It is not FB that is doing it, it is the government agencies mentioned in the article that are doing it.
By using Facebook! Why can’t you get this through your head!
Look, when you have a Facebook page, you can give Facebook a list of keywords that you want blocked from any comments on your page. From there, Facebook’s algorithms will search every single comment posted on your page for those keywords. If any one of those keywords is found, that comment will be blocked from appearing to anyone who views your page.
That’s what happened here. The NIH has a Facebook page, and—using the same tools available to everyone else on Facebook—gave Facebook a list of keywords to block from their Facebook page which includes the keywords listed in the article. From there, Facebook automatically blocks comments based on those keywords.
What is not happening is the government intercepting the posts before they reach Facebook at all and then comparing them against a list of keywords, nor is the government simply preventing machines that use their network from being able to display or be used to post such comments. All the actual checking and blocking is done by Facebook’s software, and the posting is done by PETA (among others). Using a VPN simply cannot be used to get around this since the content never reaches the government’s network or computers in the first place.
And contrary to what one clown on the Usenet computer security newsgroups used to say, it was not a CFAA violation to bypass the firewall with a VPN to access my online radio station.
Bypassing filtering is not a CFAA violation, no matter what this clown in the computer security newsgroups said over 10 years ago.
I… don’t believe any of us have suggested anything to the contrary. I mean, you’re probably right that bypassing filtering isn’t a CFAA violation (it’s not the case that the user was using a machine they weren’t allowed to use), but that’s not really relevant at all to what we’re saying.
I strongly disagree, in part because you fail to understand the issue.
This is about one particular ordinance. Whether or not it’s meant to punish this particular woman for her behavior, this ordinance is still unconstitutional. Period.
That’s not to say it wouldn’t be punishable under some other, constitutional law or ordinance. There likely are some stalking and/or harassment laws in the US that would punish her behavior without running afoul of the Constitution. However, those laws aren’t at issue here. The law was about taking photos of children without their parent’s permission, period, and that is unconstitutional no matter how you slice it.
That’s why we protect unpopular speech. Better that a guilty person goes free than an innocent person gets punished.
But here’s the thing: is this woman’s behavior or speech demonstrably doing any of that? If not, then all we have is their unverifiable assertion that it does, and the distinction you draw is without difference.
Also, for the millionth time, immoral is not and should not be necessarily illegal or unlawful. There are plenty of things I don’t want the government to outlaw that I think are abhorrent and/or dangerous.
No. Just because there is no recourse using the legal system doesn’t mean there’s no recourse.
Also, I’m not convinced that there is no recourse using the legal system in this particular case. The specific ordinance being challenged here was unconstitutional, but that doesn’t mean that there couldn’t be—or isn’t—some other law that is or would be constitutional that would punish her behavior.
Even if true, it’s insufficient to support the claim. As noted, it’s uncertain whether or not the laptop is actually his, whether or not the emails were actually found on that laptop, and whether or not the emails—if they did come from the laptop—were actually what was presented, in an unaltered form, to us. Currently, the only reason we have to believe any of those things is the testimony of two biased individuals with a vested interest in uncovering dirt on at least one of the Biden’s, and several parts of the story are suspect, not just the parts about it being Hunter’s laptop but also things like why they waited so long to release this information or why the repairman first contacted Giuliani if the information was genuine.
Also, no, being high on crack—standing alone—is not sufficient to make a plausible explanation of why Hunter Biden himself would drop off a laptop at a repair shop for a year given that it (allegedly) contains such incriminating information. Not that it matters, since no one alleged it was Hunter who dropped it off in the first place, so this isn’t really a good hill to choose to die on.
But let’s say, for kicks and giggles, that the emails are actually what Giuliani says. If so, that means that Hunter was lying in those emails, as publicly available information directly contradicts the claim that any meeting with Joe Biden took place.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does n
I have never seen that article. Additionally, that’s just one person’s account. I have no reason to believe the owner of a strip-club any more than the computer repair guy. Unless there is an investigation into the matter or a video or something, I don’t see why I should necessarily believe the account.
And no, I didn’t read Hunter’s book. I don’t generally read books of lobbyists or government agents or politicians or celebrities. That’s not something I’m particularly interested in.
