Well then a red state senator can just pass a law called the "Reprocuctive Decency Act" with its own section 230 that gives immunity to person that blocks access to an abortion clinic. I'm not statutorily encouraging anyone to take the action.
How about we pass the e-mail decency act which immunizes anyone who hacks a CEO's e-mails and publishes them to a public database.
Chris Cox was admittedly trying to provide incentive for private actors to restrict speech because as he put it the internet was "the wild west" and it needed "incentive to keep the internet civil.” Section 230 was that incentive.
Re: "If I can't sue you for exercising your right you violated m
"Ah what a delightfully stupid argument. A law that protects someone's first amendment right by making clear that exercising it is not something you can be sued over is somehow portrayed as against it because certain groups/people don't like how it's used."
Giving a special immunity cut out violates my 14th Amendment right to equal protection.
If I call a respected medical doctors presentation Misinformation like YouTube does that is libel. I damn well better be able to defend my argument in court. I just cant hide behind immunity.
Where is my equal protection? Where is my immunity?
Why wouldn't you appeal a Hinkle decision. The Hinkle is a legal moron. I couldn't have been happier with his decision. Hinkle was never going to agree with the state. The guy is in a word nuts.
Here is the thing Mike. You were so obsessed with winning you forgot that you needed a competent judge to write a competent decision that would be hard to overturn. Instead Hinkle threw a hanging curveball.
When you turn around and call a poorly written decision a smackdown it just shows how you are still cashing in on your 15 minutes of fame which was what a decade and a half ago?
We get it ... you invented the keyboard necktie ... oh sorry wrong person ... you coined the term Streisand Effect. Dude that was a long time ago.
My response would "be make me." And if I were in your house and had not used force and you laid one hand on me I would sue you for every dime you have left. Unlike you I have a real life. I've am a landlord. I've worked security when I was in college. I have worked and do work in heavily regulated private industries. I know the rules. You are a think tank wonk. You have never worked a day in your life.
You scream Libertarian absolutes from you ivory tower but your religion ... and that is what it is your religion ... isn't the real world and never has been. You scream you cant tell private property what to do. But government has been doing that since there was government.
We have been regulating ferries, common carriers, hackmen, bakers, millers, wharfingers, innkeepers, etc. etc. etc. since time immemorial. Regulation of the private that is in the public interest goes all the way back to the Code of Hammurabi.
"Like when you built a major argument around the precedent case of Munn, failing to pick up that case was overturned over a century ago."
Munn was never overturned. The law was eventually overturned on an interstate commerce argument. The "pubic interest" principle of Munn still stands. Unfortunately you get your law from Wikipedia.
"(4) The cases of Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 113; Chicago v. Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. Iowa, 94 U. S. 155, and Peik v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway, 94 U. S. 164, examined in regard to this question, and held, in view of other cases decided near the same time, NOT TO ESTABLISH CONTARY DOCTRINE.
(5) NOT WITHSTANDING WHAT IS THERE SAID, THHIS COURT HOLDS NOW AND HAS NEVER CONCIOUSLY HELD OTHERWISE, that a statute of a state, intended to regulate or to tax or to impose any other restriction upon the transmission of persons or property or telegraphic messages from one state to another, is not within that class of legislation which the states may enact in the absence of legislation by Congress, and that such statutes are void even as to that part of such transmission which may be within the state."
In short child Munn was never reversed. The court went out of its way to make it clear that it wasn't reversing Munn or any other decision. All Wabash said was that states regulation cannot be used to restrict commerce between that states. That is all.
I was kind of surprised to see that Munn had been reversed when you first said it. It only took a little to see that the reason you thought that was because you were dumb enough to use Wikipedia as a source.
Many cell companies don't own their own networks, they are still regulated as a utility. The infrastructure isn't what sets you up for regulation its the "public interest."
Who is forcing me to use sprint? I have far more phone choices than I do social media choices. There is more scarcity in the social media market than there is in the phone market and far more scarcity than there was when the scarcity rational was the legal reasoning for TV, radio, and cable content regulation like the fairness doctirne.
