time.
Guess what? That's wanting your cake and eating it too.
As Tim Pool points out, regularly on his two youtube channels, regulation is coming, Twitter, Facebook and Google all know it, it's why they're stocking up on lawyers. They wouldn't have to if they had just been neutral to free speech, but those companies have admitted to be wanting to move away from American-styled Free Speech and more to European-styled regulated speech.
Facebook has recently come out and said they were going to interfere in the 2020 election. Twitter has rules going forward that will stifle the ability of politicians to speak. Democrats like Elizabeth Warren are calling for Facebook, Twitter and Google to censor people.
Now, with all of that, you're going to try and tell me that there's no problem?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That’s a whole lot of not answering my question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Twitter and Facebook want to act like both publishers and platforms and get the benefits of being both at the same time.
People keep saying this and it's nonsense. There is no fundamental difference between being a "publisher" and a "platform." It makes no legal matter whatsoever, and no one is trying to "act like both" and "get the benefits of being both" at the same time. You are spewing ill-informed nonsense.
As Tim Pool points out
LOL. Oh go on...
Twitter, Facebook and Google all know it, it's why they're stocking up on lawyers. They wouldn't have to if they had just been neutral to free speech, but those companies have admitted to be wanting to move away from American-styled Free Speech and more to European-styled regulated speech.
Oh bullshit. They're not stocking up on lawyers for any such reasons -- and if they HADN'T moderated their platforms to try to stop trolls/harassers/abusers/spam etc then you can bet they'd be facing just as many (if not more) screaming politicians threatening to regulate for allowing "bad stuff" on the internet (see the calls from Dems to create a "responsibility" to moderate in response to the Pelosi videos). The idea that if they'd just done nothing they wouldn't face regulation is fantasy land bullshit from ignorant people.
And, no they HAVE NOT said they wanted to "move away from American-styled Free Speech and more to a European-styled regulated speech." You are totally misreading a third party report that Google commissioned to highlight the impossible choices there are in content moderation (including not moderating at all). We wrote about it here: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20181014/00295940834/good-censor-document-shows-google-struggling- with-challenges-content-moderation.shtml You are totally misrepresenting it.
Facebook has recently come out and said they were going to interfere in the 2020 election.
No it did not.
Twitter has rules going forward that will stifle the ability of politicians to speak.
No it does not.
Democrats like Elizabeth Warren are calling for Facebook, Twitter and Google to censor people.
Which is why you're in fantasy land if you think that allowing MORE assholes on their platform would have resulted in fewer calls for regulation.
Now, with all of that, you're going to try and tell me that there's no problem?
Who said there's no problem?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Facebook has recently come out and said they were going to interfere in the 2020 election.
Yes? By preemptively closing ads recommending that eligible Americans stay home instead of voting. You have a problem with this why, exactly?
Twitter has rules going forward that will stifle the ability of politicians to speak.
Oh no, less ad hominem attacks in my politics feed, whatever shall I do?
Democrats like Elizabeth Warren are calling for Facebook, Twitter and Google to censor people.
You mean the same politicians demanding for these "big tech monopolies" to be broken up?
Seriously, Herrick, go back to bitching about landlords and waiters being creeps. Or the fact that you're angry that Masnick has a spouse. Your rants are far less effective (not that they were great to begin with, mind you) when I can literally verify what was actually said by somebody else and find it doesn't align with your "but muh mailing lists" narrative.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I still find that statment amazing. I mean: assuming you are not taking that to mean Facebook will engage in some sort of election fraud(aka as long as you dont take that statment to mean Facebook has declair intent to commit an act that is currently a crime), are they saying Faceboot (as a US company, and ... maybe employing some US citizens), is not entitled to engage in US politics?
I mean the company is not government owned, so (with narrow restirctions) they are entiteled to host any commentary they want (or don't want) of their own ... on their website.
This sort of reasoning sounds kinda like "Hey all of us hang out at person X's house all the time, so it's a public place now, and X is not entititled to do anything to influence an election on their own property"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why should a baker be forced to bake a cake he doesn't want to bake? Why is the magic book someone believes in or what sort of person they choose to have sex with more sacred than their political and/or moral beliefs?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Why should a baker be forced to bake a cake he doesn't want to bake? "
Because if he has a licence to sell to the public and he discriminates based on a protected class, that's illegal and a violation of his licence to sell to the public, same as if he just decided to piss in the cake mix before serving it. His desire to discriminate against people is trumped by other peoples' rights not to be discriminated against. Same as why a gay bar can't refuse to serve you a beer if you happen to find yourself in one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"Same as why a gay bar can't refuse to serve you a beer if you happen to find yourself in one."
Not sure how often you find yourself in this position, but, why not? They can refuse to serve anyone for any or no reason. Even the bartender, who may not necessarily be the owner, might take one look at you, recognize an asshole, and refuse to serve you
It doesn't have to be a protected class anymore?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"They can refuse to serve anyone for any or no reason"
No, they can refuse to serve you for being a dick. They just can't refuse to serve you because you're straight. The protected class is sexuality, not gay.
The fact that you have more dickhead bakers refusing to service gay weddings than you do gay bar excluding straight customers doesn't change this fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Answer: For the same reason you do not allow AT&T to disconnect your phone just because you hold different political views. Public discourse is taking place online and for the sake of a better democracy censorship should be limited to only speech that is illegal. Currently they censor speech that is "controversial".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Water utility provider vs store that uses water
For the same reason you do not allow AT&T to disconnect your phone just because you hold different political views.
Telephone/internet companies provide you access to platforms to speak from, they aren't the platforms themselves, as such a comparison between the two falls flat.
There's a public benefit from ensuring that what is essentially a utility(and at this point given how intertwined it is with daily life internet access really should be classified as such) cannot revoke access to that on a whim, whereas you'd have a much harder time making the argument that a privately owned platform where people can speak should lose the ability to set rules of acceptable behavior or otherwise decide who gets to use their platform simply because it got popular, and all the more so as there are a slew of alternatives.
Public discourse is taking place online and for the sake of a better democracy censorship should be limited to only speech that is illegal.
So, quick questions: Spam is not illegal. Should platforms be allowed to remove spam, or should they be required to keep it up?
White supremacy is not illegal, should platforms be allowed to remove losers going on about how certain races are 'clearly' better than others, or should they also be forced to keep that sort of garbage up?
Sexism is not illegal, should platforms be allowed to remove some jackass going on about how the other gender is 'obviously' inferior, or should they be forced to host such blistering idiocy?
Preaching that a particular religion is the only true one, and that anyone who isn't a member is a filthy immoral heretic deserving of shunning in this life and torture after death is not illegal, should sites be allowed to give the boot to people running around telling people that, or should they be prohibited from telling those people to take the preaching somewhere else?
Flipping the previous question, telling religious people that they're deluded morons, grossly immoral, and worship a monster is also not illegal, should platforms be allowed to tell those people to either chill or leave, or should they be required to let them run around dumping on any religious person they can find?
