I don't believe moderating is considered "speech", at least as it applies to Section 230 section (c). The actual text makes no effort to define what speech is, but it does make clear that moderation does not void protection under the act. The act of moderation is "speech" of course, but under section (c) it's not a consideration.
I don't see the distinction. The upper level internet backbone (aka. their provider) is protected from what Facebook says. That is how Section 230 works for everyone. It's a protection for the level above. It has NEVER protected the one doing the actual speech, Facebook or the individual. The same is in effect here. It just not Facebook who is receiving the benefit, in this case. That doesn't mean that it's not at play.
The goal is likely never to generate revenue, but it always does. I was in a courtroom once for a violation under the [then new] "Scott's Law". In just the 30 minutes I was there, the county earned about $2000.00 in fines, including myself.
Not to be the eternal government cynic but, when I saw the first "victory" on this issue I thought, wait a minute...
If it is established that chalking tires is disallowed, that gives our constitution loving government an excuse that continual surveillance of pubic places as "necessary" to establish the whereabouts for a particular vehicle. Gee, I wonder what else they are going to use those recordings for? My mental list has more red then green, right off. They would never abuse this, would they? /sarc
Re: Re: If those other companies would have been smart...
That would have been a great option too. I could see hesitancy in doing that, as Netflix would have been [more of] an industry juggernaut. (And my skepticism says the government would have ultimately bitched. "ANTI-TRUST ISN'T ALLOWED, OUTSIDE OF TELECOM!")
If those other companies would have been smart, they would have pooled all their offerings into one competing streaming service and completely steamrolled Netflix by now. But greed wins out. Market segmentation is king, and VPN services along with piracy, is going to have a robust year.
You missed the point... They're going to have to spend money for the appeal, before I give their argument any merit beyond post election sour grapes. And I don't think free speech is as free as it used to be. A whole segment of the population has been indoctrinated. Both sides to a certain extent, but the worst stormed the Capital. Their speech may not be as free [anymore], as you believe it to be.
I suppose in the land of "believe whatever the hell you want", I have had to adjust my standards for credibility of one's conviction.
Most only have a political opinion because some politician gave it to them. Said politician only has that particular opinion to cater to their party's lunatic fringe, in the pursuit of the ever so precious 51st percentile of vote. Actual knowledge, or common sense isn't even a consideration anymore, for the professional political view. They're just being a lemming.
You're confusing the letter of the law regarding political speech, with the intent of actual political speech. This isn't about free speech. This is about a free audience for drivel. Audiences aren't free, or a right. Trump found that out really quick. "This Trump internet portal costs money to run? Shut that shit down." This is another example. An appeal costs money. They will have to spend some to continue.
But the lack of that makes it pointless. Which is what I see is the judges main point of reasoning here. I'm only saying that I can see where the judge is coming from.
Exactly my point. It's like those a-holes you used to see on the internet chat boards that used a swastika as their icon, claiming "it meant other things before WWII", when it fact their true purpose for using it was for self-notoriety via "shock value".
To convince anyone to change their political affiliation (aka. "the goal"), you need to provide specific reasoning why a politician is a poor choice. Niether of your examples is compelling. Having said that, it makes much less of a difference now then it used to, seeing that most of the sheeple are of the, "party is all, screw the country" variety.
On the post: Area Free Market Proponent Sues Facebook For Defaming Him By Moderating His Personal Marketplace Of Climate Change Ideas
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't believe moderating is considered "speech", at least as it applies to Section 230 section (c). The actual text makes no effort to define what speech is, but it does make clear that moderation does not void protection under the act. The act of moderation is "speech" of course, but under section (c) it's not a consideration.
On the post: Area Free Market Proponent Sues Facebook For Defaming Him By Moderating His Personal Marketplace Of Climate Change Ideas
Re: Re: Re:
I don't see the distinction. The upper level internet backbone (aka. their provider) is protected from what Facebook says. That is how Section 230 works for everyone. It's a protection for the level above. It has NEVER protected the one doing the actual speech, Facebook or the individual. The same is in effect here. It just not Facebook who is receiving the benefit, in this case. That doesn't mean that it's not at play.
On the post: Area Free Market Proponent Sues Facebook For Defaming Him By Moderating His Personal Marketplace Of Climate Change Ideas
Re:
I'm confused as to why you think that's true. Perhaps you could expand on that.
On the post: Sixth Circuit Reaffirms It's A Fourth Amendment Violation To Chalk Car Tires For Parking Enforcement Purposes
Re: Re: They would never store this data on insecure servers, wo
I'll bet you good money they would disallow public viewing on "privacy" grounds. Even although we would have none with the cameras.
On the post: Sixth Circuit Reaffirms It's A Fourth Amendment Violation To Chalk Car Tires For Parking Enforcement Purposes
Re: Re: Re: A victory? Maybe not.
The goal is likely never to generate revenue, but it always does. I was in a courtroom once for a violation under the [then new] "Scott's Law". In just the 30 minutes I was there, the county earned about $2000.00 in fines, including myself.
On the post: Sixth Circuit Reaffirms It's A Fourth Amendment Violation To Chalk Car Tires For Parking Enforcement Purposes
Re: Re: A victory? Maybe not.