All I did was look at a few sites that discuss his drug habits over the years. Based on what I read, it didn’t appear that there were any confirmed instances of Hunter smoking crack for some time, and that he has been reportedly clean for some time. I wasn’t digging thoroughly because it’s not my job to find evidence to support your claims.
Do I recall which sites I viewed? Of course not. It’s been too long, and memories fade.
Now, learn what lying means. It doesn’t mean “saying something that can be proven false”. I did not say anything I did not believe to be true.
I don’t see what’s preventing you from replying to your own post or something to explain to the public that you’ve been false fact-checked. In the case that the post wasn’t removed but simply had a message added to it, I really don’t understand what the issue is. That’s not censorship.
If the issue is that the post was removed, just put a post up saying that your post was removed for allegedly spreading misinformation, then maybe put a post up somewhere else (maybe Parler or something), and try to point people to that.
as i said there are studies that show masks are worthless, you just choose to not read them.
I have read the studies. They don’t show masks are worthless. We’ve been over this.
also simple logic demonstrates this to be the case. just look at the super woke, blue cities where mask & "vaccine" compliance is high and you'll see that the virus still continues.
Almost entirely among the unvaccinated, and they are usually unmasked. Even in blue cities, the vaccination rate is not high enough to reach herd immunity, and there are still a lot of antimaskers as well.
Also, that the virus continues to spread at all doesn’t mean that masks don’t work at all. Masks are not perfect at preventing the spread of viruses like COVID; no one claims they are. What they do is reduce the spread, not stop it entirely.
look at countries & states where there were never any mandates and you'll find that the numbers are pretty much the same.
This is completely false. States with relatively fewer unvaccinated people and no mandates (like Florida) are currently experiencing the highest per capita COVID infection and death rates in the country, and those rates are increasing.
if masks work then why don't the work? if the vaccines work then why don't they work?
Except they do. Very few fully vaccinated people experience any COVID symptoms at all, even fewer of them have to get hospitalized for COVID, and almost none of the COVID deaths have been fully vaccinated, so clearly the vaccines work. Cases of transmission of COVID (including its variants) primarily occur when at least one of the people in the transmission wasn’t wearing a mask, so masks work, too.
i live in a very blue state with all kinds of ridiculous mandates but i will not comply.
And yet you wonder why COVID still spreads in states with mandates. I mean, surely it has nothing to do with people like you who refuse to comply with the mandates. That’d be ridiculous! /s
these mandates have zero to do with health or science and everything to do with control
By that logic, if a city decided to hold a town hall meeting by renting a large meeting room in a hotel, the hotel would be treated as a government actor for the purposes of that room. That’s not how it works.
I don’t have to like the person or company in order to agree that their rights should absolutely be protected just like anyone else’s. I would defend the free speech rights of Amazon or Donald Trump or Michelle Malkin just as vehemently as I would the free speech rights of, say, that kind old lady down the street or Bernie Sanders or anyone else. My opinion on the speaker or the speech is irrelevant.
I think it depends. I believe it may be possible that this woman’s behavior could be considered unlawful stalking and/or harassment under some hypothetical law that would pass constitutional muster, and I don’t necessarily have a problem with that being the case.
I’m not going to pretend to know what that law would be or if such a law exists somewhere in the US, though. That is beyond what a non-expert like myself would know.
Re: Re: Re: This article makes a number of bias statements
230(c) specifically only covers "good faith" actions.
False. Only §230(c)(2)(A) is limited to “good faith” actions.
§230(c)(1) covers any attempts to treat interactive service providers and users of such services as publishers for third party content they themselves did not develop, including most but not all moderation decisions, and it has no exception for actions not taken in good faith. §230(c)(2)(A) covers moderation actions taken in good faith against content they believe to be objectionable, either by users or by the service providers. §230(c)(B) covers the provision of tools to users in order to moderate content.
Of these, “good faith” only appears in §230(c)(2)(A), and every case that has ruled on the issue has said that it doesn’t apply to §230(c)(1) or §230(c)(2)(B). On top of that, in most cases regarding whether or not some moderation decision is immunized by §230 aren’t decided based upon §230(c)(2)(A) but based upon either definitions or §230(c)(1), which do not have the “good faith” requirement.