Also, side-note, a private platform saying 'you cant say that here' is not censorship in any way that leaves the word any sort of weight, any more than me kicking someone out of my house for slinging racial slurs would be.
Currently they censor speech that is "controversial".
Yes, those losers slinging around racial slurs/comments, sexist remarks, and grade-school bigotry are having their comments removed because it's 'controversial', not because they're repulsive little worms that the platforms and those that use them don't consider worth putting up with any more than someone constantly shouting racists/sexist remarks in a club or store would be. /s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Water utility provider vs store that uses water
Funny how Herrick's lot insists that telecoms and social media and online forums must allow them to spew whatever they want - but the moment net neutrality comes into play that would allow anyone else to send whatever else down the "tubes" suddenly that's too much government regulation.
(Actually it's not funny at all. It's about as funny as a brain aneurysm. Just par for the course for Mr. I-Hate-Section-230-and-Ripoff-Report.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Water utility provider vs store that uses water
Ok so remove the carrier, and now the phone thats connected to the line is censoring you.. thats more parallel to what your getting at. That phone (application of a technology) still should not censor your discussion.
Your missing the main point that he was making. Its about how value should be assigned to the speech by the observer, not arbitrary assignment of value by an overlord.
Its about a marketplace of ideas.. some good/bad based on the value assigned by the observer. Its subjective. One mans spam is another mans life saving penis enhancement medicine advertisement. The fact is everyone is free to disengage from content they object to, and stop its replication by not adding further discussion or sharing it with others. They can even condemn it. Its when a third party interferes with this process that corruption occurs - ie bias.
The marketplace of ideas can and should be filtered by everyone - allowing the best to rise based on what truths resonate with the populace. Ultimately censorship is attractive to those who fear ideas they dont agree with becoming popular. Its opposite is democratic - open discussion of ideas - allowing that contest to play out in language.
And a flaw of assigning control over what is "acceptable speech" is that the power of the day can define it - at one time it might advantage your political aspirations.. but it can easily be used to thwart it. That is a betrayal to the idea of democracy and to free thought and discussion.
Dragging up examples of offensive ideologies is easily countered by many other examples of positive outcomes provided by having free speech. So thats a moot point and a lazy argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Water utility provider vs store that uses water
......What...but...that's not...ugh.
I can't believe that you really said that. If you remove the carrier the phone stops working altogether. I mean I suppose you could say you're still being censored since now you can't say anything at all over the phone but that's like saying your car is broken and discriminating against you because you refused to put gas in the tank. How stupid can you get?
As explained above IT'S REALLY NOT.
A phone is still not the same thing as an online platform. When you buy a phone, you own it, it's yours and you can do what you want with it and no one can tell you otherwise. That's not the same as using a social media platform that BELONGS TO SOMEONE ELSE, that you haven't paid for, don't own, and can only use if you follow their terms of use/service. Break their rules and they are legally within their rights to kick you out. Just like I can kick you out of my public block party in my back yard for talking about anything I don't particular care for, even for something as silly as My Little Pony.
Not really, you just don't understand how law and common sense actually work.
This only applies to a citizen-government relationship. It doesn't apply to citizen-citizen or citizen-private company relationships. Otherwise you would be violating the law for kicking someone out of your house for insulting and berating you or your family.
Exactly. And that's exactly why you can't force private companies to host all speech, whether they agree with it or not. As soon as you do, it's the government deciding what speech is or is not allowed based on the subjective opinions of whoever happens to be in power.
Pfft. Please do link to the studies that show that "penis enhancement" is a life-saving treatment. I'll wait and laugh. But regardless of that, what I hear you saying is that you think spam filters should be illegal? And that we must all be forced to accept the hundreds, if not thousands, of spam emails we would get each day without them? You're an idiot.
And yet, restaurants are legally granted the right to kick out whoever they want for saying mean nasty things in front of their other customers because it degrades the experience for other customers making them not want to come back, thereby dropping sales and business and eventually the restaurant goes out of business because they couldn't kick out a few people for ruining the dining experience for everyone else. This is literally the same thing and what you are advocating for, that one or a few people should be able to ruin a business because the business can't put some rules in place to ensure the customers have a good experience and want to come back.
The only "third-party" restriction is when the government tries to tell you what you can or cannot say (which ironically is what you are advocating for) because that is what the First Amendment strictly prohibits.
Except not everyone, as you've made clear. Hypocrite, thy name is hypocrite.
Truth is objective, not subjective. Truth doesn't care what people think about it.
Which is why oppressive governments don't allow their citizens, private companies, or journalists freedom of speech. America does. And that includes deciding what your customers/users can or cannot say while within/using your business/establishment/service. Deal with it.
Please show me where the open discussion of ideas is NOT being allowed to take place online. I'll wait.
Which is why we don't allow our government to tell us things like: "you can't let your users say that" or "you have to allow your users to say that". Which happens to be exactly what you want. See the problem there?
Not actually. As I mentioned above, there is no difference between what you are advocating for and telling restaurants that they can no longer kick people out for speech that is disrupting the dining experience of their other customers. Eventually the only people coming to the restaurant will be those few miscreants and riff-raff and they won't have enough customers to stay financially solvent.
The First Amendment only applies to the government, and it's ESSENTIAL and NECESSARY that ALL citizens and private companies be allowed to dictate the rules and terms of use of their businesses, services, or places of residence, otherwise it can be ruined by one or two bad actors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Water utility provider vs store that uses water
firstly, you are using ad hominem. secondly, you keep talking about restaurants, they have nothing to do with online spaces.
thirdly, you cant read and mis-interpret and also inject/project your own bullshit into the guys arguments above. He never said spam filters were illegal.. he said each person has the right to withdraw from engagement of online communications... ie.. block someone, ignore etc.
also why the fuck cant a citizen evaluate if they want to read something, why the fuck does a government have to get involved..
I think were done here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Water utility provider vs store that uses water
“I think were done here.”
Oh we were done here before you showed up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Water utility provider vs store that uses water
Did it not occur to you that lying about someone's comment like that is a pretty stupid idea when the original is still right there, still not containing any of the "ad hominem" or other things you claim?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Water utility provider vs store that uses wa
I’d bet dollars to donuts it did not occur to that AC.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Water utility provider vs store that uses water
I have explained my points in detail and all you can come up with is I'm "ad hom" attacking instead of addressing any of my points?
I did allude to someone's intelligence once because they made a completely nonsensical statement and called them an idiot once because they made the statement that "penis enhancement" treatments were life saving. I rest my case.
Actually they are quite similar. They each allow any and all members of the public to come in and use their service, they also have set ground rules as to what their customers are and are not allowed to do and say while using their service, and finally they also each have the right to kick out any users of said services for violating those rules. How do they have nothing to do with each other?
Open comment section. Deal. Also prove I have mis-interpreted anything and my arguments are indeed "bullshit". I dare you. I really do enjoy eviscerating flimsy arguments that are easily disproved by hard facts.