I'm sure they would NEVER use an insecure server. An insecure server programmer, maybe. LOL
On the post: Sixth Circuit Reaffirms It's A Fourth Amendment Violation To Chalk Car Tires For Parking Enforcement Purposes
A victory? Maybe not.
Not to be the eternal government cynic but, when I saw the first "victory" on this issue I thought, wait a minute...
If it is established that chalking tires is disallowed, that gives our constitution loving government an excuse that continual surveillance of pubic places as "necessary" to establish the whereabouts for a particular vehicle. Gee, I wonder what else they are going to use those recordings for? My mental list has more red then green, right off. They would never abuse this, would they? /sarc
On the post: Netflix Finally Faces Competition, Tries To Pretend Otherwise
Re:
I had an ex-wife that worked for Comcast. That first year they had a subscriber dip... LAYOFF. Hope Netflix doesn't follow the same path.
On the post: Netflix Finally Faces Competition, Tries To Pretend Otherwise
Re: Re: If those other companies would have been smart...
That would have been a great option too. I could see hesitancy in doing that, as Netflix would have been [more of] an industry juggernaut. (And my skepticism says the government would have ultimately bitched. "ANTI-TRUST ISN'T ALLOWED, OUTSIDE OF TELECOM!")
On the post: Netflix Finally Faces Competition, Tries To Pretend Otherwise
If those other companies would have been smart...
If those other companies would have been smart, they would have pooled all their offerings into one competing streaming service and completely steamrolled Netflix by now. But greed wins out. Market segmentation is king, and VPN services along with piracy, is going to have a robust year.
On the post: Judge Ignores First Amendment, Misreads Town Law, While Ordering Resident To Remove 'Fuck Biden' Signs
Re:
You missed the point... They're going to have to spend money for the appeal, before I give their argument any merit beyond post election sour grapes. And I don't think free speech is as free as it used to be. A whole segment of the population has been indoctrinated. Both sides to a certain extent, but the worst stormed the Capital. Their speech may not be as free [anymore], as you believe it to be.
On the post: Judge Ignores First Amendment, Misreads Town Law, While Ordering Resident To Remove 'Fuck Biden' Signs
Re:
I suppose in the land of "believe whatever the hell you want", I have had to adjust my standards for credibility of one's conviction.
Most only have a political opinion because some politician gave it to them. Said politician only has that particular opinion to cater to their party's lunatic fringe, in the pursuit of the ever so precious 51st percentile of vote. Actual knowledge, or common sense isn't even a consideration anymore, for the professional political view. They're just being a lemming.
You're confusing the letter of the law regarding political speech, with the intent of actual political speech. This isn't about free speech. This is about a free audience for drivel. Audiences aren't free, or a right. Trump found that out really quick. "This Trump internet portal costs money to run? Shut that shit down." This is another example. An appeal costs money. They will have to spend some to continue.
On the post: Judge Ignores First Amendment, Misreads Town Law, While Ordering Resident To Remove 'Fuck Biden' Signs
Re: You should
But the lack of that makes it pointless. Which is what I see is the judges main point of reasoning here. I'm only saying that I can see where the judge is coming from.
On the post: Judge Ignores First Amendment, Misreads Town Law, While Ordering Resident To Remove 'Fuck Biden' Signs
Re:
That is the ONLY thing in their favor here. If it was an HOA, they wouldn't have a prayer.
On the post: Judge Ignores First Amendment, Misreads Town Law, While Ordering Resident To Remove 'Fuck Biden' Signs
Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't see this as unreasonable
If a person has that much conviction to do that, so be it. The patriot takes down their flag every day at sunset, don't they? Go big, or go home.
On the post: Judge Ignores First Amendment, Misreads Town Law, While Ordering Resident To Remove 'Fuck Biden' Signs
Re:
Apparently it does have to be compelling, judging by the outcome. We'll see how the appeal goes.
On the post: Judge Ignores First Amendment, Misreads Town Law, While Ordering Resident To Remove 'Fuck Biden' Signs
Re:
I see 2 problems with the "their speech is still legal" argument for signage, in cases like this.
1) A HOA is not a state actor. 1st Amendment restrictions don't apply.
2) You agreed to their rules when you bought the house.
Moral of the story... Don't buy where there is a HOA, if you don't want to deal with their bullshit.
On the post: Judge Ignores First Amendment, Misreads Town Law, While Ordering Resident To Remove 'Fuck Biden' Signs
Re: Re: I don't see this as unreasonable
Exactly my point. It's like those a-holes you used to see on the internet chat boards that used a swastika as their icon, claiming "it meant other things before WWII", when it fact their true purpose for using it was for self-notoriety via "shock value".
On the post: Judge Ignores First Amendment, Misreads Town Law, While Ordering Resident To Remove 'Fuck Biden' Signs
Re: Re: I don't see this as unreasonable
A person shouting in their front yard is going to tire. They won't be there for long. (Less then a day.)
On the post: Judge Ignores First Amendment, Misreads Town Law, While Ordering Resident To Remove 'Fuck Biden' Signs
Re:
To convince anyone to change their political affiliation (aka. "the goal"), you need to provide specific reasoning why a politician is a poor choice. Niether of your examples is compelling. Having said that, it makes much less of a difference now then it used to, seeing that most of the sheeple are of the, "party is all, screw the country" variety.
Next >>