230(c) does not protect against 230(e) stated criminal actions, intellectual property, privacy laws, laws on sex trafficking, consistent state law, and 230(b)(5) specifically iterates that criminal laws are not off limits with 230(c).
Only partially true. §230(c) doesn’t protect against federal criminal actions, but it does against state criminal actions. And by “consistent state law”, it only includes laws consistent with federal laws and the Constitution (except IP, privacy, and sex trafficking).
States could challenge 230(e)(3) for cases that are not interstate commerce, and aspects that apply within their state.
We’re dealing with the internet here. It’s basically all interstate commerce. Also, I have no idea what you mean by “aspects that apply within their state”. It sounds like you mean “the aspects of §230 that apply to their state”, but that would completely defeat the purpose of §230.
When it comes down to it 230 does not provide immunity to the actual creator of the content, or the author of a defamatory statement. The court has tended to uphold editorial aspects of third-party content, however only if it substantially does not alter the meaning of the original statements.
This is true. It also has nothing to do with anything said thus far.
Even Congress does not have power to create law that abridge either the 9th or 10th amendment aspects in regards to freedom of speech in what has become a public forum (and by virtue of the sheer technology reliance that these companies have developed around themselves that are almost required in order to use other platforms and services it definitely can provide a person with a damage claim, where they have had their account shut down or suspended, regarding standing at minimum).
Neither the 9th nor 10th Amendments apply to freedom of speech at all. The 9th—which is almost never used at all—refers to rights not specifically mentioned in the Constitution still existing. The 10th is about states’ rights. Neither are applicable here, and neither involve freedom of speech, so bringing them up makes no sense.
As for the public forum argument, recent court cases have explicitly refuted the claims about things like Twitter and Facebook being public forums subject to 1A restrictions, and it’s not particularly relevant to §230.
In other words, in my estimation there is a constitutional speech case that could be made, as well as a 230 case for "bad faith" suppression.
Again, only §230(c)(2)(A) has an exception for “bad faith”, and most cases involving §230 are decided based on §230(c)(1). Also, as mentioned, only the 1A (with an extension from the 14th) deals with freedom of speech, and that amendment’s restrictions do not apply to Twitter or Facebook in these conditions. These are well established in current case law.
In addition to the public forum aspect applied to "bad faith" suppression, the anti-trust laws for instance are partially criminal laws (and would also apply - that may be apparent, but I thought I would state it for completness).
Anti-trust is not at issue in this case, so that’s irrelevant.
The section that I referenced in Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, No. 17-1702, 587 U.S. ___ (2018) was of the majority outlining the state doctrine (no matter what type of case it is). They then went on to outline the case. Here I only needed to reference their legal outline of state doctrine, and in this case the third point that "... a private entity can qualify as a state actor in a few limited circumstances... (iii) when the government acts jointly with the private entity".
Which isn’t what happened here, and cases prior to and after Manhattan have rejected the contention that the government making such comments transforms a private entity into a state actor.
In addition, section 230 must continue to survive Constitutional scrutiny, the provider must meet the obligations under 230(d) (which in most cases does not happen - at least with the intent of (d)), and there are limitations to section 230 (both within the law, and Constitutionally).
§230(d) states, in full:
A provider of interactive computer service shall, at the time of entering an agreement with a customer for the provision of interactive computer service and in a manner deemed appropriate by the provider, notify such customer that parental control protections (such as computer hardware, software, or filtering services) are commercially available that may assist the customer in limiting access to material that is harmful to minors. Such notice shall identify, or provide the customer with access to information identifying, current providers of such protections.
This isn’t a qualification on §230(c). This is an independent requirement for providers of ICSs to notify users that parental control protections exist and either who are or where to find current providers of such protection. Nowhere does it say that the protections from §230(c) are conditioned on compliance with §230(d).
Also, as far as I am aware, most of the major ICS providers (like Google, Facebook, and Twitter) actually provide parental control protections and notify users of their existence, which I’m pretty sure meets the requirements of §230(d).
So basically, §230(d) is irrelevant here. I’ve also explained that the Constitutional and internal restrictions don’t apply in these cases.