And note I didn't say he did. I was clarifying that it sounded to me like he thought they SHOULD BE illegal. To quote myself:
Note the question mark, this makes it a question, not a statement or assertion. Now who is misinterpreting and injecting/projecting their own bullshit?
And right before that he says this:
Individuals don't run their own spam filters, your email provider does or contracts out with a third party for it. This means that someone is making the decision for you what is spam and what is not. You have absolutely no choice in the matter. Therefore, based on his statements that the value should be based on each individual and the responsibility is on them to engage or disengage, spam filters should be made illegal because they take that choice away from the individual. If you don't like his logic, don't blame me for it, he's the one who said it. I'm just pointing out the logical fallacies and inconsistencies in it.
That is an excellent question and one that we here are all asking. Why indeed does the government need to get involved and tell Facebook what they can and can't allow their users to see on their platform? Why not let them all decide for themselves?
Right now the government isn't involved at all, though I'm VERY curious about your statement since you seem to be implying that Facebook and other social media platforms are the government. But that's what most people who are screaming for something to be done are advocating for, government intervention, which is exactly what the First Amendment says the government can't do.
So you tell me, should the government violate the First Amendment and get involved or should companies be allowed to create certain standards and "terms of use" on their platforms so that people have a good experience and aren't forced to listen to a bunch jerks who hate humanity?
Oh yes, I think we are. Care to try again though? Maybe with some actual facts this time?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Water utility provider vs store that uses water
"remove the carrier" - he is talking about removing it from the argument. You are daft
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Water utility provider vs store that uses water
If you remove the carrier from the argument you don’t have an argument. You have a broke ass analogy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Water utility provider vs store that uses water
As the other AC pointed out, if you remove the carrier from the argument then you have no argument.
A telephone by itself can't do anything. It can't transmit your voice, it can't connect you to other people's phones, it can't sensor you at all. It's a brick. In some cases a very expensive brick, but a brick nonetheless. It needs a carrier to actually operate as a phone. And only once it is operating as a phone can you make the argument that the phone is censoring you. This is basic logic 101. Do try to keep up.
This actually made me chuckle. A good joke, sir.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Water utility provider vs store that uses water
should they be required to let them run around dumping on any religious person they can find
Isn't that what already happens?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Viewpoint Neutrality -- NO immunity without The Deal
You're ignoring one huge difference between print and internet platforms:
Everything that is visible on a printed newspaper has been looked at and approved by at least one person who works for that newspaper. There is no way that any unapproved content can get there.
Almost nothing that is visible on a UGC website has been looked at and approved by anyone overseeing that site. Almost everything is unapproved content.
That's why (as one example) print doesn't get 230 protection, but UGC websites do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Viewpoint Neutrality -- NO immunity without The Deal
"That's why (as one example) print doesn't get 230 protection, but UGC websites do."
They get the same protection, it's just never been necessary to put it in writing since no sane person is, for example, going to hold them responsible for what people wrote on the paper after publication. We have sadly had to state it for the internet, because some people are too dumb to understand that this is what is happening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Viewpoint Neutrality -- NO immunity without The Deal
Has Anyone Really Been Far Even as Decided to Use Even Go Want to do Look More Like?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now there’s a meme I haven’t seen in a while.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How §230 should read...
(2) Civil liability No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A) 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, UNLESS such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For what reason should the law force Twitter to host any speech its admins don’t want on the platform?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We constantly get people spouting drivel about "The constitution should apply to private buisnesses (even though it's only about the extent/limits of government poiwer)". There are so many rebuttals, detail many reasons (basically non of which any serious objection to has been raised), that I can't help but wonder "Maybe they can't actually read English? Maybe they are bots/trolls?"
Do most humans not think about what other humans say (especially if the other person is arguing for something they don't believe in)?
I wonder if anyone has blog posting about "Terrible ideas people propose on TD and the top 50 rebuttals for each"...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Are you really advocating we go back to "Whites Only" signs? Your statement that the constitution only applies to government and not businesses would make those signs legal again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Thank you.
You just proved the point those who complain about Twitter/Facebook/Google have been saying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No. As an insightful winner last week stated... One is a protected class, the other (having a particular political view) isn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So the Constitution does or does not apply to private businesses?
Let me know when you pick one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Constitution applies to the government in re: the limits of its power. The laws made with Constitutional limits in mind apply to private businesses. Show me a private business that the law can force to host White supremacist propaganda, and I’ll show you a business that is being forced to do what you want done to Twitter and its ilk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
When you limit it to solely "white supremacist propaganda" (whatever that is), you're deliberately arguing in bad faith.
Government forces businesses all the time to host speech they don't like or want (that isn't in your extremely-limited example), yet Twitter, et al., are the only ones you seem to care about defending.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, I’m using a deliberately provocative example of speech plenty of people find distasteful but is still protected speech. White supremacists probably think of Black Lives Matter propaganda as distasteful — but should the law force a White supremacist forum into hosting it? The same goes for any kind of speech you consider offensive, distasteful, or straight up evil but is still legal. For what reason should a site like Twitter be forced to host a specific kind of legally protected speech if the site admins explicitly don’t want to host it? For what reason should the government have the right to force an association between that site and that speech?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
From what I've read, white supremacist scumbags have private forums and don't say they're open to the public. If Twitter doesn't like to host legal speech, they could do the same and make their site private, too.
You're either open to the public, or you're not. If you are, then be ready to cater to customers you don't like.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What they have are privately-owned websites. Whether they’re private is a whole different matter. Stormfront, for example, was open to the public until it closed off access to everyone but paying users in 2018 because of financial struggles.
If a brick-and-mortar business can’t be forced to host third-party speech against the wishes of its owner(s), for what reason should the opposite apply to Twitter?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So now it's not 'speech they don't like' (or don't want to host), it's 'third-party speech'.
You've pivoted away from your original argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, I haven’t. A public accomodation business (which Twitter is not, by the by) cannot be forced to host any sort of third-party speech. But if its owner chooses to host such speech, the government cannot tell them to host all such speech.
The same logic applies to Twitter: It hosts third party speech, but the government cannot force Twitter into hosting specific types of speech. If Twitter doesn’t want to host White supremacist propaganda or furry porn or @dril’s hilarious bullshit, it has every right to say so and back its position up via moderation. What you want is to change CDA 230 so that Twitter doesn’t get a say in what speech it chooses to host.
And if you happened to run a blog that hosts a comments section, that change would apply to you as well. Spam, racist slurs, homophobic comments? All of it is legal. And you couldn’t do a damn thing to stop your comments section from being flooded with it. Deleting it would risk your protection from legal liability outlined in the now-altered CDA 230. And you would have no one to blame but yourself for that — after all, you’re the one who advocated for that change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If I didn't like hosting certain speech I could always make my site private. But if I say my site is open to the public, it should be open to the public and I shouldn't be censoring any legal speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What is this legal distinction you seem to think exists between a "public" website and a "private" one? Because it does not exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think it’s similar to the confusion between “private” and “privately owned”.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If I make a site that only allows my friends to join (or any other like-minded individual I choose to post there) that site is private and I have complete control over what is said there.