I'd love to have a scarcity rational argument today over social media regulation. 2021 Google, Facebook, Twitter. 1949 NBC, CBC, ABC, DTN, and one large regional, WGN etc. Absolutely lets have that scarcity rational argument.
"Bell telephone was the only phone company and we were all forced to use their service."
What decade were you born in child? By 1984 that was not the case. Bell was limited to 85% market share by the FCC but bell wasn't close to that cap by 1984. If only google was limited to 85% market share.
"Yes, but forcing me to HOST your speech is absolutely a violation of the 1st Amendment."
Stop exaggerating. A super market can and is forced to host speech. A cable company can and is forced to host speech. A telecom can and is forced to host speech.
This isn't as cut and dry and your exaggerations make it out to be. Have a real argument about the real world and stop your religious the bull@%^.
"Social media does not need regulating as their is plenty of competition, Gettr, gab, Parler, Bitchute, blog comment sections etc."
Look up the market shares of Standard Oil and Bell Telephone at the time they were broken up and compare that with Big Tech and their respective niches. It isn't even close.
Standard Oil had 65% of the market when it was ordered broken up in 1911.
The Capital "L" Libertarian argument precludes there every being a monopoly. This is because Libertarians are so stupid that if a company Global Widget Co owns every widget factory and every widget retailer so long as there is one guy making widgets in their garage and selling them on a street corner Global Widget Co is not a literal monopoly.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Im not the one steering the conversatoin
"No, that would be the moron who thinks he needs a contract to eject an unruly guest."
I said you need permitted security or to call the cops. You have no right at all to do it yourself. That you have seen people break the law does not make it legal. I see people speeding everyday. That doesn't mean it is legal.
This started as a dumb example by you 4 ignorant people who had no idea what the law actually was. Just admit you were ignorant.
"Section 230 doesn’t protect “Big Tech” from its own speech."
Yes it does. That is the whole point. Curating is speech and abuse of its is subject to due process of law just like any other speech. In other words you can be sued for it.
Section 230 immunizes Bit Tech from due process and legal recourse of their speech.
"Sure, but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make bringing civil rights law into the discussion. "Political Conservative" is not a protected class."
It is in California and DC. Many other states have laws preventing employment discrimination based on Political Affiliation so you are making a constitutional argument you have already lost. If states have the authority to add political affiliation to protected classes is asked and answered.
Why do you extrapolation to absurdity and reduction to absurdity always want to have philosophical arguments and not what the case law is now?
What is is. Commercial speech his regulated and that has been found by the SCOTUS to be within the bounds of the 1st Amendment. I'm not going to engage in your absurd arguments.
"First Amendment is not applicable. An example the opinion gives is that private organizations such as grocery"
You just lost the argument because grocery stores are the prime example of private companies being forced by regulation to respect their customers first amendment rights Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins (1980). So if as the Helleck decision says, social media is like a grocery store, then the states have just like the State of California has every right to regulate them to protect the free speech rights of their customers.
"Justice Thomas used it in an unbriefed, random thought burp. Not as part of an actual ruling on a case he was briefed on. There is nothing in the law, which is the point that was made which you ignored."
The law is all acts passed by congress and all decisions by the courts. A decision by the court is law. As for the use of the term "Platform" it was also used by the court in Halleck.
The cat is out of the bag so to speak. Too many courts SCOTUS included have used "platform" for you to say it means nothing. Sometimes courts create law. Tough @#% go cry on your pillow.
"They can make up any rules they want, as long as they are within the law. If you believe otherwise, please show us what laws are being broken by a TOS. I don't expect you can, all you have are a persecution complex for being an asshole."
That is only one thing that voids a contract. 3 things void a contract.
Violation of public policy ~ That is what you got.
Parties not legal persons ~ A minor cannot enter into a contract.
No meeting of the minds the contract is ambiguous ~ This is where all social media TOS fall flat on their face. They are all intentionally ambiguous and therefore not legal. Due to their ambiguity a typical TOS isn't worth the paper its not printed on.
Im not the one steering the conversation towards violence. The bar analogy started with someone being obnoxious. When that didn't work you 4 moved the goal posts to breaking up a fight.
You always move the goal posts. Its the only way you know how to argue.