Yes, I do think to mandate masks for everyone is bad. It is bad public policy, heavy handed mandates that governmental authority have used (or attempted to use in some circumstances) have abused certain aspects of their authority and has not been helpful to securing either Natural Law or Constitutional freedom
It is helpful to securing public health, which is also a goal for the government.
the effectiveness of masks is not supported by randomized control trial evidence
As you have already been told, this is completely false.
masks for all of society up until last year was never seriously posited by epidemiologists (particularly many outside the U.S.)
That’s because up until last year, we didn’t have a massive pandemic. That’s why it wasn’t seriously posited by many epidemiologists before then; there wasn’t any compelling reason for all of society to wear masks until COVID-19 came. Additionally, if enough people had vaccinated, we wouldn’t need to mask “all of society” right now.
Epidemiologists have up until last year supported common sense, which was to encourage, not mandate, that the vulnerable protect with mitigation efforts - as imperfect as they are.
That’s only partially true, and again ignores that the reason why epidemiologists changed their tune last year was because there was suddenly a pandemic that changed the risk-reward analysis of the whole thing.
As for why it’s only partially true, that statement is outright false when it comes to vaccines, which have long been mandated. Again, if more people had vaccinated like they were supposed to, we wouldn’t need these mask mandates.
You believe it’s fine for bigots to use their First Amendment rights to help deprive others of the ability to feel safe, to actually be safe, and accepted in this country.
“Fine” =/= “legal”
Not everything that is immoral is or should be illegal or unlawful, and not everything that is or should be legal and lawful is necessarily moral.
That’s not what the court said. It said that the specified ordinance is unconstitutional because it is not narrowly tailored and is not content-neutral.
Insofar as the city is interested in protecting privacy, having a requirement to blur faces of children whose parents did not give consent before publicizing the material should be sufficient.
Insofar as the city is interested in stopping harassment, having a limitation in the ordinance that requires the city to prove intent to harass or something might work.
However, the city ordinance as it was had no such things in them. Anyone recording a child without their parent’s permission regardless of intent and regardless of any attempts to conceal the identities of any subjects would be in violation of the ordinance. That simply is not narrowly tailored.
It also said the new law was "content neutral" because it did not target photographers, but rather what they recorded (???).
Wait… Isn’t that completely backwards?
Granted, I’m pretty sure that only targeting photographers or something would also be unconstitutional, but I’m fairly sure that if the law targets the content of speech, that’s not exactly “content-neutral”. It’s kinda in the name.
On the post: PETA Sues NIH And HHS Directors For Blocking Comments With 'PETA' And '#StopAnimalTesting'
Re: Re: Re:
By using Facebook! Why can’t you get this through your head!
Look, when you have a Facebook page, you can give Facebook a list of keywords that you want blocked from any comments on your page. From there, Facebook’s algorithms will search every single comment posted on your page for those keywords. If any one of those keywords is found, that comment will be blocked from appearing to anyone who views your page.
That’s what happened here. The NIH has a Facebook page, and—using the same tools available to everyone else on Facebook—gave Facebook a list of keywords to block from their Facebook page which includes the keywords listed in the article. From there, Facebook automatically blocks comments based on those keywords.
What is not happening is the government intercepting the posts before they reach Facebook at all and then comparing them against a list of keywords, nor is the government simply preventing machines that use their network from being able to display or be used to post such comments. All the actual checking and blocking is done by Facebook’s software, and the posting is done by PETA (among others). Using a VPN simply cannot be used to get around this since the content never reaches the government’s network or computers in the first place.
I… don’t believe any of us have suggested anything to the contrary. I mean, you’re probably right that bypassing filtering isn’t a CFAA violation (it’s not the case that the user was using a machine they weren’t allowed to use), but that’s not really relevant at all to what we’re saying.
On the post: Appeals Court Says The First Amendment Protects Minnesota Woman's Right To Be Super-Shitty About Nearby Islamic School
Re: Re:
I strongly disagree, in part because you fail to understand the issue.
This is about one particular ordinance. Whether or not it’s meant to punish this particular woman for her behavior, this ordinance is still unconstitutional. Period.
That’s not to say it wouldn’t be punishable under some other, constitutional law or ordinance. There likely are some stalking and/or harassment laws in the US that would punish her behavior without running afoul of the Constitution. However, those laws aren’t at issue here. The law was about taking photos of children without their parent’s permission, period, and that is unconstitutional no matter how you slice it.