If I make a site that is open to the public, the site is public, and I shouldn't be censoring legal speech there if I truly am open to the public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I will ask again, and point out that it is really telling about you that you refuse to answer a couple of my simple questions:
My restaurant was open to the public, and I also had the right to kick somebody out, permanently even, (only ever had to once in 15 years.) Why can't Twitter do the same thing, even though we are both "open to the public"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Beczause for a brief shining moment white supremacists could reach a wide audience, and don't like the way that they now have to retreat back to the sewer, after they were told they had abused that platform and would no longer have access to it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You missed a complete td post on this, not far back from this one
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your restaurant analogy is fundamentally flawed: Unless the patrons of your restaurant have a 'block' button or an 'unfriend' button to silence the other patrons, it is not the same.
When Twitter, et al., decide to silence their users, they are effectively silencing them for all of their users, whether those users want that person silenced or not. That's why the post office doesn't block people from sending mail to someone else unless it contains illegal material. If you don't like the speech you receive in the mail, you throw it away. If you don't like the speech you receive through Facebook or Twitter, you block the person and go on with your life. But the point is, it's you deciding what you want to hear, not Twitter or Facebook.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Really? That's a pathetic argument to claim a distinction on. But just to destroy your argument even further, patrons of said restaurants DO have a "block button" or an "unfriend button". It's called complaining to the manager who then comes and kicks you out for being a jerk.
Too bad so sad. They broke the rules, now they get punished for it. Don't want to get punished, don't break the rules.
The post office is a government run organization and as such is not allowed to block any mail due to the First Amendment. It's also illegal for the government to open your mail so second point is also false. As long as you don't tell the post office your mail contains illegal material, they will happily deliver it to whomever you want. Again, First Amendment combined with the Fourth Amendment for that last part.
That's all fine and good until said persons break the rules/terms of use they agreed to when signing up for the platform. At that point it doesn't matter what they're saying, their ass is grass. But I find it telling that you are comparing the post office (a government run public service subject to First and Fourth Amendment restrictions) to an online platform (a privately run company that is NOT subject to First and Fourth Amendment restrictions, and is instead explicitly granted the right to moderate content however they want by Section 230).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So what?
Twitter has every right to ban a user for violating the rules — or for practically any reason, for that matter. If Twitter admins say “[x] speech isn’t allowed” and a user breaks that rule, said admins can (and probably will) boot them from the service. No amount of whining about “censorship” will change those facts.
Moreover, whining about “censorship” because someone got kicked off a single platform ignores the rest of the Internet. Twitter can’t control what you post on Tumblr, and vice versa. Someone banned from Twitter can still use other platforms. (To wit: Alex Jones, who still uses InfoWars.)
The government cannot force any privately-owned business, publisher, or platform for speech — online or brick-and-mortar, public-facing or private — to host third-party speech in any way, shape, or form. Whether the person(s) who run that business/publisher/platform agree with the speech is irrelevant. If you can show me any law, statute, or “common law” court ruling that says otherwise, feel free to cite it. If you can’t, stop making the same shitty argument that’s already been debunked several times before this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So... the person blocked goes to a site that allows the to say what they want to say, and anybody who wants to listen to them follows them there.
The failure to attract an audience to such sites is a good indication of just how popular and acceptable it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Can you point to the law defining this breakdown in "private" and "public" because, it doesn't exist. This is all in your imagination, not reality.
Meanwhile, a separate question: in this fantasy world that exists in your head, is a "public" social media platform allowed to remove spam? Or does that violates Snape's Law too?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hmmm maybe s/he can not tell the difference between Twitter/Facebook/etc and congress. Terms of Serivce are kind of like laws... so I guess the confussion of 'the first ammendment should apply to buisnesses' makes sense (But only if I'm really tired and have not slept in the last 48 hours.).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, it isn’t. It is still a privately-owned website. Such a website can still be open to the public — much like, say, a privately-owned public accomodation business. And last time I checked, the government can’t force those businesses into hosting third-party speech of any kind, let alone third party speech with which it disagrees.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"If I make a site that is open to the public, the site is public,"
Wrong. The local mall doesn't become public property because they invite people on to the property. It's only public property if it's owned by the public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Is this comment publicly available from this private site?
Sounds like an oxymoron, but that would be falsely true
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
My restaurant was open to the public, and I also had the right to kick somebody out, permanently even, (only ever had to once in 15 years.) Why can't Twitter do the same thing, even though we are both "open to the public"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don’t use this word much when asking questions these days, but I’ll make an exception here: Why shouldn’t the government allow you to delete legal third-party speech from your website if you don’t want it there? Your website would not be a public accomodation business. It would be a privately-owned platform that allows for the submission of third-party speech. First Amendment jurisprudence says you can choose whether you associate with specific people/forms of speech. For what reason would you ever give up that right voluntarily, much less force everyone else to give up that right by force of law?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why would you force a bakery or florist or photographer to associate with someone they don't like? You can't have it both ways. If those businesses must associate with those they dislike, why not Twitter, et al.? Maybe a little consistency in your application of logic?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jim Crow laws weren’t made to protect the consciences of white business owners. They were made to exclude black people from the general public. If excluding gay and lesbian couples from the general public is the purpose behind refusing to serve them, that shouldn’t be allowed.
Everyone should be invited to the marketplace. If you feel that the presence of gays and lesbians in the marketplace means you can’t be there, that’s your decision. No one has forced you out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Why would you force a bakery or florist or photographer to associate with someone they don't like?"
If they think the person is an asshole? They're still free to not to associate with them. If they don't like that persons's race/gender/sexual orientation? They're forced to because millions of people were abused and subjugated when they had freedom of choice and so they have to be told they need to treat people like human beings. Don't like it? You can be a bigot all you want if you set up a private club. But, if you service the public, you service all of them, not just the ones you're not bigoted against.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Tell me, honestly, would you want to be forced to do something that violates your beliefs? Yes or no? No evasions, no arguments, just one of those two words. And if no, then your position becomes invalid because you're advocating people be forced to do something you would be unwilling to do yourself.
Or do you just not like the fact that people you disagree with have freedom of speech and religion in the US, too? And not just those you agree with. Why should such a miniscule proportion of the population (only 2-3%) have the right to dictate to all of society what is acceptable and what is not? And why must treating a person well somehow mean accepting all of what that person does and how he or she lives? I'm sure those that care about you don't agree with you about some of your choices, but they still care about you and treat you as such. So why must forced acceptance of behaviors and lifestyles one disagrees with be a part of treating someone like a human being? A person and what they do/how they live are separate things. One can treat the person well while disagreeing with what they do or how they live. But some people never seem to get that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do you have pride in YOUR parade?
Whoh whoh whoh! I’m going to have to see a permit before I let that entire parade of strawmen march out on the street.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I’m sure plenty of White Americans who run/work in public accommodation businesses hate that they’re forced to serve Black Americans at all. But they keep doing it because (a) it’s the law and (b) they want to stay in business/keep their job.