Reduction to absurdity and extrapolation to absurdity that is entirely how you think. That is how the Florida law that just says 'write clear and percise rules', enforce your rules fairly, becomes
On the post: Trump Notifies Attorney General He's Challenging The Constitutionality Of Section 230 On The Dumbest Grounds Possible
Well Then
Well then a red state senator can just pass a law called the "Reprocuctive Decency Act" with its own section 230 that gives immunity to person that blocks access to an abortion clinic. I'm not statutorily encouraging anyone to take the action.
How about we pass the e-mail decency act which immunizes anyone who hacks a CEO's e-mails and publishes them to a public database.
Chris Cox was admittedly trying to provide incentive for private actors to restrict speech because as he put it the internet was "the wild west" and it needed "incentive to keep the internet civil.” Section 230 was that incentive.
On the post: Trump Notifies Attorney General He's Challenging The Constitutionality Of Section 230 On The Dumbest Grounds Possible
Re: "If I can't sue you for exercising your right you violated m
"Ah what a delightfully stupid argument. A law that protects someone's first amendment right by making clear that exercising it is not something you can be sued over is somehow portrayed as against it because certain groups/people don't like how it's used."
Giving a special immunity cut out violates my 14th Amendment right to equal protection.
If I call a respected medical doctors presentation Misinformation like YouTube does that is libel. I damn well better be able to defend my argument in court. I just cant hide behind immunity.
Where is my equal protection? Where is my immunity?
On the post: Florida
ManGovernor Wastes More Florida Taxpayer Money Appealing Ruling About His Unconstitutional Social Media LawI Invented the Keyboard Necktie!!!!
Why wouldn't you appeal a Hinkle decision. The Hinkle is a legal moron. I couldn't have been happier with his decision. Hinkle was never going to agree with the state. The guy is in a word nuts.
Here is the thing Mike. You were so obsessed with winning you forgot that you needed a competent judge to write a competent decision that would be hard to overturn. Instead Hinkle threw a hanging curveball.
When you turn around and call a poorly written decision a smackdown it just shows how you are still cashing in on your 15 minutes of fame which was what a decade and a half ago?
We get it ... you invented the keyboard necktie ... oh sorry wrong person ... you coined the term Streisand Effect. Dude that was a long time ago.
On the post: House Republican's Entire 'Big Tech' Platform Is 'We Must Force Big Tech To Display Our Conspiracy Theories And Lies'
Re: Re:
"You're the asshole. Now go away"
My response would "be make me." And if I were in your house and had not used force and you laid one hand on me I would sue you for every dime you have left. Unlike you I have a real life. I've am a landlord. I've worked security when I was in college. I have worked and do work in heavily regulated private industries. I know the rules. You are a think tank wonk. You have never worked a day in your life.
You scream Libertarian absolutes from you ivory tower but your religion ... and that is what it is your religion ... isn't the real world and never has been. You scream you cant tell private property what to do. But government has been doing that since there was government.
We have been regulating ferries, common carriers, hackmen, bakers, millers, wharfingers, innkeepers, etc. etc. etc. since time immemorial. Regulation of the private that is in the public interest goes all the way back to the Code of Hammurabi.
On the post: House Republican's Entire 'Big Tech' Platform Is 'We Must Force Big Tech To Display Our Conspiracy Theories And Lies'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Glad To Help
"Like when you built a major argument around the precedent case of Munn, failing to pick up that case was overturned over a century ago."
Munn was never overturned. The law was eventually overturned on an interstate commerce argument. The "pubic interest" principle of Munn still stands. Unfortunately you get your law from Wikipedia.
Wabash is a very very very short ruling.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/118/557/
"(4) The cases of Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 113; Chicago v. Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. Iowa, 94 U. S. 155, and Peik v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway, 94 U. S. 164, examined in regard to this question, and held, in view of other cases decided near the same time, NOT TO ESTABLISH CONTARY DOCTRINE.
(5) NOT WITHSTANDING WHAT IS THERE SAID, THHIS COURT HOLDS NOW AND HAS NEVER CONCIOUSLY HELD OTHERWISE, that a statute of a state, intended to regulate or to tax or to impose any other restriction upon the transmission of persons or property or telegraphic messages from one state to another, is not within that class of legislation which the states may enact in the absence of legislation by Congress, and that such statutes are void even as to that part of such transmission which may be within the state."