That’s why we protect unpopular speech. Better that a guilty person goes free than an innocent person gets punished.
On the post: Appeals Court Says The First Amendment Protects Minnesota Woman's Right To Be Super-Shitty About Nearby Islamic School
Re: Re: Re
Not everything that’s immoral should be illegal. Fight back with more speech. Make her a pariah in society.
Also, recording her could get evidence to support a harassment charge.
On the post: Appeals Court Says The First Amendment Protects Minnesota Woman's Right To Be Super-Shitty About Nearby Islamic School
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But here’s the thing: is this woman’s behavior or speech demonstrably doing any of that? If not, then all we have is their unverifiable assertion that it does, and the distinction you draw is without difference.
Also, for the millionth time, immoral is not and should not be necessarily illegal or unlawful. There are plenty of things I don’t want the government to outlaw that I think are abhorrent and/or dangerous.
On the post: Appeals Court Says The First Amendment Protects Minnesota Woman's Right To Be Super-Shitty About Nearby Islamic School
Re: Re: Re:
No. Just because there is no recourse using the legal system doesn’t mean there’s no recourse.
Also, I’m not convinced that there is no recourse using the legal system in this particular case. The specific ordinance being challenged here was unconstitutional, but that doesn’t mean that there couldn’t be—or isn’t—some other law that is or would be constitutional that would punish her behavior.
On the post: Judge Ignores First Amendment, Misreads Town Law, While Ordering Resident To Remove 'Fuck Biden' Signs
Re: Re: Plausible
Even if true, it’s insufficient to support the claim. As noted, it’s uncertain whether or not the laptop is actually his, whether or not the emails were actually found on that laptop, and whether or not the emails—if they did come from the laptop—were actually what was presented, in an unaltered form, to us. Currently, the only reason we have to believe any of those things is the testimony of two biased individuals with a vested interest in uncovering dirt on at least one of the Biden’s, and several parts of the story are suspect, not just the parts about it being Hunter’s laptop but also things like why they waited so long to release this information or why the repairman first contacted Giuliani if the information was genuine.
Also, no, being high on crack—standing alone—is not sufficient to make a plausible explanation of why Hunter Biden himself would drop off a laptop at a repair shop for a year given that it (allegedly) contains such incriminating information. Not that it matters, since no one alleged it was Hunter who dropped it off in the first place, so this isn’t really a good hill to choose to die on.
But let’s say, for kicks and giggles, that the emails are actually what Giuliani says. If so, that means that Hunter was lying in those emails, as publicly available information directly contradicts the claim that any meeting with Joe Biden took place.
On the post: Judge Ignores First Amendment, Misreads Town Law, While Ordering Resident To Remove 'Fuck Biden' Signs
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does n
I have never seen that article. Additionally, that’s just one person’s account. I have no reason to believe the owner of a strip-club any more than the computer repair guy. Unless there is an investigation into the matter or a video or something, I don’t see why I should necessarily believe the account.
And no, I didn’t read Hunter’s book. I don’t generally read books of lobbyists or government agents or politicians or celebrities. That’s not something I’m particularly interested in.
All I did was look at a few sites that discuss his drug habits over the years. Based on what I read, it didn’t appear that there were any confirmed instances of Hunter smoking crack for some time, and that he has been reportedly clean for some time. I wasn’t digging thoroughly because it’s not my job to find evidence to support your claims.
Do I recall which sites I viewed? Of course not. It’s been too long, and memories fade.
Now, learn what lying means. It doesn’t mean “saying something that can be proven false”. I did not say anything I did not believe to be true.
On the post: Commentator Insists That Fact Checking Is An Attack On Free Speech
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don’t see what’s preventing you from replying to your own post or something to explain to the public that you’ve been false fact-checked. In the case that the post wasn’t removed but simply had a message added to it, I really don’t understand what the issue is. That’s not censorship.
If the issue is that the post was removed, just put a post up saying that your post was removed for allegedly spreading misinformation, then maybe put a post up somewhere else (maybe Parler or something), and try to point people to that.
On the post: Commentator Insists That Fact Checking Is An Attack On Free Speech
Re: Re:
I have read the studies. They don’t show masks are worthless. We’ve been over this.