It’s called “tolerance”. You may not like what another person believes or whatever. But you must accept that you don’t get to control their lives for the sake of your own personal comfort.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm guessing you would not and also you assume no one else would either. So then please explain why you want to force the owners of internet companies to do something that violates their beliefs?
Fine. No. But it's really not going to help your case.
Not actually since you're advocating for the same thing. So if my position is invalid, so is yours. However the flaw in your argument is one of what are you discriminating against. Are you discriminating based on who or what someone is that was beyond their ability to choose (e.g. being born male/female, black/white/latino/etc...), or is it based on something they chose (e.g. what clothes they wear and the words they speak/write). Discriminating against one of those is telling people they are worth less than you because of circumstances beyond their control, the other is a difference of opinion. One is against the law, the other is not. Clear?
I like it just fine. It just doesn't apply to me and my property, only to the government. On my private property/platform, I am dictator and that's perfectly legal. What's not legal is the government coming in and telling me what I can and can't say, which is what you are arguing for.
They aren't. Whatever gave you that daft idea? They are only dictating what is and is not acceptable on their platforms. If you don't like it, go find a different platform that does allow it. I hear Gab is particularly well suited for spewing hate against human beings if that's what you want.
You don't have to accept it, and no one is say you do, you just have to be nice and not say mean things. Is that too hard for you?
Then what is the problem with requiring that users of online platforms treat each other with at least a modicum of that same respect?
Again, no one is saying you have to accept it, you just can't be mean and call them names for it. Really, you're not helping your case here. You are literally arguing for the right to be mean, cruel, and hurtful towards other human beings.
Sort of, but not necessarily. For instance, as a male, there are things I have to do in my life because I am a male, not socially, but because of my physiology. Females on the other hand, have to live in a completely different way because of their physiology. Generally they need bras to support their breasts and may need to use tampons once a month, I don't. Conversely, I have to buy and wear men's underwear to support certain, ah, other things that females don't have to worry about. So no, who someone is as a person is not completely separate from how they live their lives.
The irony in this statement is immeasurable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Tell me, honestly, would you want to be forced to do something that violates your beliefs?"
No. But, then, I also would not enter into a business that requires me to do that. A homophobe should not be opening a public business if he feels he cannot morally do that to the whole public. A Muslim should not become a pork butcher. A person who feels it';s against their religion to sell people birth control pills should not become a
The problem isn't people's beliefs being violated, it's people putting themselves in situations where someone with different beliefs will have to be discriminated against in order for that not to happen.
"Why should such a miniscule proportion of the population (only 2-3%) have the right to dictate to all of society what is acceptable and what is not? "
Because they are also human beings. Nobody's being treated as better than anybody else, all that's being said is that you're not allowed to attack, discriminate against or otherwise treat a gay person as less than a heterosexual one. No more, no less. If that's offensive to you that's your problem.
By the way, these laws also protect you from discrimination, you're just too dumb to understand why.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Someone who hates gay marriage should not get a job playing games with marriage licenses...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, doubly so for that sort of thing. Assuming you're referring to a Kim Davis kind of situation, she was employed to administer the secular element of marriage, not the religious one. If she can't keep her personal religion out of non-religious duties, she should not be in the job. I don't care how honestly held her beliefs are they have no place in the role she was in.
Of course, dumb people took her being told that she couldn't do it as persecution, whereas in reality it was just preventing her from using her office to persecute others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"But, if you service the public, you service all of them, not just the ones you're not bigoted against."
Back to the original question, why not twitter?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
They CAN run fact refuse to associate with someone they dont like, It is perfectly legal for them, to kick someone out from being an asshole and causing a disruption. They just can't refuse service due to a discriminatory reason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"They just can't refuse service due to a discriminatory reason."
Apparently, they can, unless it is a protected class such as believing in an imaginary man in the sky, or being a couple of pussy/cocksuckers, then you can't. But they don't have any more rights than you do, trust me.
Until someone makes a federal case out of it, you can be refused because of your M-G- ---.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I owned a restaurant for over 15 years, we were forced by the government to put up signs, but those signs, for all practical purposes, were government speech.
The EOE sign, the "Employees Must Wash Hands" sign, the "If you appear intoxicated, you will not be served" sign, the "Must Be 21 to purchase alcohol" sign, "Max Occupancy" sign, etc... But again, they were all government speech that I was hosting, as required by law.
They were not some random signs that contain speech from some random person that the government forced on my business. And to add to that, there were 100s of times where people would ask to hang a flyer in the window, third party speech in other words, and you know what, sometimes we did and sometimes we didn't. That was our right as the business owner. Why shouldn't Twitter have that same right?
And why didn't you answer my question, if a restaurant can kick somebody out yelling for racial slurs, then why can't Twitter?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Because Twitter isn’t a restaurant, and its purpose isn’t to serve food but to serve as a platform for speech and ostensibly make money from ad revenue. Your comparison is apples to oranges.
It’s certainly difficult to take your example and somehow twist it into something that fits here. Maybe you have a restaurant that allows any kind of special order, but you are so taken aback by someone wanting mustard mixed with ice cream that you throw them out? These analogies may be helpful at times, but they are often too simplistic to be meaningful
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And as such it is entitled to set and enforce rules. If it thinks hosting certain speech will offend many of its users, and drive some away, it is entitled to ban that speech, as keeping users is the basis for them making money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
They are very much related and very much meaningful and very helpful. See below.
If the same thing can happen in the physical world at a restaurant, then why can't the owners of a digital establishment not enjoy the same rights as a brick and motor establishment?
If a restaurant guest comes in and is rude and disruptive, the restaurant owner has every right to kick them out.
If a twitter guest comes in and is rude and disruptive, then you think they should be forced, by the government under the color of law, to still accept that disruptive user?
If a restaurant owner is approached by a third party to allow them space to hang a flyer in the restaurant's window, the restaurant owner has the right to decided if the restaurant wants to be associated with the third party speech that is contained on the flyer and can allow the flyer or not.
If Twitter is approached by a third party to allow them space to hang a flyer (Tweet) in Twitter's window (displayed on their platform), then you are telling me that Twitter should be forced, by the government under the color of law, to accept all such flyers, even for speech that Twitter does not wish to be associated with?
I could keep going, but you are wrong, a restaurant and twitter are very similar in what they allow in terms of being a business, privately owned, open to the public, and they both have every right to allow or not allow people into their business for any reason (other than a few protected reasons, such as skin color, etc).
I would also add that inns, taverns and restaurants were social (media) platforms long before the internet was even an itch in somebody's jeans.
Just because the speech happens online, doesn't mean that it is any different than speech at a restaurant, regardless if it's the owner's speech or the customer's speech.
And it doesn't have to be an analogy with a restaurant, it works for many different venues. Let me give you one more example. I went to a pro baseball game yesterday, the stadium / team invited me into their facility to enjoy the game. But I also was given a set of rules which I needed to abide by, otherwise, they would have no problem kicking me out.