In short child Munn was never reversed. The court went out of its way to make it clear that it wasn't reversing Munn or any other decision. All Wabash said was that states regulation cannot be used to restrict commerce between that states. That is all.
I was kind of surprised to see that Munn had been reversed when you first said it. It only took a little to see that the reason you thought that was because you were dumb enough to use Wikipedia as a source.
On the post: House Republican's Entire 'Big Tech' Platform Is 'We Must Force Big Tech To Display Our Conspiracy Theories And Lies'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Glad To Help
Wrong again!
Many cell companies don't own their own networks, they are still regulated as a utility. The infrastructure isn't what sets you up for regulation its the "public interest."
On the post: House Republican's Entire 'Big Tech' Platform Is 'We Must Force Big Tech To Display Our Conspiracy Theories And Lies'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Glad To Help
"Second, who is forcing you to use Twitter?"
Who is forcing me to use sprint? I have far more phone choices than I do social media choices. There is more scarcity in the social media market than there is in the phone market and far more scarcity than there was when the scarcity rational was the legal reasoning for TV, radio, and cable content regulation like the fairness doctirne.
I'd love to have a scarcity rational argument today over social media regulation. 2021 Google, Facebook, Twitter. 1949 NBC, CBC, ABC, DTN, and one large regional, WGN etc. Absolutely lets have that scarcity rational argument.
"Bell telephone was the only phone company and we were all forced to use their service."
What decade were you born in child? By 1984 that was not the case. Bell was limited to 85% market share by the FCC but bell wasn't close to that cap by 1984. If only google was limited to 85% market share.
On the post: House Republican's Entire 'Big Tech' Platform Is 'We Must Force Big Tech To Display Our Conspiracy Theories And Lies'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Glad To Help
"Yes, but forcing me to HOST your speech is absolutely a violation of the 1st Amendment."
Stop exaggerating. A super market can and is forced to host speech. A cable company can and is forced to host speech. A telecom can and is forced to host speech.
This isn't as cut and dry and your exaggerations make it out to be. Have a real argument about the real world and stop your religious the bull@%^.
On the post: House Republican's Entire 'Big Tech' Platform Is 'We Must Force Big Tech To Display Our Conspiracy Theories And Lies'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Glad To Help
"Social media does not need regulating as their is plenty of competition, Gettr, gab, Parler, Bitchute, blog comment sections etc."
Look up the market shares of Standard Oil and Bell Telephone at the time they were broken up and compare that with Big Tech and their respective niches. It isn't even close.
Standard Oil had 65% of the market when it was ordered broken up in 1911.
The Capital "L" Libertarian argument precludes there every being a monopoly. This is because Libertarians are so stupid that if a company Global Widget Co owns every widget factory and every widget retailer so long as there is one guy making widgets in their garage and selling them on a street corner Global Widget Co is not a literal monopoly.
Yes "L"ibertarians are that stupid!
On the post: Marco Rubio Jumps To The Head Of The Line Of Ignorant Fools Pushing Dumb Social Media Regulation Bills
Re: Re: Re: Re: Im not the one steering the conversatoin
"No, that would be the moron who thinks he needs a contract to eject an unruly guest."
I said you need permitted security or to call the cops. You have no right at all to do it yourself. That you have seen people break the law does not make it legal. I see people speeding everyday. That doesn't mean it is legal.
This started as a dumb example by you 4 ignorant people who had no idea what the law actually was. Just admit you were ignorant.
On the post: House Republican's Entire 'Big Tech' Platform Is 'We Must Force Big Tech To Display Our Conspiracy Theories And Lies'
"Since when did "Big Tech" become part of the US government such that needs to be bound by the 1st Amendment?"
Since when did the first duty of government become something other than defending its citizens from private aggression?
You claimed Capital "L" Libertarians have forgotten exactly why we have government in the first place.
On the post: Section 230 Continues To Not Mean Whatever You Want It To
Re: Wrong!