Almost entirely among the unvaccinated, and they are usually unmasked. Even in blue cities, the vaccination rate is not high enough to reach herd immunity, and there are still a lot of antimaskers as well.
Also, that the virus continues to spread at all doesn’t mean that masks don’t work at all. Masks are not perfect at preventing the spread of viruses like COVID; no one claims they are. What they do is reduce the spread, not stop it entirely.
This is completely false. States with relatively fewer unvaccinated people and no mandates (like Florida) are currently experiencing the highest per capita COVID infection and death rates in the country, and those rates are increasing.
Except they do. Very few fully vaccinated people experience any COVID symptoms at all, even fewer of them have to get hospitalized for COVID, and almost none of the COVID deaths have been fully vaccinated, so clearly the vaccines work. Cases of transmission of COVID (including its variants) primarily occur when at least one of the people in the transmission wasn’t wearing a mask, so masks work, too.
And yet you wonder why COVID still spreads in states with mandates. I mean, surely it has nothing to do with people like you who refuse to comply with the mandates. That’d be ridiculous! /s
You have failed to demonstrate that claim.
On the post: PETA Sues NIH And HHS Directors For Blocking Comments With 'PETA' And '#StopAnimalTesting'
Re:
By that logic, if a city decided to hold a town hall meeting by renting a large meeting room in a hotel, the hotel would be treated as a government actor for the purposes of that room. That’s not how it works.
On the post: Elizabeth Warren Threatens Amazon For Selling Books Containing Misinformation; Perhaps Forgetting The 1st Amendment
Re:
I don’t have to like the person or company in order to agree that their rights should absolutely be protected just like anyone else’s. I would defend the free speech rights of Amazon or Donald Trump or Michelle Malkin just as vehemently as I would the free speech rights of, say, that kind old lady down the street or Bernie Sanders or anyone else. My opinion on the speaker or the speech is irrelevant.
On the post: Elizabeth Warren Threatens Amazon For Selling Books Containing Misinformation; Perhaps Forgetting The 1st Amendment
Re:
Sometimes it does.
Well, it does protect that. Sorry, but that’s just how it goes.
On the post: Appeals Court Says The First Amendment Protects Minnesota Woman's Right To Be Super-Shitty About Nearby Islamic School
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think it depends. I believe it may be possible that this woman’s behavior could be considered unlawful stalking and/or harassment under some hypothetical law that would pass constitutional muster, and I don’t necessarily have a problem with that being the case.
I’m not going to pretend to know what that law would be or if such a law exists somewhere in the US, though. That is beyond what a non-expert like myself would know.
On the post: Angry Anti-Masker Sues Joe Biden, Facebook, And Twitter Because His Social Media Was Taken Down For Disinfo
Re: Re: Re: This article makes a number of bias statements
False. Only §230(c)(2)(A) is limited to “good faith” actions.
§230(c)(1) covers any attempts to treat interactive service providers and users of such services as publishers for third party content they themselves did not develop, including most but not all moderation decisions, and it has no exception for actions not taken in good faith. §230(c)(2)(A) covers moderation actions taken in good faith against content they believe to be objectionable, either by users or by the service providers. §230(c)(B) covers the provision of tools to users in order to moderate content.
Of these, “good faith” only appears in §230(c)(2)(A), and every case that has ruled on the issue has said that it doesn’t apply to §230(c)(1) or §230(c)(2)(B). On top of that, in most cases regarding whether or not some moderation decision is immunized by §230 aren’t decided based upon §230(c)(2)(A) but based upon either definitions or §230(c)(1), which do not have the “good faith” requirement.
Only partially true. §230(c) doesn’t protect against federal criminal actions, but it does against state criminal actions. And by “consistent state law”, it only includes laws consistent with federal laws and the Constitution (except IP, privacy, and sex trafficking).
We’re dealing with the internet here. It’s basically all interstate commerce. Also, I have no idea what you mean by “aspects that apply within their state”. It sounds like you mean “the aspects of §230 that apply to their state”, but that would completely defeat the purpose of §230.
This is true. It also has nothing to do with anything said thus far.