What you're advocating for is that business owners in the online world are not allowed to enforce their set of rules to their customers and must be forced, by the government under the color of law, to allow all customers, regardless of how disruptive the customers may become. I am glad that our 1st amendment buries that issue before it even can become an issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The type of service (food, speech, merch, etc...) being provided is irrelevant. At the risk of repeating myself, I will repeat myself:
What you and everyone else wanting to punish these online platforms are actually saying is that you want the government to come in and violate the First Amendment and tell these companies and their owners what they can and cannot do with their business, and specifically telling people what they can and cannot say on their platforms.
This is the government telling private citizens what they can and cannot say. Even if you say it's different because it applies to online platforms, not individuals, it doesn't matter because those platforms are now acting on behalf of the government and telling individuals what they can and cannot say. They are now a state actor and subject to the First Amendment. Not to mention that it's illegal and unconstitutional to even tell the platforms what they can and cannot allow in the first place.
It doesn't matter how you look at it, this is government restriction of speech. No amount of arguing to the contrary is going to change that fact. Freedom of speech is not just "all speech allowed all the time", it's also the ability of private individuals and entities to say "I don't like that speech, and I'm not going to allow it in my personal space/property".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Nobody has to be forced to host speech they DO like. And, by definition, speech they DON'T like is coming from someone else--the "third party". So, for practical purposes, the discussion is only speech that is BOTH from a third-party, and objectionable to the persons running the business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
you misunderstand why these tech companies were granted these immunities in the first place - because they were extensions of the town square. Now that they have solidified their position, they are now engaging in editorialising their content which makes them publishers. So they are no longer entitled to the protections of the law as they have chosen to deviate from the original platform that granted them that privilege.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You can't just repeat an incorrect statement like some kind of trump card. Well, obviously you can, but you are wrong each time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"you misunderstand why these tech companies were granted these immunities in the first place - because they were extensions of the town square"
According to what evidence?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We all know you don’t got nothin’ but a purty mouth
You got a citation there boy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: We all know you don’t got nothin’ but a purt
I suspect Otto Maiaß is involved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For what reason should the government force Twitter, Techdirt, or any site that allows for third-party submissions into hosting speech its admins would otherwise refuse to host?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No, that is incorrect. That isn't why they were granted these immunities, nor are they extensions of the town square.
To be extensions of the town square, the government would have to own and operate the platforms. They do not and therefore they are not town square extensions.
The ability to "editorialize" or moderate content on their platforms was a right under the First Amendment that they had long before Section 230. Section 230 simply stated it explicitly.
As previously stated, that privilege is actually their right under the First Amendment, and Section 230 just stated it explicitly because apparently we live in a world where such obvious things need to be stated explicitly for the masses; such as hot drinks and don't stick your hands in the alligator cage warnings, and now "you can't blame the owner of property for actions committed on their property by another person".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
actually you can.. that's why they have liquor regulations. You may want to go back to those congressional hearings that lead to those laws being created - that is literally the very claim those companies were making. "we are not publishers, we are technology providers". Otherwise they would be subject to the same laws created to stop libel in the press.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I think some congratulations are in order
That is by far the stupidest argument you have come up with, to date.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh, you mean the defamation laws that place the blame on the person(s) who spoke/wrote/published the defamation and not the tools used to do so? Those defamation laws?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's literally not how that works. Those regulations are there for the protection of people who drink alcohol (and admittedly also just for government money raising, with a bit of randomness because, why not?) They don't say "you can't sue sellers of alcohol for the actions of people who drink it" because that's just common sense and covered under other parts of the law. For some reason people forget that when it comes to computers.
And you may want to actually READ the text of Section 230 as well as review those same hearings. If you did you would see that you are wrong.
Well actually they said they were content providers or general information services but you know, you haven't gotten anything else right so why this? And as Section 230 explicitly states, content providers shall not be held liable for anything their users do, and they are allowed to moderate/remove content at their discretion. That was also the argument they made in those same hearings you mentioned.
Well, see here's the thing, traditional press is a closed garden. Everything you read in a book or in a newspaper has been pre-reviewed and approved for publishing by a human being. That means someone saw the content that was submitted and deliberately allowed it to go to press. If they allowed illegal content, then that would make them liable because they could have stopped it before it went into the newspaper.
But online platforms don't work that way, they aren't walled gardens, they accept content from anyone and everyone and don't get human pre-approval before it goes live. They only know about it if someone else reports it after the fact. That's why they aren't liable like traditional press. Understand?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: oh dear
“Whatever that is”
-the new guy in CSGO telling everyone he is new.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Are you really advocating we go back to "Whites Only" signs? Your statement that the constitution only applies to government and not businesses would make those signs legal again.
John, that is the single stupidest thing I've heard all day. The "Gay Cake" rulings from the right could do that. The only parts of the constitution you, myself, or Youtube has to follow are the parts enshrined in law.
"Make no laws" for speech means the Feds don't get to say what we can or can not print/blog/type.
Show me a law that says I must host Nazi's.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
As the OP os the 'drivel' comment (not that it really matter... I'm an AC either way). I must admit to being suprised that people (apparently) believe the constitution is the only law.
It lays out the frame work for the government, but it doesn't say much about people/citizen (yes it say some stuff), mostly it's limits on what the government may not do (sometime explicitly to people/cititzens).
Just because constitution is rules (largely) about the government doesn't magically make all other laws (like against discrimination) non-existant.
To clarify it more. The Bill of Rights (which is probably the most relivent portion of the constitution here on TD) is largely restrictions on the government. AKA rghts cititizens have in the government<->citizen relationship. It says nothing about other relationships. (The seventh comes close, but once again deals with governent intervention in citizen relations, not just citizen<->citizen. For those that miss the point: if you are using the court system, in any way, the government is involved.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Please remind me: which ammendment was it that we passed to solve that 'constitutional' issue?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you say you're open to the public, then be open to the public, not just a subsection of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I’ll rephrase, but the general question is still the same: For what reason should the law force speech upon an Internet platform?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Government forces speech on businesses all the time.
My store must have specific signs at specific sizes at specific locations inside. Could I say 'no' to posting these forced-speech signs? Will you pay my attorney fees when they fine me for not posting them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You’re intentionally misconstruing the question. So let me add to it.
For the sake of argument, assume you run a platform like Twitter — a standalone Mastodon instance, if you will. When you started that platform, you decided to ban the promotion of White supremacy (e.g., Klan propaganda) and other, similar ideologies. You didn’t want it on your forum at all. When it shows up on your platform, you delete it.
One day, you learn that the law has changed: All platforms, regardless of size or any other factors, must host all legally protected speech or lose their CDA 230 protections. The government has now told you that the speech you once banned must be allowed. If you refuse to allow it, you face a penalty (loss of your CDA 230 immunities) under the law.
How would you feel about the government forcing you into hosting White supremacist propaganda on your forum against your explicit desire to not host it? For what reason should the government ever be able to force speech upon an Internet platform?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Just like they force speech on any other type of business. If you don't want to host free speech from everyone, either create a closed system for just you and your like-minded friends, or close your doors in protest.