"Section 230 doesn’t protect “Big Tech” from its own speech."
Yes it does. That is the whole point. Curating is speech and abuse of its is subject to due process of law just like any other speech. In other words you can be sued for it.
Section 230 immunizes Bit Tech from due process and legal recourse of their speech.
On the post: House Republican's Entire 'Big Tech' Platform Is 'We Must Force Big Tech To Display Our Conspiracy Theories And Lies'
Reduction to Absurdity
'We Must Force Big Tech To Display Our Conspiracy Theories And Lies'
Another reductio ad absurdum from Mike.
Are you mentally capable of having an honest argument?
On the post: House Republican's Entire 'Big Tech' Platform Is 'We Must Force Big Tech To Display Our Conspiracy Theories And Lies'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Glad To Help
"Sure, but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make bringing civil rights law into the discussion. "Political Conservative" is not a protected class."
It is in California and DC. Many other states have laws preventing employment discrimination based on Political Affiliation so you are making a constitutional argument you have already lost. If states have the authority to add political affiliation to protected classes is asked and answered.
On the post: House Republican's Entire 'Big Tech' Platform Is 'We Must Force Big Tech To Display Our Conspiracy Theories And Lies'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Glad To Help
Why do you extrapolation to absurdity and reduction to absurdity always want to have philosophical arguments and not what the case law is now?
What is is. Commercial speech his regulated and that has been found by the SCOTUS to be within the bounds of the 1st Amendment. I'm not going to engage in your absurd arguments.
On the post: Texas Legislature Sees Florida's Social Media Bill Go Down In Unconstitutional Flames; Decides 'We Can Do That Too!'
Re: You Lose
"First Amendment is not applicable. An example the opinion gives is that private organizations such as grocery"
You just lost the argument because grocery stores are the prime example of private companies being forced by regulation to respect their customers first amendment rights Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins (1980). So if as the Helleck decision says, social media is like a grocery store, then the states have just like the State of California has every right to regulate them to protect the free speech rights of their customers.
You lose good day sir!
On the post: Marco Rubio Jumps To The Head Of The Line Of Ignorant Fools Pushing Dumb Social Media Regulation Bills
Re: Re: Makikng up Law
"now trespassing and you have the right to use reasonable means to get them to leave"
No you don't.
"which may include physical force, to a degree"
No it doesn't, that is battery.
On the post: Texas Legislature Sees Florida's Social Media Bill Go Down In Unconstitutional Flames; Decides 'We Can Do That Too!'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Publisher vs Platforms
"Justice Thomas used it in an unbriefed, random thought burp. Not as part of an actual ruling on a case he was briefed on. There is nothing in the law, which is the point that was made which you ignored."
The law is all acts passed by congress and all decisions by the courts. A decision by the court is law. As for the use of the term "Platform" it was also used by the court in Halleck.
The cat is out of the bag so to speak. Too many courts SCOTUS included have used "platform" for you to say it means nothing. Sometimes courts create law. Tough @#% go cry on your pillow.
What is is.
On the post: Texas Legislature Sees Florida's Social Media Bill Go Down In Unconstitutional Flames; Decides 'We Can Do That Too!'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Publisher vs Platforms
"They can make up any rules they want, as long as they are within the law. If you believe otherwise, please show us what laws are being broken by a TOS. I don't expect you can, all you have are a persecution complex for being an asshole."
That is only one thing that voids a contract. 3 things void a contract.
Violation of public policy ~ That is what you got.
Parties not legal persons ~ A minor cannot enter into a contract.
On the post: Marco Rubio Jumps To The Head Of The Line Of Ignorant Fools Pushing Dumb Social Media Regulation Bills
Re: Re: Im not the one steering the conversatoin
Im not the one steering the conversation towards violence. The bar analogy started with someone being obnoxious. When that didn't work you 4 moved the goal posts to breaking up a fight.
You always move the goal posts. Its the only way you know how to argue.
Reduction to absurdity and extrapolation to absurdity that is entirely how you think. That is how the Florida law that just says 'write clear and percise rules', enforce your rules fairly, becomes
'allowing Nazis to post porn to children'
Next >>