Neither the 9th nor 10th Amendments apply to freedom of speech at all. The 9th—which is almost never used at all—refers to rights not specifically mentioned in the Constitution still existing. The 10th is about states’ rights. Neither are applicable here, and neither involve freedom of speech, so bringing them up makes no sense.
As for the public forum argument, recent court cases have explicitly refuted the claims about things like Twitter and Facebook being public forums subject to 1A restrictions, and it’s not particularly relevant to §230.
Again, only §230(c)(2)(A) has an exception for “bad faith”, and most cases involving §230 are decided based on §230(c)(1). Also, as mentioned, only the 1A (with an extension from the 14th) deals with freedom of speech, and that amendment’s restrictions do not apply to Twitter or Facebook in these conditions. These are well established in current case law.
Anti-trust is not at issue in this case, so that’s irrelevant.
Which isn’t what happened here, and cases prior to and after Manhattan have rejected the contention that the government making such comments transforms a private entity into a state actor.
§230(d) states, in full:
This isn’t a qualification on §230(c). This is an independent requirement for providers of ICSs to notify users that parental control protections exist and either who are or where to find current providers of such protection. Nowhere does it say that the protections from §230(c) are conditioned on compliance with §230(d).
Also, as far as I am aware, most of the major ICS providers (like Google, Facebook, and Twitter) actually provide parental control protections and notify users of their existence, which I’m pretty sure meets the requirements of §230(d).
So basically, §230(d) is irrelevant here. I’ve also explained that the Constitutional and internal restrictions don’t apply in these cases.
It is helpful to securing public health, which is also a goal for the government.
As you have already been told, this is completely false.
That’s because up until last year, we didn’t have a massive pandemic. That’s why it wasn’t seriously posited by many epidemiologists before then; there wasn’t any compelling reason for all of society to wear masks until COVID-19 came. Additionally, if enough people had vaccinated, we wouldn’t need to mask “all of society” right now.
That’s only partially true, and again ignores that the reason why epidemiologists changed their tune last year was because there was suddenly a pandemic that changed the risk-reward analysis of the whole thing.
As for why it’s only partially true, that statement is outright false when it comes to vaccines, which have long been mandated. Again, if more people had vaccinated like they were supposed to, we wouldn’t need these mask mandates.
On the post: Angry Anti-Masker Sues Joe Biden, Facebook, And Twitter Because His Social Media Was Taken Down For Disinfo
Re:
FWIW, the government still has to respond to FOIA requests in such circumstances, even if only to say that there are no responsive documents.
On the post: Appeals Court Says The First Amendment Protects Minnesota Woman's Right To Be Super-Shitty About Nearby Islamic School
Re: Re:
“Fine” =/= “legal”
Not everything that is immoral is or should be illegal or unlawful, and not everything that is or should be legal and lawful is necessarily moral.
On the post: Appeals Court Says The First Amendment Protects Minnesota Woman's Right To Be Super-Shitty About Nearby Islamic School
Re:
That’s not what the court said. It said that the specified ordinance is unconstitutional because it is not narrowly tailored and is not content-neutral.
Insofar as the city is interested in protecting privacy, having a requirement to blur faces of children whose parents did not give consent before publicizing the material should be sufficient.
Insofar as the city is interested in stopping harassment, having a limitation in the ordinance that requires the city to prove intent to harass or something might work.
However, the city ordinance as it was had no such things in them. Anyone recording a child without their parent’s permission regardless of intent and regardless of any attempts to conceal the identities of any subjects would be in violation of the ordinance. That simply is not narrowly tailored.
On the post: Appeals Court Says The First Amendment Protects Minnesota Woman's Right To Be Super-Shitty About Nearby Islamic School
IDTTMWYTIM
Wait… Isn’t that completely backwards?
Granted, I’m pretty sure that only targeting photographers or something would also be unconstitutional, but I’m fairly sure that if the law targets the content of speech, that’s not exactly “content-neutral”. It’s kinda in the name.
On the post: PETA Sues NIH And HHS Directors For Blocking Comments With 'PETA' And '#StopAnimalTesting'
Re:
It’s not like PETA is much better regarding the treatment of animals.
On the post: PETA Sues NIH And HHS Directors For Blocking Comments With 'PETA' And '#StopAnimalTesting'
Re: Re:
No. No it cannot. That’s not how Facebook works at all.
Next >>