Don't pretend you're open to everyone when you're not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh, you mean like Hands On Originals, which was forced by law to print a rainbow T-shirt with the words “Lexigton Pride”.
…oh wait
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Since you couldn't read what I posted earlier:
Just because it doesn't fit in your narrative of what forced speech is doesn't mean it's not forced speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It’s almost as if this is done for the benefit of customers. Imagine that~.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Forced speech is still forced speech. Just because you think it's beneficial doesn't mean you can force it on anyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Then how do you justify wanting to force speech upon platforms such as Twitter?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I post the signs because I'm open to the public. If I didn't want to post the forced speech, I could create a private club and exclude the general public. If Twitter doesn't want to post forced speech, they can create a closed, private forum for their users and not say they're open to the public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Question: Do these signs contain third-party speech, and if so, how did the government ever get away with violating your First Amendment rights by forcing you to host such speech against your will?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So now it's not 'speech they don't like' (or don't want to host), it's 'third-party speech'.
You've pivoted away from your original argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No, he actually hasn't. You're just being dishonest suggesting it, in order to try and avoid seeming like you didn't lose this argument in the first reply to your original post.
And for clarity, third party speech INCLUDES the sub-set of speech of "speech they don't like". After all, the First Amendment guarantees your right to not be forced to say something you don't like by the government. Therefore if you aren't saying the things you don't like on your platform, it must be a third party saying them. Wouldn't you agree?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So you don't think a restaurant should have the right to kick somebody out if they are yelling and screaming racist slurs?
If a restaurant can have a sign that says "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason", then why can't Twitter have the same sign?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Sure! Let's put out the "Whites Only" or "No Irish Need Apply" signs, right? They're totally legal, right?
Again, if you say you're open to everyone, then be open to everyone.
Don't like it? Either close shop or make it a private club.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I like how you conveniently didn't answer my first question:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
that depends, are they yelling at a liberal, or a conservative?
only one will get you kicked out
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Womp Womp
You used to actually have interesting things to say other than shouting RWNJ talking points.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Make it a private club and you won't have to worry about people screaming in your restaurant. Ma Maison made their restaurant private and never published their phone number or allowed walk-ins. You can do the same if you don't want to be open to the public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You mistake “public” (i.e., owned by the public/the government) for “open to the public” (i.e., privately owned but open for use by the general public).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Now you're just reaching as it appears that you have no real answer.
I mean you seriously think that I should be forced, by the power of the government, to allow somebody in my restaurant, which is privately owned, but publicly open, to stay there and yell and scream (racial slurs or not) and disrupt an enjoyable evening for everybody else? And not be able to kick that person out permanently?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So what I gather from this statement is that you're mad that the law doesn't work the way you want it to. Because the law says restaurants have the right to kick out whoever they want for pretty much any reason they want (especially if said person is causing discomfort for your other customers), with the exception of certain protected classes defined on who or what a person is, such that they had no choice in the matter, such as being born male/female, black/white/latino/etc... NOT things you have a choice about, such as the words that come out of your mouth or the clothes you do or don't wear.
If you don't like it, complain to your congressman and basic human decency.
And yet ANYONE who knew the phone number (or the actual physical location) could make a reservation and get service. They didn't actually make their restaurant private, it was still open to the public, just not as easy to find. Your example is invalid.
As others have said, being OPEN to the public, is not the same as BEING public. I can open up my backyard to the public for a block party and the minute someone starts talking about My Little Pony, I can have them forcibly removed from my property. (Note: I don't have anything against that show, it was just the first, silliest example I could think of to prove my point.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dug up stupid.
Hey bro at what point are you gonna stop digging?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
“Make it a private club”
Oh no. You have been been served notice over lack of CDA protections and not serving differing beliefs!
Press a to settle. Press b to spend years fighting in court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
not because of their speech.. but because they are disturbing the peace, and potentially causing damages (loss of sales)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Pot meet kettle
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That oddly sounds like the exact same reason people get kicked off of twitter!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Twitter is open to everyone. Literally anyone (who hasn’t been banned) can join the site. But Twitter still gets to say “[x] speech isn’t allowed here” and boot anyone who breaks that rule. Show me a business that is forced to host any and all third-party speech against the wishes of its owner(s), and I’ll show you the end result of your proposed change to CDA 230.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're intentionally ignoring the fact that it is illegal to discriminate against any protected class. This isn't a damper on free speech, it's a totally separate law. If it has free speech implications then that's just how it goes.
What you're suggesting is that we make "ideology", "political affiliation" and "trolling" new protected classes. That is, of course, a bad idea and you should feel bad for having it.
You're also suggesting that newspapers be forced to print every op-ed that is sent to them. Another bad idea.
Either you are trolling right now or you're really super dense. Either way your ability to post here at all is thanks to Section 230. Give that a good pondering and see if it finally sinks in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Like bakeries?
like the ones that have been forced out of business?
like those right??
thats ok right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If a bakery goes out of business because it couldn’t afford to pay either its bills (thanks to a dropoff in business for some reason) or a legal fine (thanks to its breaking the law for some reason), well, that sucks for said bakery.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sometimes, the bakery wins too.
like when the local politicians fuck it all up, by being biased
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Technically, Masterpiece only won on that procedural fuck-up. SCOTUS didn’t rule on the merits of the case, and every court that did so said “you lose” to the bakery.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh right, they didn't "exonerate" the bakery.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A court can’t exonerate the bakery. Hell, the baker admitted he discriminated against a gay customer for being gay. What a court can do, however, is say “that’s legal for the baker to do despite Colorado anti-discrimination law saying otherwise because [x]”. No court has yet done that. If I had to bet on it, no court other than a heavily conservative one (coughscotuscough) would do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
can they exonerate a president? you just said no, I will save this, thank you
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, I didn’t. Don’t put words into my mouth that didn’t first come from it, you weasel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Objection, conflating an innocent weasel with a dishonest liar is unfair to said weasel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
not procedural, it was bias
"Kennedy added that some of the commissioners “disparaged Phillips’ faith as despicable” and “compared his invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust.”
Because of that, his opinion concluded, when the “Colorado Civil Rights Commission considered this case, it did not do so with the religious neutrality that the Constitution requires.”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nice own goal, doofus
So what you’re saying is they didn’t follow the established procedure and therefore lost the case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nice own goal, doofus
well did they forget a comma?
did they file in the wrong court?
what caused them to not follow precedure? you tell me, You ARE the lawyer yes??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Nice own goal, doofus
Their own incompetence from what I understand after reading the reports. Any other stupid questions I can clear up for you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Nice own goal, doofus
Incompetence or bigotry or both. Doesn’t matter really in the end. What’s really gonna blow Digiguys mind later is the fact courts in general and SCOTUS in particular will almost always try to find the narrowest position possible, to rule upon, and did exactly that in this case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Twitter, Facebook etc. are like clubs, you can join if you accept their rules, and if you do not, go and find a club more to your liking. Unless you join the clubs, you cannot use them to host your speech, and if you join, you follow their rules on speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
awesome. Lets introduce laws that limit how many members can be in a club, and also how much money clubs can make, and what they do with private information given to the club.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why do you hate America so much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
ever heard of sarcasim
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I’ll let you decide if that was sarcasm
We have. That was not presented as such. Now go fuck off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
How about the diamonds, hearts, and spades?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Already done. They are called max occupancy laws and are part of building fire code.
