Okay, once more, from the top, let's see I can get them all straight this time:
Marsh is about private corporations performing public functions in the form of company towns.
If DNY knew anuthing about the subject, they'd know that the Supreme Court precedent in Manhattan v Halleck rejected the idea that creating a forum for communication is sich a traditional and exclusive government action, therefore Marsh has no relevance private speech platforms.
Pruneyard was about a mall banning leaflet handing in certain parts of its mall. The court basically ruled that the students couldn't have reasonably known they were on private property where that was disallowed due to inadequate signage. It had nothing do do about speech, as the mall did not object to the contents of the pamphlets. It is extremely narrow in scope, covering only that one mall and having no precedent anywhere else. With increased signage, Pruneyard doesn't even apply to Pruneuard any more.
Packingham ruled it was unconstitutional for the government to ban someone from all social media. Completely irrelevant to moderation, as nothing can make a privately-owned platform a state actor.
On the post: Senators Tillis And Leahy Raise The Alarm About Judge Albright's Patent Forum Selling In Waco
Re: case load
Rubber stamps move quickly.
On the post: Austin Homeowners Association Pitches In To Help Cops Kill A Guy Over Uncut Grass
Re: NONSENSE
Thank you for clearly labeling your nonsense as such.
On the post: Senators Tillis And Leahy Raise The Alarm About Judge Albright's Patent Forum Selling In Waco
Re: test
Result: commenter is a failure.
On the post: Appeals Court Doesn't Seem To Like Much About A Criminal Defamation Law Police Used To Arrest A Critic
Re:
.... said by nobody with any understanding of Section 230, ever.
(But by Jhon a lot).
On the post: Nintendo Killed Emulation Sites Then Released Garbage N64 Games For The Switch
Re: Re:
[Projects facts not in evidence]
On the post: Nintendo Killed Emulation Sites Then Released Garbage N64 Games For The Switch
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[Projects facts not in evidence]
On the post: Appeals Court Doesn't Seem To Like Much About A Criminal Defamation Law Police Used To Arrest A Critic
Re: Hope?
"Beating" charges?
Next they're gonna call that assaulting law enforcement.
On the post: The Scale Of Content Moderation Is Unfathomable
Re: Re: Focus the takedown efforts
When you lie and omit everything else, you can dishonestly make that appear as the bad outcome.
On the post: Netflix Files Anti-Slapp Motion To Dismiss Lawsuit Claiming One Of Its Series Caused A Teen To Commit Suicide
13 Reasons Why was a book before being adapted by Netflix, but the lawsuits only start when the latter brings in $$$.
Hmmm...
On the post: Lessons From The First Internet Ages
Re: When you assumed things went online instead of assuming cens
[Translated from trollian]
On the post: Everything You Know About Section 230 Is Wrong (But Why?)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Okay, once more, from the top, let's see I can get them all straight this time:
Marsh is about private corporations performing public functions in the form of company towns.
If DNY knew anuthing about the subject, they'd know that the Supreme Court precedent in Manhattan v Halleck rejected the idea that creating a forum for communication is sich a traditional and exclusive government action, therefore Marsh has no relevance private speech platforms.
Pruneyard was about a mall banning leaflet handing in certain parts of its mall. The court basically ruled that the students couldn't have reasonably known they were on private property where that was disallowed due to inadequate signage. It had nothing do do about speech, as the mall did not object to the contents of the pamphlets. It is extremely narrow in scope, covering only that one mall and having no precedent anywhere else. With increased signage, Pruneyard doesn't even apply to Pruneuard any more.
Packingham ruled it was unconstitutional for the government to ban someone from all social media. Completely irrelevant to moderation, as nothing can make a privately-owned platform a state actor.
On the post: Everything You Know About Section 230 Is Wrong (But Why?)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ugh, disregard. Too many doesn't-prevent-the-free-speech-of-moderation-unlike-censorious-trolls-insist cases.
On the post: Everything You Know About Section 230 Is Wrong (But Why?)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Packingham godsdammit
On the post: Everything You Know About Section 230 Is Wrong (But Why?)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Marsh was the one about company towns, though it similarly has zero relevance to online platforms.
On the post: Everything You Know About Section 230 Is Wrong (But Why?)
Re: Re: Re: Re:
whoops, that was pruneyard I was thinking of.
On the post: Everything You Know About Section 230 Is Wrong (But Why?)
Re: Re: Re:
Marsh V Alabama said it's not reasonable to label someone as trespassing if you haven't reasonably marked your property as private.
Which has absolutely zero bearing on the ensuring that property rights and liabilities remain consistent ly apploed both on- and offline.
On the post: RFK Jr. Abusing The Courts To Harass Pseudonymous Blogger For Pointing Out RFK Spoke At German Event Organized By Far Right Extremists
Re: the Issue
[Projects facts not in evidence]
On the post: Why Falsely Claiming It's Illegal To Shout Fire In A Crowded Theater Distorts Any Conversation About Online Speech
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[Asserts facts proven to be pure projection by halucinating social media qualifies as common carriers]
On the post: Everything You Know About Section 230 Is Wrong (But Why?)
Re: Re: Why Section 230 is hard to understand.
Disinformation such as, for example:
"if something stays up on a platform it has some sort of approval by the platform operator"
"censorship, yes, that's the right word in this context"
"destruction of a platform that was committed to open and free speech, Parler"
On the post: Missouri Governor Doubles Down On 'View Source' Hacking Claim; PAC Now Fundraising Over This Bizarrely Stupid Claim
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[Projects facts not in evidence]
Next >>