What does that have to do with anything at hand?
There are also already laws dictating this as well. I recommend you read up on PCI and PII compliance regulations. Clubs (or any company really) can get in really big trouble if they mis-handle people's private information that members entrusted them with.
Happy now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It’s almost like they made some laws about this
No shoes, no shirt, no service. Is perfectly legal for a public facing business. No Blacks or Catholics isn’t. Websites aren’t public accomodations so even those laws don’t apply. I’m not sure why that’s so hard for so people to understand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It’s almost like they made some laws about this
'It is difficult to get a person to understand something when their argument depends upon their (real or claimed) inability to understand it.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It’s almost like they made some laws about this
Touche.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Even places that are open to the public can kick you out if you don't follow their rules.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I kinda know where you are coming from, but you are using the wrong type of law.
it's not the "open for everyone" that is the issue, it's Advertising that you are open for all when you are not.
Look at bait and switch laws. those will have traction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A public accomodation business can advertise itself as “open to the public” but still kick out people based on how they carry themselves as customers and not get in trouble for false advertising. For what reason should Twitter be treated any differently?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
public accomodation is not the same as a web platform, you said so yourself.
why would the two be the same for advertising laws?
saying you are open for all and advertising you are open to all are under different laws yes?
you can say what ever you want publicly, it does not mean you are advertising.
Advertising you are open to all when you don't allow some speech but do allow similar speech is bait and switch.
example Political speech is not protected speech, however if you allow some political speech and not other political speech that is false advertising that you are indeed Open to all.
at least that is the Michigan advertising/bait and switch law
I only know about this because of having gone to court, for sears
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Facebook saying both “anyone can use the service” and “we don’t accept that speech here” doesn’t make those two concepts the same. Nor does the second one make the first one a lie — anyone can use the service so long as they follow the rules on what speech is and isn’t allowed. If someone feels the rules are too restrictive and doesn’t feel welcome on the service as a result, that is their problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I advertised my restaurant open to anybody, but I still reserved the right to kick your ass out the door if you became unruly, disruptive, or just plain being an asshole to the staff and/or other guests.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And you still can't get it right. I'm guessing you lost that court case?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"I only know about this because of having gone to court, for sears"
No wonder Sears is going out of business. /s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Constitutionally protected doesn't mean private companies have to allow it, it just means the government can't force you to say or allow speech you don't want to, or restrict you from saying or allowing speech that you do want to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How §230 should read...
“Stop liking things I don’t like.”
There I just saved you 50 increasingly desperate replies wherein you drive your reputation into the ground while screaming “Banzai!”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How §230 should read...
and Then John got sued lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sure, it's "conspiracy theories and totally bullshit"...
when you don't agree, but not when you do?
Way to undermine your source, silly boy.
More of your having everything all ways at once, which works on your fanboys with the memory of gnats.
You've spent TWENTY years writing and haven't even to not undermine your source AND self. Sheesh.
It's also obvious that you position it so can claim "even the anti-corporate WSJ..." -- when it's the Wall Street Journal, the surveillance capitalist's main organ! Double sheesh!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Blues mind is 100% conspiracy theories and total bullshit
You’ve spent 12 years screaming into the void here. And all you have to show for it are 27 Bangladeshis who dunk on you like Jordan every chance they get. Good job, you ignorant motherfucker.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Blues mind is 100% conspiracy theories and total bullshi
at one point he even admitted to IP theft, I got to remind him of if it for about 5 months after that, it was fun
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sure, it's "conspiracy theories and totally bullshit"...
Where did Mike say the WSJ was anti-corporate?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sure, it's trolls all the way down
Where did Mike say the WSJ was anti-corporate?
I'm not sure, I was laughing too hard that someone was quoting Tim Pool.
But One thing I know for sure - that they will never ever address - Balls and Snape would never in a million years run their website to the standards they want Twitter to adhere to. "All leal speech or no speech."
Well, I guess "No Speech." They can live by that. Balls can't lift a finger to do his own marvelous blog.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That made no sense to me either. Right there in the first paragraph, the first line, it says "Rupert Murdoch and his Wall Street Journal". The day Rupert Murdoch becomes anti-corporate is going to be the heat death of the universe.
Then again we're probably giving blue far more credit than he deserves by assuming he read the article to begin with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Anti-corporate in general probably not, but apparently they do have one hell of a hate-on for Google if the plethora of links are anything to go by, so you could argue that they are anti (one)-corporation even if they aren't anti-corporate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There once was an out of the blue
Ah, blue. You wish that we had the memory of gnats. Maybe we might have forgotten the tripe you posted in support of Prenda Law, Malibu Media, and performance rights organizations spending artists' paychecks on hookers and blow.
But nah, instead of letting your memory fade away like a bad date, you chose of your own volition to return. Not only that, you chose to drop a link to how Dark Helmet rustled your jimmies and made you shit your own grandma's underwear. You chose to claim how the website's blue color scheme was part of an elaborate conspiracy to shame you. You chose to play the part of a "concerned bystander" bemoaning the fate of a pseudonym you yourself claimed had no relevance today other than passing mention whenever something fucking stupid is said.
You made the decision to embrace the "out_of_the_blue" association with Luddite moronism, ineffective spammy trolling, and corporate cocksucking so voracious it makes the Nevada ranch blush.
Have yourself a merry fucking FOSTA vote.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Im surprised that nobody has mentioned that Kamala Harris, the current Democratic Party front runner... has no love for CDA Section 230 and has spoken out about it many times in her public warpath against backpage...
Fuck kamala harris.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I've heard rumors as to whom she has been with, no, no thank you, I'd rather not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That’s because it’s not material to the article at hand. Thanks for playing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There's lots of things with no relevance to the article that haven't been mentioned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The WSJ is a joke these days. Pay it no heed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More than 12 less than 24
Nice hot garbage take. How many hours it take you to come up with that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Truly, your eloquent and thorough rebuttal and counter-argument for why the idea put forth in this article is a masterpiece of persuasion and logic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Baseless accusation made by random, anonymous person on the internet without any facts to back it up? It must be true!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
agreed!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You’re new here aren’t you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You forgot to change your IP/VPN endpoint and clear your browser cache and cookies before astroturfing and agreeing with yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Oh don’t tell him. It spoils the fun!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the contrary, the image in my mind of his reaction when he realizes he got caught with his internet pants down is immensely enjoyable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Come out, John Smith! Nussing vill happen to you, I svear!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Mute: BREATHING INTENSIFIES
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ahahahahahaha... I can't! We're going to make fun of you. Ah ha ha ha ha haaaaa!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]